Mordred

Some of those ideas were proposed, but later found didn't work as new research developed. WMAP and Planck data killed a lot of models. Many of which never made it to pop media. Nor did they ever make it to textbooks. Some ppl like myself that has been studying cosmology and visiting forums since the 80s may recall some of them. Forums before WMAP were entertaining. For example everyone had a different idea for the shape of the universe. Mond was regularly discussed, ppl hated LCDM, quintessence was once popular. Dark energy and dark matter discussion was still frowned upon. No one wanted to accept them and tried to find unusual solutions. The variation that comes to mind as closest from my readings was a variation of ADS/CFT. Where you have a background dimension where the Cosmological constant would briefly interact with our dimensional space. (Dimension as in a mathematical interaction). For example one can assign the electromagnetic field a separate dimension and model it as a fifth dimension accurately. The other possibility is some suppression of the harmonic oscillator. I might still have that paper. If I recall Tamara Davies once proposed that idea.

Whether you call it a force or a result of spacetime. It's still an interaction. The inverse square decrease in strength is a calculatable and tested consequence involving how a force or interaction decreases as a result of the area of influence. I could post the calculation from Elements of Astrophysics. However that would have to wait. It's simply due to volume change as the force or interaction spreads out to cover a greater volume

The rate of expansion would be too fast For galaxies and large scale clusters to form. QMs quantum harmonic oscillator produced 120 orders of magnitude too Mich energy. This would make the rate of expansion far greater than observation.

No for one thing we would be able to measure those gravitational anomolies via the integrated Sache-Wolfe effect. Secondly lensing could never be in every direction without distortion. Thirdly this wouldn't explain how the BB theory managed to predict the correct element ratios via BB nucleosynthesis. Nucleosynthesis needed the supercooling and reheating phases to get those mixtures. Also lensing wouldn't explain the temperature variations. The average blackbody temperature is also homogeneous and isotropic. Though the further back in time you look the hotter it gets.

They look for it at c and below. You must remember we can only measure how a force or influence affects objects or particles. So for example if we try to measure gravity waves. We must measure the changes in the interstellar or intergalactic medium. For example how a hydrogen cloud or plasma cloud reacts after some change in a gravitational body. We can't measure gravity directly. Only indirectly by its influence. So the medium that the influence is moving through will slow down the propagation rate.

c is also the speed limit for any interactions. Regardless of type. You can't measure gravity without something to interact with gravity. When you read spacetime curvature what your really reading is the interaction strength upon particles that reside in that spacetime. Gravity doesn't affect a volume. It affects the mass/energy density of the particles occupying that volume. Just like energy doesn't exist on its own being a property of particles. Mass also doesn't exist on its own. It is also a property of particles. No particle can exceed c, so gravity cannot be transmitted in particle to particle interactions faster than c. So if you have a gravitational field of say test particles changes through that field will propogate at c or less. That's essentially what a gravitational waves is. The rate of interaction due to gravity upon the mass of a system https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_particle

Gravity propogates at the speed of light. Even information propogates at the speed of light. If our Sun blew up it would take 8 minutes before we would notice any effect either visually or via gravity.

Variations in gravitational potential would propogate outward as a gravity wave. I would suggest googling key words when your stuck on them. Here is No hair theorem. Though I did find your statement "Isnt a singularity as bald as it gets" hilarious. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem

I'm not sure what your getting at Sorcerer but if your measuring a volume. You measure it at a point in time. If you tried measuring that volume over a length of time adding up each volume/moment. Everything in the universe no matter how big or small would have infinite volume. That's simply not correct. When you ask how much space something occupies it is the volume at the time of the measurement.

First take the first law of thermodynamics. [latex]dU=dW=dQ[/latex] U is internal energy W =work. As we dont need heat transfer Q we write this as DW=Fdr=pdV Which leads to dv=-pdF. [latex]V=r^3[/latex] Through several steps we will end up with. [latex]\rho=-3(\rho+p)\frac{\dot{r}}{r}[/latex] We will use the last formula for both radiation and matter. Assuming density of matter [latex]\rho=\frac{M}{4/3\pi r^3}[/latex] [latex]\rho=\frac{dp}{dr}[/latex] [latex]\dot{r}=3\rho \frac{\dot{r}}{r}[/latex] Using the above equation the pressure due to matter gives an Eos of Pressure=0. Which makes sense as matter doesn't exert a lot of kinetic energy/momentum. For radiation we will need some further formulas. Visualize a wavelength as a vibration on a string. [latex]L=\frac{N\lambda}{2}[/latex] As we're dealing with relativistic particles [latex]c=f\lambda=\frac{2L}{N}[/latex] [latex]U=\hbar w=hf[/latex] [latex]U=\frac{Nhc}{2}\frac{1}{L}\propto V^{-\frac{1}{3}}[/latex] Using the formula above. [latex]p=1/3\rho[/latex] for ultra relativistic radiation. Those are examples of how the first law of thermodynamics fit within the equations of state. There is more intensive formulas involved. In particular the Bose-Einstein statistics and Fermi-Dirac statistics but the above serves as a good approximation.

More accurately it's modelled as a scalar field. For example one hypothesis suggests that the scalar field may be the Higgs field. More research is under way to validate that though. Energy being a property of particles. Doesn't exist on its own. So typically their is a particle involved. Inflation uses the inflaton. Many models of the cosmological constant borrow the inflaton to try to explain dark energy. Particles inertia interact with other particles. Those interactions causes pressure. The more energetic the particles the greater the pressure influence. This is essentially what's known as an adiabatic fluid or gas. Cosmology treats the universe and models the universe as an ideal gas. Which works extremely well. The cosmological constant is also treated as such. Even in the form of virtual particle production one can still model the system accordingly. The deeper one looks into the equations (including GR). The more aware one becomes of how intertwined the gas laws are in the FLRW and Einstein field equations. I've yet to see or read a model that's considered valid that doesn't include the ideal gas laws The scalar equation of state formulas are on that link. Those are the same equations used to model Inflation. The Higgs field and often the cosmological constant. I mentioned GR. You can see the ideal gas laws application in the energy/mass density to pressure relationships involved in the Einstein field equations. Specifically the the stress energy/momentum equation. [latex]T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U^{\mu}U^{\nu}+p\eta^{\mu\nu}[/latex] [latex]\rho[/latex] being the energy density. You can further understand the FLRW metric through the following. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry This one I wrote myself it's more of a guideline training aid. These are more textbook style articles with one being a free textbook. ) 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 The last article uses the same format and in many cases formulas that are found in Modern Cosmology by Scott Dodelson. In particular chapters 3 and 4 covering nucleosynthesis. (If I get a chance tonight I'll post how an equation of state is calculated, for matter and radiation)

Photons are the force carrier of the electromagnetic force but do not have a charge. Where as an electron and proton do. Cross posted with ajb

Side note AJB has several peer reviewed articles on Arxiv and is recognized for his mathematical credentials. Several ppl posting on this site have various levels of degrees including up to PH.D level. You might want to listen, I for one gave read several of his published papers

One of the leading hypothesis is in the arxiv articles I posted above. The universe could be infinite or finite. We simply don't know. I posted the acceleration equation above showing how an energy density can influence expansion. Here's a news flash take a toy universe of nothing more than photons. That universe will expand. The cosmological constant aka dark energy isn't required to cause a universe to expand. It's needed to explain the accelerating rate of expansion. The clues are in the equations of state. Site Articles (Articles written by PF and Site members) http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Misconceptions (Useful articles to answer various Cosmology Misconceptions) 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 http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446:"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808:"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf:"Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966"why the prejudice against a constant I suggest reading these misconceptions articles. If you truly wish an undergrads textbook with moderate math. Barbera Rydens Introductory to Cosmology is excellent.

No conventional theory states dark energy emerges from empty space or void. That's pop media literature at fault. Probably due to the once held theory on virtual particle production methods. Which isn't precisely crazy. But here is the news flash you cannot have virtual particles without energy exchange. Particles do pop in and out of existance, including virtual particles but they still follow the conservation laws. Space isn't some substance on its own. It's simply a volume. That volume containing our standard model particles etc.

Lol I've been on forums since the 80s and have studied physics for 30 years. No model ever gets far without mathematical predictibility. Mathematics is the language of physics. I'll eventually read your thread, but you will need to be willing to address the issues I raised. Not just Willy nilly them away Here perhaps this will help. http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0406095v2.pdf"The Cosmic energy inventory" the above values in this article is time tested numerous times. 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 These will also help. If you like I can post several MOND texts The one thing you will need to understand is cosmology obeys the conservation laws. Energy/momentum Charge Lepton number Parity Color Flavor Isospin etc a field requires particle to particle interactions. You never answered AJBs post on what kind of field your model uses. This is probably too advanced but it's handy http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205: "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields The point is your trying to compete with models that have mathematical support. With one that doesn't. This won't have a chance. This try this question. We use Doppler redshift everyday in radar guns yet you don't feel cosmological redshift is valid. Why? What about gravitational redshift? Does this mean you don't feel the Sache Wolfe effect is valid in CMB measurements? That the temperature anistropies are inaccurate in our measurements? How do you account for intergalactic parallax tests of redshift accuracy? Do you honestly believe cosmology relies solely on redshift data in distance measurements? Particularly since we can have gravitational redshift and Doppler shift interferance in those measurements. Our own planetary motion has to be factored out on those measurements.

I got as far as the first few paragraphs of your post and found errors. Which you never addressed or asked for clarification. Not too supportive of your idea. Photons decays follows rules within particle physics. So does temperature measurement. These rules are well tested and established. You can't Willy nilly them away simply because they don't agree with your idea. By the way I'm supplying the tools to advance your idea. By providing you the mathematical formulas you will need to learn.

I doubt it, so far one of the better candidates for both dark matter and dark energy lies in the SO(10) MSSM. They at least have the mathematical support. Those theories are currently being tested. 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 it's too bad you won't take the time studying the current models and their mathematics. As I stated no physicists pays attention without some math as a guideline. If you wish to learn the math I suggest looking at the cosmology signature link on my posts. There is several good textbook style articles.

No you have a conjecture. Or idea not a theory a theory requires the mathematics to be testable. Please address this problem I found in the early portion of your opening post. I stopped reading once I found the error I wrote this about.

As stated before, a model needs to be able to make testable predictions. Without that, no matter how valid, brilliant etc an idea is... it's never going to go beyond conjecture. I would suggest you learn the current mathematics then figure out how to show your model accordingly. Trust me I once spent 5 years trying to solve dark energy. Once I studied the mathematical end of cosmology. I proved my own theory wrong. My idea was simple, any high density region naturally wants to reach a lower density. What I didn't know then was that this was already calculated into the equations. Yes your idea is different. It will still require the math to get any professional physicists attention

Ok antimatter doesn't travel back in time. The only difference between antimatter and matter is the charge is opposite. We can create and measure antimatter with current instruments. The Earth is bombarded with antimatter from cosmic rays. The LHC can create antimatter. So it is measurable and doesn't travel back in time. The backwards in time antimatter conjecture was long before antimatter was understood.

No has nothing to do with electromagnetism. It also isn't a form of antimatter or antigravity. The best way to think of it is as a vacuum pressure. [latex]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex] The equation of state of the cosmological constant is w=-1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) Antimatter has the same equation of state as it's matter partner. So for example antiphotons has the same EoS as photons w=1/3 (ultra relativistic matter). On that same link take note of the acceleration equation

Ok let's stop right here... redshift isn't the only evidence of an expanding universe. Cosmologists use redshift as merely a guideline measurement. We confirm that redshift data with various parallax methods. However the most telling piece of evidence that the universe is expanding is thermodynamic laws. pV=nRt. We see the universe cooling as a direct result of an expanding volume. I've lost count on the number of proposed "the universe isn't expanding models" that fail to account for the thermodynamic laws. Secondly using the Bose-Einstein statistics one can calculate the number density of photons at a given time via the temperature. For example using the CMB temperature. This can be done for any bosons. For fermions you use the Fermi-Dirac statistics. These two formulas use the number of degrees of freedom of a particle, it's entropy density, chemical reactions etc. It's applications of those two formulas is extremely well tested. You can find the procedure in chapter 3 of this article http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis Just a side note you can see the energy-density to pressure influence on how the universe will expand in the FLRW metric acceleration equation [latex]\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G\rho}{3c^2}(\rho c^2+3p)[/latex]

The problem is in order to have a theory it must make testable predictions. For example it must predict how much mass is required to have a specific rotation curve at various points in a galaxy. You can't do that without formulas. So how can you claim to have a better solution without testing your model to current models, without the mathematics?

How would I know your knowledgeable in the mathematical end? For example are you familiar with how the NFW profile is incorperated into the galaxy rotation curve power law?