Mordred

The teardrop shape in the first thread is World lines and lightcones. It's showing the curvature relation of lightpaths to rate of expansion. Not a specific direction. The CMB surrounds us we can still hear it's interferance in radios today as a source of static. ON EARTH.

Did you notice this line? "Although the map is comprehensive over the Universe around the Milky Way, its distance measurements become less accurate, and less numerous, the farther out you go, " There is numerous debates on Laneikia. For one thing they use a different H than the Planck results. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.0880 secondly they redefine what counts as a superclusture. Lets put it this way the subject is far from conclusive. However Laniekia has little to do with the CMB. So I have no idea what you refer to in this question. You seem to be implying that the CMB has a certain direction. It doesn't it is in every direction and orientation. Super novas are from point of origin to us. A single supernova does not determine the spectral radiance of the CMB. At best it may cause a dipole anisotropy in the data. Much like our movement causes a dipole anisotropy in regards to the axis of evil in the Planck datasets. The 160 Ghz signal is a peak value of the Spectral radiance using the average temperature maps of the entire CMB map.

Sounds about on par. One has to remember Hubbles constant at a point in time. There has been numerous fine tuning of Hubbles constant today. For example each data Set from WMAP and Planck give different values. The same is true for the peak spectral radiance. Redshift calculations are only to good approximation. There is numerous forms of interferance, including the Earths movement. For this reason Cosmology never truly relies on just one methodology for distance measures. One problem is the redshift formula I provided, can lead to greater error margins beyond Hubbles sphere. So can luminosity relations. A good papers covering this is http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?9905116"Distance measures in cosmology" David W. Hogg Google the term Cosmic distance ladder for a list of alternative distance measure cross checks. Spectral radiance is another value that is often fine tuned.

It's the spectral radiance. The peak spectral radiance for temperature 2.7 k is roughly 160 ghz. Some papers fine tune that to 162 ghz. You can have higher frequencies, but their wattage output is lower. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_radiance

Should that be in the mainstream forum lol?

The signal would be affected by various forms of redshift. Primarily the cosmological redshift. [latex]1+Z=\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} or 1+Z=\frac{\lambda-\lambda_o}{\lambda_o}[/latex] Other forms is the gravitational redshift. [latex]\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2})}}[/latex] and Doppler shift. [latex]f=\frac{c+v_r}{c+v_s}f_o[/latex] http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion

Well I can't really speak of your model. Without the math its osubjective to interpretation. I have no idea how it handles the coupling constants nor the fine structure constant. There is a good chapter on renormalization in this introduction to QFT. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CB8QFjACahUKEwi13a7XgJvHAhXJVz4KHQ5bDyI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fisites.harvard.edu%2Ffs%2Fdocs%2Ficb.topic521209.files%2FQFT-Schwartz.pdf&rct=j&q=qed%20renormalization%20pdf&ei=0cHGVfWwEcmv-QGOtr2QAg&usg=AFQjCNFF7siLmbFnBP6Yvx3CCSeMtFV0eQ&sig2=YSRod5tFAcvh7qtNNvejXA If your wiliing to buy good textbooks I would recommend Quarks and Leptons. http://www.amazon.com/Quarks-Leptons-Introductory-Particle-Physics/dp/0471887412 Another is Introductory to particle physics. By Griffith neither teaches QFT specifically but the info in them is needed for QFT. ( Youll also need relativity,) http://www.amazon.ca/Introduction-Elementary-Particles-David-Griffiths/dp/3527406018 his book on QM is also excellent.

Or any other physical interactions lol

Tbh not sure myself, my only guess is that he doesn't like the principle behind the cosmological constant itself. He once posted a thread on a steady state model he was working on. Which I pointed out that thermodynamics temperature decrease is a strong piece of evidence. Not positive if his objection is related or not. (Might explain his objections to my related posts) not including his comments directed at me Guess he doesn't realize that if I make a mistake, I fully expect and respect corrections Vacuum already being defined as an energy state, negative vacuum is just a short hand of negative vacuum energy.

Something doesn't seem quite right with your description on what is infinite. Are you sure your statement on infinite isn't the number of gauge symmetries? Which can be infinite if you don't consider global symmetry. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft/six.pdf see equation 6.12 Could you post a quote of the section here, it's difficult to tell what treatment of the naked electron is being applied. (There are numerous variations ,such as the Kerr-Newman-Dirac treatment.) Also keep in mind the naked electron is a hypothetical particle as one cannot seperate it from the photon field in actuality. (It's been awhile since I last read up on naked electrons, but if memory serves correct, this is referred to as the confinement problem. I suspect your talking of the energy of an electron prior to renormalization. This wiki article covers this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization The last link should answer your above question. Edit, your descriptive matches the last link as far as I can decipher

Sorry to see you go. There is nothing wrong with the term negative vacuum. Don't take my word for it. I only teach what can be found in standard textbooks. Every one of the above formulas are standard formulas. You want peer review here ya go. "If vacuum energy can be negative, why is mass always positive?: Uses of the subdominant trace energy condition" http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.6203 Now I ask you if a professional peer reviewed article can use the term "negative vacuum". What is wrong with my use of a standard terminology. I don't expect people to have faith in me. The majority of my posts include supporting articles for that reason. You could have easily googled the term " negative vacuum" then add pdf. This would have pulled up dozens of articles that uses the same terminology. The part you miss is its negative compared to a baseline value

Naiad Moon of Neptune also designated NVIII. Discovered by Voyager 2 in 1989,

Europa Moon ofJupiter, also designated JII. Discovered by Galileo in 1610, it is one of the four Galilean satellites. Lorentz boost Lorentz transformation of space-time coordinates from one system of reference to another moving at a constant velocity with respect to each other. ( my turn to be too late)

Neupert effect-Statement that the temporal derivative of the observed soft X-ray emission during a solar flare reproduces the observed time development of the hard X-ray emission.

Oberon Moon of Uranus, also designated UIV.

Just an FYI on the wiki equation of state they mentioned [latex]\Omega_k[/latex] which is the spatial curvature constant. However it doesn't cover any great details. it isn't an actual energy density. However it's convenient to consider it as such [latex]\Omega_k=\frac{\rho_k}{\rho_{crit}}[/latex] where [latex]\rho_k=\frac{3kc^2}{3\pi G a^2}[/latex] With no subscript, Ω denotes the total mass-energy density in all forms. Via the first equation [latex]\Omega_k=1-\Omega[/latex]

I think the problem Carrock is having is how we are defining the state of the system. In cosmology we set the reference point at a state where there is no expansion or contraction. This is the critical density formula. [latex] \rho_c=\frac{3H^2}{8\pi G}[/latex] This calculated value is the fulcrum point between expansion and contraction. (Prior to the discovery of the cosmological constant where dark energy may possibly contribute) A perfectly critically dense universe ( Euclidean-flat) is neither expanding or contracting. However that's also unstable

I suggest you reread what I wrote. Just to include the Cassimer effect. "the Casimir effect produces the equivalent of about 1 atmosphere of pressure (the precise value depending on surface geometry and other factors)." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect The Casimir effect uses zero point energy which is the lowest possible energy density. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

I said negative mass not vacuum. Rubbish ? Let's see [latex]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex] Let's use this relationship and describe the early universe prior to inflation then onto inflation. A radiation dominant universe will expand as the gravitational potential is insufficient to cause a collapse. The acceleration equation is given as [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. Which during the GUT epock can be largely ignored. Via the equation of state [latex]p=w\rho c^2[/latex] [latex]\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=-\frac{1}{2}H^2(1+3w)[/latex] for radiation w=-1/3 matter w=0 From this we can see a radiation dominant universe will expand. In fact it will accelerate when [latex]w<-1/3(p<-\rho^2/3)[/latex] When the volume sufficiently increases thereby reducing the temperature quarks, gluons and potentially the Higgs boson can drop out of thermal equilibrium. This process may potentially result in inflation as a phase change. The strong force undergoes symmetry breaking. The simplest version of inflation is via the inflaton which then dominates expansion. The inflaton is given by [latex]\varphi[/latex], with potential [latex]V\varphi[/latex] The pressure of the field is [latex]p(\varphi)=\frac{1/2\dot{\varphi}^2}{\hbar c+V\varphi}[/latex] total energy by [latex]E(\varphi)=\frac{1/2\dot{\varphi}}{\hbar c+V\varphi}[/latex] with equation of state. [latex]\frac{1/2\dot{\varphi}^2/\hbar c-V\varphi}{1/2\dot{\varphi}/\hbar c+V\varphi}[/latex] How many standard Cosmology equations did I just post that include pressure? Even inflation itself includes vacuum hence Allen Guths original inflation model is called "False Vacuum". The false vacuum is a higher energy density region that tunnels through a potential barrier to a lower vacuum region "true vacuum" This equation describes how the universe expands ,it's more commonly called the deceleration equation. As opposed to acceleration equation. [latex]\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G\rho}{3c^2}(\rho c^2+3p)[/latex] note the energy density to pressure terms? That derives from the FLRW metric Just as an added perspective here is the Einstein field equation stress momentum tensor in the Minkowskii form. [latex]T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U^{\mu}U^{\nu}+p\eta^{\mu\nu}[/latex] Even GR uses pressure.

A vacuum is a pressure terminology, if the pressure increases you have positive pressure ( contraction). If you have negative pressure, you have expansion. Gravity causes matter to contract= positive pressure. The cosmological constant causes non gravitational bound structures to expand (negative pressure). However both positive and negative pressure have positive energy density. The vacuum in this application includes a direction a vector. One that is either contraction or expansion. Energy density is a scalar ( magnitude only ). Cosmology uses the the ideal gas laws, certain forms of particles have different energy density to pressure relations. See equations of state (cosmology) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) This article will give some greater detail. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Page 2 http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ Key note the cosmological constant isn't the only cause of expansion, the spatial curvature constant also contributes, so does relativistic radiation,(photons, neutrinos). The cosmological is the most dominant influence in the universe today. In the past radiation was the most dominant influence, then we had a matter dominant era, finally the Lambda (cosmological constant) dominant era.

You can't have negative mass, any form of energy density is positive. You can however have negative vacuum with a positive energy density. This is the cosmological constant. The cassimir effect is another example of vaccum, with positive energy density.

Adrastea Moon of Jupiter, also designated JXV.

Achilles A Trojan asteroid orbiting at the L4 point in Jupiters orbit (60◦ ahead of Jupiter).

Rosalind Moon of Uranus

Evolutionary track is a curve on the HertzsprungRussell diagram that a solitary star, of a particular mass and composition, is expected to follow during the course of its evolution. This curve predicts the combination of temperature and luminosity that a star will have during part or all of its lifetime (Sleep tight)