Mordred

Yes because you will need to prove you can measure the energy of the field in any value that isn't a multiple of the Planck constant. http://www.britannica.com/science/Plancks-constant "Plancks constant [Credit: Contunico © ZDF Enterprises GmbH, Mainz] (symbol h), fundamental physical constant characteristic of the mathematical formulations of quantum mechanics, which describes the behaviour of particles and waves on the atomic scale, including the particle aspect of light" Edit actually it isn't theoretically plausible until you can prove the above. Unless you can prove the above its still a speculation.

Then the problem is the math doesn't match what your claiming. Simply due to the fact you are using [latex]E=h v[/latex] I do not understand why you cannot grasp that this formula above states that the energy of the field is multiples of the Planck constant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_energy notice your using the same formula as the one that defines the energy of the photon. (I don't don't know how you can ignore this) then expect to change people's minds about how we think of the photon. When the math you presented is identical to what we already think of the photon according to QM. Either way this is off topic of the thread. Good luck with your video.

Unruh radiation and Hawking radiation deals with specific system states. Unruh radiation can be applied at the cosmic event horizon or at the EH of a blackhole. However Hawking radiation is specifically at the BH event horizon. That being said an older model of virtual particle production that was once suggested for expansion was Parker radiation. This fell out of use as the process generated too much energy. There is countless virtual particle production variations. For example a couple of suggested forms is the inflaton (inflation) and the curvaton. The last one hasn't been in literature for years though. The Cosmological constant aka dark energy is tricky to explain why it is so close to zero, and why it remains constant. Pretty much any model of explaining it via one form of virtual particle production or another, fell out of use. Mainly because such processes lead to 120 orders of magnitude too much energy. (Unfortunately the math you posted is extremely difficult to translate the way you wrote it). If you can latex the formulas it would help. Here is a thread on how to latex. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/3751-quick-latex-tutorial/page-5#entry207217 Now onto quantum virtual particle production. One form that was once used to explain expansion was based upon the Heisenberg uncertainty principle via the quantum harmonic oscillator. A reference for this is zero point energy. Which is QMs lowest possible energy state. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy [latex]E=\frac{\hbar w}{2}[/latex] Even this lowest energy state, without additional particle production leads to 120 orders of magnitude too much energy to explain the cosmological constant [latex]\Lambda[/latex], this is often considered quantum mechanics "biggest mistake" It took a bit of digging to find some references on Leanard Parker radiation in regards to CMB anistropies. https://uwm.edu/physics/people/parker-leonard/ https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&rct=j&q=Leonard%20Parker%20radiation%20pdf&ved=0CCAQFjABahUKEwi_o8GvhunHAhXHSogKHf4ND5A&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fgr-qc%2F9506010&usg=AFQjCNEHw3Tq7jx6JPtPcD21u2IuUSyxKQ&sig2=rUoAsSuqHtUqGQUfxwSBBw https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&rct=j&q=Leonard%20Parker%20radiation%20pdf&ved=0CC4QFjAFahUKEwi_o8GvhunHAhXHSogKHf4ND5A&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uv.es%2Folalgon%2Fpublico%2Fpapers%2FPhysRevD_77_104034(2008).pdf&usg=AFQjCNEh3jdaulAPoNyusQWqhppKLOIAsw&sig2=JYItzL2TrnBr6uEqmAfh7A http://www.oa.uj.edu.pl/user/lasota/Astronomy_News/Parker.pdf The last article is by Parker himself though Parker is a coauthor of the second paper. He has others some behind pay walls. (You may note the dates of publication, some of his papers precede Allen Guths inflation.) As well as LCDM. So care must be taken in the involved metrics. For example he uses a conformal universe metric as opposed to commoving distances. He also doesn't refer to the cosmological constant. The last paper is based on pre WMAP findings. Dark energy was still debatable, so was universe curvature. ( for that matter Parker radiation precedes Hawking radiation.)

Perhaps not.

Edit other replies, were no longer dealing with distilled water.

Did you read carefully that link? "distilled water is purified and does not contain any impurities, it is unable to conduct electricity. Water molecules on their own have no charge and as a result they cannot swap electrons. Without the swapping of electrons, electricity is unable to travel through distilled water."

This is off topic, however needs to be said. The problem wasn't your math. The problem is your math included the Planck constant which is a discrete unit of measure. Your test does nothing to show you can measure units smaller than the Plancks constant. A joule of energy is significantly larger. A single photon of energy can be derived from [latex]E=hv[/latex] The Planck constant, h, is a physical constant used to describe the varying sizes of quanta in quantum mechanics where [latex]h=6.626070040*10^{-34} joules*s[/latex] Another formula is [latex]E=\frac{hc}{\lambda}[/latex] When you use h in your formulas you limit the possible results to discrete packets/quanta multiple units. Ie units divisible by h. Just as QM does. In point of detail you used a QM formula in your math. Then made the claims you don't require it. Well if you didn't require it "Why did you include it? As I stated the problem isn't your math. It's your interpretation of said test/math. This is why your thread was moved to speculations. You can have perfectly valid math but if the interpretation or claims is wrong then it doesn't even count as theoretically accurate. You can go ahead call me whatever name you like. This doesn't change the fact you claimed your experiment and math can replace everything QM does. By stating you don't need QM, because you don't believe single photons exist. News flash QM doesn't just deal with photons. It also deals with other standard model particles and their properties such as spin statistics. As far as a theoretical forum its not needed. If say for example I want to describe a universe without dark energy. I can easily post this in the cosmology forum by including the terminology "toy universe". This makes it clear I am not modelling this universe but a hypothetical one. Provided I follow the rules and include the correct mathematics In other forums I would think being clear you state the model as hypothetical and follow the minimum requirements this would also be sufficient. This is completely different than stating "this is how it is"

Point taken either way it's not your personal model or idea lol

"If you wish to change the rules, you must first understand the rules" Thanks for the accolade Acme. I always found the best route, is to provide direction. Let's try an analogy. Say your son or child presented you with an idea. That idea being flawed. Its easy to simply state its wrong. However this doesn't help your child learn. Instead try to supply positive reinforcement and direction. This has always been one of the primary reasons I developed a huge collection of training articles on numerous subjects. Granted not everyone takes the time to read them. However they still supply support. I see numerous posts correcting mistakes yet few supply suggested research nor direction. I admit finding good training material can oft take considerable time. Yet it's still worth it even if you only sway 1 in 500 posters. Stating something is wrong is easy. Providing direction into the mainstream and teaching is oft a challenge. Yet both parties can readily learn from the additional effort. ( though I'll readily admit sometimes I end up pulling my hair out and screaming in frustration. Lol my wife laughs at me during those moments)

Yes, I posted this paper as an example of the debate amongst professionals on the validity of one way speed of light tests. I've seen counter arguments on both sides of the fence. This includes such techniques such as two clock synchronization, single clock and Doppler shift tests. As this particular subject isn't my expertise, It would be nice seeing how detailed (including the related math) this thread will get. It's a excellent subject, one that many can learn from. So I'm sort of challenging the debators on this thread to provide a thorough and detailed discussion. With both peer reviewed articles as well as a clear math analysis (pros and cons) of the various tests. Ps (using math and peer review backing will not be considered a crank. If one provides the proper math and references, any mainstream theory can be examined) it's those that can't do the math or provide supporting evidence that typically fall into that category. Just saying A format I would recommend in light of the above challenge. Post a specific test. Provide a peer review of said test. Then debate that test. This would be an enlightening discussion. One everyone can learn from. This forum has more than enough. Personal opinion lack of support arguments. Make this thread a better example of how to properly debate a subject.... As a side note here is an excellent article on teaching relativity of simultaneity. http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0511062 @ Andromecus here is a link on posting latex on this site. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/3751-quick-latex-tutorial/page-1#

If you look at recessive velocities. At the Hubble sphere the recessive velocity will Start to appear greater than c. You can use the lightcone calculator in my signature to see this. For example at redshift z=1090 Cosmic event horizon the recessive velocity appears to be 3.1 c. However this is an apparent not a true velocity. Hubble only knew the universe was expanding. He didn't state why. This article written by someone I've had numerous discussions with explains it best. ( he does have a PH D in philosophy of cosmology). http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell You can find his numerous papers on arxiv as well. I still have a copy of his dissertation. He is a member on another forum, so kept this article as low math as possible.

My recommendation is to gather data and peer review articles on the various tests and examine each. Then compare the accuracy of each. Edit didn't see your last post

Preferably peer reviewed, wiki isn't 100% on numerous articles. While I'm aware there is some debate on whether or not the Michelson Morley test truly tests the one way speed of light or not. There has been numerous alternative and more advanced tests since then. Here is one such recommended test. http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0609202

As someone who hasn't gotten involved in this thread. I would like to see the equations in support of a particular viewpoint rather than bickering amongst each other. A good math argument is far more effective than mere name calling. Which quite frankly accomplishes nothing

The metric you want to gain via the balloon analogy is the following. All measurement points move away from each other without any change of angle between any combination of measurement points. Try it out. Place 3 or more dots on a balloon. Measure the distance and angles. Inflate the balloon and remeasure. A 3d analogy that's similar is the Raisin bread analogy. All were concerned with is the above math relations. NOTHING more Extra step, take one point on the balloon and stretch it in one direction. Notice how the measurements differ from the first case. (Preferred direction) We know expansion mrasurements don't match the last case. Neither does an explosion.

The expanding at greater that c is based on a misnomer. Hubbles law states the greater the distance the greater the recessive velocity. This is based on seperation distance. [latex]V_{rec}=H_od[/latex] The rate of expansion today is 70 km/Mpc/sec. So let's crunch some numbers. Take an object 5 Mpc away. (70 km/Mpc)/(sec*5 Mpc)=the recessive velocity. However the rate of expansion at that location is still 70 km/Mpc/sec.

Strange pretty much covered your questions on my post. Time dilation requires to a non accelating observer an energy/mass gradient. This occurs with a BH. However no matter where the observer is located in the universe, the energy/mass distribution is the same everywhere at any moment in proper time. Yes the universe becomes denser in the past. However at any moment in proper time The average mass density is uniform, which means there is no time dilation to that observer.

Lol my avatars reflects my online name. I have my reasons for privacy, the Call sign I use, I've been consistently using since the late 80's. (Mordred=evil son of King Arthur).

First off we have plenty of evidence Quarks do exist. They are detectable in particle accelerators. Via inelastic scattering. The Quark model was first proposed by Gell Mann and Zweig in 1964. Between 1970 and 1977 various tests showed the possibility of their existing. This became widely accepted in 1977. Today there it's become essentially conclusive that the quark model is accurate to the point that we have refined the mass of all the individual quarks. So your model which doesn't include quarks does not match experimental evidence of nearly 40 years worth of datasets. Without math, and proving the that evidence wrong..... Well lets just say good luck.

There's literally hundreds of articles available on the information paradox. The subject is highly controversial, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox I would recommend googling the term information paradox BH then add pdf to the end. It will pull up more reliable links. In all honesty there is tons of pop media imagination surrounding Black holes. There has also been dozens of models of trying to create our universe as a result of Black/white holes. The majority of these models died when WMAP and Planck datasets confirmed just how homogeneous and isotropic our universe really is. Still tends to be a common model most people who don't truly understand the related mathematics and current models attempt. Any model of a universe developing from a BH/WH have one major hurdle. This is the Cosmological Principle. The universe expansion is homogeneous ( no preferred location) and isotropic ( no preferred direction). Combining the two means at large scales 100 Mpc the universe is essentially uniform in mass distribution. A universe developing from a BH/WH has a preferred location and direction. This includes those models where our universe resides inside the EH of some massive BH/WH. The other problem is Black holes tend to rotate. This would lead to a rotating universe. A rotating universe is inherently inhomogeneous and anisotropic. Then comes the problem, Bh's feed on matter as it becomes available. This rate of infalling material is inconsistent. This would lead to inconsistent rates of expansion. Which would be detectable via the thermodynamic changes as we look into our expansion history. Given all the above, any of the dozens of BH/WH universe creation models I have encountered in the past 30+ years of personal study fail to match up to current observation evidence. I don't know how much math skills you have but two of my favorite articles on BH is https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&rct=j&q=Black%20hole%20pdf&ved=0CBsQFjAAahUKEwiJkP2879THAhURKYgKHaQMAAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.phys.uu.nl%2F~thooft%2Flectures%2Fblackholes%2FBH_lecturenotes.pdf&usg=AFQjCNERag-FH9DCbw66GsxObohS8wEq9A&sig2=bVDJuyqlgvpDHNNZPF7jjQ http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499 :''Black hole Accretion Disk'' -Handy article on accretion disk measurements provides a technical compilation of measurements involving the disk itself. This particular article covers an infalling observer. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/local--files/main/touching_ghosts.pdf Rather interesting article. These three articles cover several of the various coordinate systems of a BH's space time curvature. The lecture notes on GR covers extensively various "coordinate artifacts" that different coordinate systems can cause and shows alternative coordinate system solutions to solve those artifacts. http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau it's roughly 998 pages long, but it's an excellent coverage of GR, and also covers the metrics involved in describing our universe. In particular it covers how the Einstein field equations is converted to the FLRW metric.

Not really, The Hubbles sphere or Hubble horizon describes a homogeneous and isotropic fluid. It is defined as the time it takes light to reach an observer multiplied by the age of the universe without expansion. The Kruskal coordinates describe and inhomogeneous and anisotropic fluid, (Bh, has a center). Whose gravititational influence causes time dilation at a rate per coordinate change that is completely different than the universe itself. The Schwartzchild metric starts from a vacuum, then describe the density gradient toward the singularity. This has a preferred direction. The FLRW metric has no preferred location or direction.At each point in proper time the average energy/mass density throughout the universe is homogeneous and isotropic so you have no time dilation due to higher density in the past. This isn't the case of a BH. At a moment in proper time you have an energy/mass gradient due to localized space time curvature. This causes a localized time dilation. Universe geometry doesn't have time dilation as globally any moment in proper time the energy/mass density is uniform

No the universe didn't originate from a tiny speck, only our Observable portion did. We don't know the size of the entire universe. It could be infinite. If it's infinite now, it's infinite in the past. You should really read actual textbooks with the math. Instead of relying on pop media descriptions. 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" http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052"In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0219What's in a Name: History and Meanings of the Term "Big Bang" Helge Kragh http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.1442v1.pdfIs it possible to see the infinite future of the Universe when falling into a black hole? 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/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 http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf:"Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/ In this list is several textbooks, or close in style and length. I recommend reading the misconceptions section first. You want help with your model, you need to first understand the current models and relevant math

The more you know a particles position, the more uncertain you are on its momentum. A few years back this was reduced by a method that reduces the amount of interference caused by measurements. Essentially take multiple samples of multiple particles to increase the accuracy. Then look at its influences on other particles etc.

Your presenting a personal viewpoint, essentially hijacking a thread from a poster seeking the mainstream answer to his topic. This site allows personal theories in the speculation forum. Most forums won't even allows that. Lets not detail this thread any further. You have already posted your idea in your own thread

Has nothing to do with hateful moderators, the main forums is for understanding what one would be taught as per schooling or textbook style posts. Alternative ideas to those style articles belong here to avoid confusion. We don't want to have models and answers in mainstream, that can lead to students getting the wrong ideas and failing exams as a result. Surely you can appreciate that dedication.