Mordred

Just be careful Lee Smolin likes to push his own models. I do respect his articles but they can distract from mainstream physics, which should be the first step to understand. (This does make understanding of other models simpler) Or rather concordance acceptance, ( what one can learn via textbooks). Basics first alternative later. Or as they say eat the Apple one bite at a time.

Kk I'm in flight right now I'll work out the ideal gas laws for you to correlate pressure, entropy, temperature etc in terms of particle influence in an adiabatic fluid.

I have a question for you. Do you find this level of mathematics comfortable enough to relate to ? I can post the ideal gas laws in the same structure and format and tie it into universe geometry if you can relate to the coordinate system above. The links I provided on the Higgs simplifying the Higgs field does a better job than I would. I tend to overcomplicate the Higgs interactions. Although you don't agree with LCDM itself. I would recommend learning first the FLRW metric. Trust me from personal experience, the FLRW metric is far easier to understand than the Einstein field equations, or field and string theories.

No problem. This site has a free to distribute textbook on SR. It's probably one of the less math heavy training books available. The author is a member on another forum I frequent. http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/

Ok let's look at the Lorentz transform itself in some detail. ( This will take some time to post) Lorentz transformation. First two postulates. 1) the results of movement in different frames must be identical 2) light travels by a constant speed c in a vacuum in all frames. Consider 2 linear axes x (moving with constant velocity and [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] (at rest) with x moving in constant velocity v in the positive [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] direction. Time increments measured as a coordinate as dt and [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] using two identical clocks. Neither [latex]dt,d\acute{t}[/latex] or [latex]dx,d\acute{x}[/latex] are invariant. They do not obey postulate 1. A linear transformation between primed and unprimed coordinates above in space time ds between two events is [latex]ds^2=c^2t^2=c^2dt-dx^2=c^2\acute{t}^2-d\acute{x}^2[/latex] Invoking speed of light postulate 2. [latex]d\acute{x}=\gamma(dx-vdt), cd\acute{t}=\gamma cdt-\frac{dx}{c}[/latex] Where [latex]\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}[/latex] Time dilation dt=proper time ds=line element since [latex]d\acute{t}^2=dt^2[/latex] is invariant. an observer at rest records consecutive clock ticks seperated by space time interval [latex]dt=d\acute{t}[/latex] she receives clock ticks from the x direction separated by the time interval dt and the space interval dx=vdt. [latex]dt=d\acute{t}^2=\sqrt{dt^2-\frac{dx^2}{c^2}}=\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}dt[/latex] so the two inertial coordinate systems are related by the lorentz transformation [latex]dt=\frac{d\acute{t}}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}=\gamma d\acute{t}[/latex] So the time interval dt is longer than interval [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] Now consider the above and consider the equivalence principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle This should help with your last post.

Too lengthy I didn't feel like writing a book. Lol. I already supplied those. Its probably better discussing each point seperately rather than a one shot effort.

1 2 are fine. On three mass and energy has equivelence via e=mc^2 4 well I'm not going to repeat myself a third time spacetime is not some mysterious fabric. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89395-what-is-space-made-of/#entry870133 5 and 6 are incorrect. You need to look at the problem as a coordinate change. GR is modelled on terms of coordinate rotations and boosts. Google Lorentz transformation. 6 is completely wrong....except the part not a hole. 7 I can live with in terms of volume/coordinate change. 8) I assume you mean the singularity itself. Unfortunately not completely accurate. The collapse is an artifact of the chosen coordinate system. It is possible to change the coordinate system to avoid the singularity issue. 9) is wrong. Any mass body can technically form a BH. If it's radius falls below its Schwartzchild radius. 10) is wrong e=mc^2. Mass and energy are equivelent. Matter is any particle that occupies a volume of space. Google Pauli exclusion principle. Fermions are considered matter particles. Bosons are not. 11) clarity I can't make heads or tails out of that statement. 12)yes but I don't believe you understand what universe curvature means as you don't place any value in the critical density formula. Nor in vaccuum/pressure to energy density relations via the Einstein field equations stress energy tensor. 13 and 14 are wrong. 15 is wrong as well or so poorly worded it reads as wrong. 16 weight depends on the gravitational force where you measure it. If you weigh a 1 ton brick on Earth at sea level. That same brick won't weigh 1 ton on the moon.( really this is extremely basic physics terminology. Mass is not weight) 17) I can consider that statement accurate. Which confuses me why you didn't correlate the mass energy relation in numbers 3 and 10? 18 and 19 are wrong, this is according to your ideas and model. Not mainstream physics. 20) by which inflation model? Certainly not in any of the 70+ viable inflation models in "inflationaris Encyclopedia" I posted to you previously. Sounds like your own once again. 21 to 28 is all based on your ideas and quite frankly you don't understand particle symmetry and gauge couplings/group theory to make those determinations. If you did you would have already posted the required math. Lie algebra isn't terribly difficult. For that matter the matrix calculations in the SO(3)* SO(2)*U(1) covers the standard model groups. SO(3.1) being also the Lorentz group. (This group doesn't include the Higgs interactions) Just a side note your definition of a vector is wrong on your previous post. A vector is a scalar quantity with a direction. 26 27 and 28 is wrong. so is 29 and 30 Guess you didn't learn much. Might be time to read the mainstream physics articles. ( instead of letting your personal model get in the way of learning) By the way I do study non mainstream articles all the time. The author however must show a clear understanding of the mainstream physics before I consider them as being viable. (Must also include the related mathematics) That list includes MOND, trespace, Poplowskii's universe inside an EH. AFD/CFT, LQC is potentially close enough to mainstream that I consider it. F® gravity etc etc. Little hint any peer reviewed article compares its model against the current recognized concordance model in any application. You can learn a ton from those correlations. Poplowskii did a great job modelling a homogeneous and isotropic universe with spin and torsion. However he couldn't explain early large scale structure formation within his model.

What a load of crud. The Planck data confirms the accuracy of LCDM to an extremely high accuracy. Read their overview article. How in the world can you use the statement false notion gravity then state you accept GR:?: You make mistakes and inconsistent responses like tbis. Post absolutely zero zip mathematics and expect professional Scientists to consider your ideas??:? Come on get real. Study. I supplied you with a full length textbook. Learn how gravity and vaccuum aka pressure determines expansion. Study the ideal gas laws. Read the overview of Cosmology link. Read chapter 3 of particle physics of the Early universe. 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 in every one of these professional peer reviewed articles. Pressure is explained. Photons and neutrinos even your quarks and gluons exert pressure. All relativistic particles do. In the Early universe when there are free quarks they exert pressure. Today there is no free quarks. Matter is pressureless. Never heard the term pressure less dust? They are referring to baryonic matter. Why because it's % of influence in expansion is too miniscule to count. Only fermions count as matter particles via the Pauli exclusion principle. Your personal feelings means nothing to professional Scientists. You can either learn why they accept the current models. Or not. You won't convince anyone unless you can mathematically compare your model to thiers. Which means you must first learn their models. This is a necessary step as no one will listen till they can accept that you truly understand the current models. It would be like saying I don't agree with relativity because I don't understand it. Here is my solution. Which is what your stating about the Higgs field. I don't accept it because I don't understand it. Here is my solution. Why would anyone listen to that? Maybe this series of articles will help. https://briankoberle...-four-horsemen/ https://briankoberle...nce-of-the-hag/ https://briankoberle...orge-of-heaven/ https://briankoberle...-of-other-days/ https://briankoberle...radle-to-grave/ On the series below he covers the Higgs field in one of his site links with and without the math. http://profmattstras...-higgs-faq-2-0/ http://profmattstras...physics-basics/ http://profmattstrassler.com/

Let's clarify what I've read thus far. 1) You don't like mass effects mass. 2) You didn't know pressure is involved in expansion. 3) you thought the CMB colors reflected dispersion of light. 4) you argued against developing your model with thermodynamics and just wanted density. 5) you originally modelled helicity as meaning different velocities but didn't specify which particles. For that matter you indicated your model previous to 10^-43 seconds doesn't have particles just momentum. Where you tried centrifugal velocity ie 1 rotation granting (I'm not sure space time, particles or kinetic energy) Then you had that same rotation repeat without loss of momentum yet emit one of the three like some perpetual motion machine. 6) you kept using the word "explode" With regards to expansion. 7) you don't want to use space time curvature, or force in your model. Pretty impossible. Yet you claim your model works better than GR and indirectly indicated particle physics. Without posting a single equation. Instead you posted images. Which you didn't understand as being related to the anisotrophies described via redshift in the Sache Wolfe effect. Tell me are you aware of slow roll on inflation, Lets describe the sequence. 1) inflation starts cause doesn't matter. For this. 2) inflates rapidly the volume of the observable universe 60 e folds. Roughly a 10^90 times it's original volume in far less than 1 second. 3) this causes supercooling during the inflation cycle. 4) inflation slow rolls to a stop, this causes reheating. Does it matter if the universe is curved or flat prior to inflation? Does it matter if anisotrophies are present. With such a huge change in volume, pressure, density and temperature. Any pre conditions is effectively washed away. Rebalancing any anisotropic regions or curvature. I would strongly advise studying textbooks not pop media literature. When we ask for citation post peer review materials not pop media articles. They mean absolutely nothing to me. Perhaps you might want to think about how to go about describing your model better. Don't skip the essential steps. Use at least some equations to avoid confusion. The above list is based on how I've read your posts thus far.( including the thread this split from)

Why do you keep missing the key aspects on the replies. Are you doing so intentionally. We were specifically talking about the chirality theory in regards to possible different Higgs interactions leading to different momentum. We weren't questioning whether or not helicity exists. That'd the part that is still debatable. If the Higgs interaction varies sufficient enough on the right hand velocity. You effectively generate heavy fermions. Aka supersymmeyric particles. Come on mate I posted you a paper specifically discussing that. Evidently you didn't bother looking at it. Particles are defined by their momentum, mass, charge and spin. Change any one of those properties you have a different particle. Try to read some of the links I supply. I never ever reply on a forum a non mainstream answer. I leave that to those that disagree and more often than not don't truly understand why current models state what they do. Regardless of your feelings towards dark energy and dark matter. Far more professional scientists in far greater number and knowledge than anyone on this forum, have tried to disprove both. Good luck trying to do the same. The standard model of particle physics has been and still is incredibly successful of previously predicting never before seen particles and then finding them later on. GR is extremely well tested, so is LCDM. This is done via the mainstream understanding despite your personal feelings If your trying to convince me your model is better. You better get cracking on the mathematics. The misconceptions in this thread clearly tells me how little you feel about mainstream physics. As stated before gluons don't jump into our universe. There is no outside source for them to jump from. Yet you state your universe is singular. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There is no proven evidence the left or right hand neutrinos have different velocies. In point of detail the mathematics support the opposite. Not right hand being faster than the left hand. Yet you refuse to accept the Higgs which can account for chirality. The lake statement doesn't make any sense. All particles are both particle like and wavelike. So how do you not have waves ie frequency waves and still have particles? You can't. GR is highly successful in that false notion you refuse to accept. Despite explaining how curvature is correctly described, which you later on stated you understood in the first place. If you did then why do you have a problem understanding the space time relation of gravity and pressure relations??? Your light diffusion analogy is another case. Which I had to correct you on. With the peer reviewed articles. You wish to describe mass without using either force or curvature, then use the force carrying gluon in your descriptive. Did the term vector gauge boson not indicate anything to you? What is energy, "the ability to perform work" what is force. "In physics, a force is any interaction that tends to change the motion of an object. In other words, a force can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate. Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or a pull. Force carrying particles are needed. As energy DOES NOT exist on its own. There is no way one particle can influence another without a mediator particle. So tell me how does your model possibly describe how matter moves without using as you stated" The outdated force"?

This however is a specific decay. Its not due to velocity itself as per se. This area is still under research so not much is truly known. The left hand neutrino and right hand neutrino form via different W bosons. The two neutrinos may also interact differently with the Higgs field via the seesaw mechanism. ( keep in mind this is still under research and ties to the B-L assymmetry.) helicity doesn't imply one side being slower than the other in the case of photon velocity. This is due to being massless. massive particles however is a different case. Neutrinos electrons etc. Yes mass is involved. due to the Higgs interaction. The mass of the right hand neutrino is still unknown. What your looking at here is chirality. It's also observer dependant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(physics) It's also why I wanted the citation (I suspected this was what you were describing, but needed clarity). Now onto Sache Wolfe effect on CMB. This Sean Carroll article nicely covers it. When you read the paper think of graviational redshift. In particular climbing in and out of gravity wells. ( All particles not just photons gain or lose energy climbing in and out of gravity wells. Normally they gain and lose the same amount as the average density before and after is the same. However if the average mass density changes while in transit. The effect is less loss climbing out to a lower density than when the particle first entered. http://preposterousuniverse.com/teaching/371/papers06/stricker-371paper.pdf I still find it somewhat amusing you argue against the term force. However the Gluon is a force mediator. Specifically the strong force. However not all mass is due to the strong force. For example 1% the mass of the Proton is due to the mass of the quarks. The rest is via the strong force (gluon binding energy). A typical mistake is thinking mass is one source in all cases. Try this for example the neutrino doesn't interact with the strong force. So it cannot gain mass from it. Hence the Higgs field. I guess thinking of just gluon interactions didn't make all our problems go away. Then you have electromagnetic mass. Also atomic mass. Get the picture. Mass is defined simply as "resistance to inertia". Any form of binding energy generates mass. Here is a suggestion Google each boson, look at the known interactions on wiki. Then Google the Neutrino and dark matter. Note not all particles interact with the electromagnetic, strong and weak force. Also note photons do not directly interact with gravity. Example electron interacts with weak, electromagnetic and gravity. Not the strong force. Neutrinos weak, gravity. Photons electromagnetic Gluons strong W an Z bosons weak. Electromagnetic strong weak gravity. Sterile neutrinos. Weak, gravity. Dark matter weak, gravity Note the similarities on neutrinos to dark matter. Neutrinos can pass through 1000 light years of lead without an interaction. So ask yourself this question, how does the electron, neutrino and W and Z bosons gain mass if they don't interact with gluons (strong force or gravity in two cases?) Understand why the Higgs field became so important? Here I located for you a very recent article on Chirality. Here is a key passage. "The Standard Model (SM) is a chiral theory, where right- and left-handed fermion fields transform differently under the gauge group. Extra fermions, if they do exist, need to be heavy otherwise they would have already been observed. With no complex mechanisms at work, such as confining interactions or extra-dimensions, this can only be achieved if every extra right-handed fermion comes paired with a left-handed one transforming in the same way under the Standard Model gauge group, otherwise the new states would only get a mass after electroweak symmetry breaking, which would necessarily be small (∼ 100 GeV). Such a simple requirement severely constrains the fermion content of Grand Unified Theories (GUTs). It is known for example that three copies of the representations 5 + 10 of SU(5) or three copies of the 16 of SO(10) can reproduce the Standard Models chirality, but how unique are these arrangements? In a systematic way, this paper looks at the possibility of having non-standard mixtures of fermion GUT representations yielding the correct Standard Model chirality. Family unification is possible with large special unitary groups for example, the 171 representation of SU(19) may decompose as 3 (16) + 120 + 3 (1) under SO(10)." key note if they exist.... http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.03695 As you can see its viable in the mathematics. Still requires evidence such as finding right hand fermions in the first place (Remind ya of supersymmetry??) That article is Apr 2015.

Ah that's what you meant by this. You needed to be a little clearer. The term dintegrate threw me off lol. My mistake I prefer to think of gluons interactions as mediates. My mistake on that

Gluons do not decay into quarks. They mediate the color interactions. There is several aspects you seem to keep missing. Mass, density, pressure and temperature are not independent quantities. Change any one of these properties and you change the other. You stated before in your earlier post you will work in density but not thermodynamics as you feel temperature is an outdated concept. That is complete rubbish. Temperature is a well known and measurable property. You increase density, you will increase temperature. Why do you think we can correlate the density of the CMB from its temperature measurements. Its because of the ideal gas laws. Not light dispersion. The Sache Wolfe effect uses redshift. This is a change of wavelength not dispersion of the photon path. Google gravitational redshift or cosmological redshift. Or read this article. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion The formulas are also posted in the peer reviewed links I already provided. dark energy and dark matter isn't as mysterious as people like to think. One has to actually study the problems they solve. As well as the observational evidence. To fully appreciate their importance. Again this is also supplied in the links I already posted. I also tried explaining the GR space time curvature requires mass density, shear stress, and pressure. What determines how space curves is defined by the stress energy tensor. You keep missing the point though. Gravity can only influence particles. It doesn't curve volume. It is a geometric description of the strength of influence upon particles. I don't know how I can make that any clearer. I already tried describing it. Both verbally and by showing the mathematics. String theory does not state otherwise either. Neither does QFT This is what I asked you to provide citation for. Helicity doesn't determine velocity.

At this miniscule temperature variation all you need is an anistophy in the average energy density. Information of any process travels at maximum c. This is how Baryon accoustic oscillations come into play. This also includes slightly different densities. Ie the beginning of large scale structure formation. Due to dark matter. . Why would you think or even gluons jumped into our universe? No theory ever stated this occurs. At least not in any professional peer reviewed theories. You might want to study the term "drop out of thermal equilibrium". No standard model or concordance (mainstay model states qluons come from outside our universe. The quark/gluon plasma is always there at the beginning of the timeline of the BB model. Just because a particle is indistinguishable due to being in thermal equilibrium does not mean it's not present. Fine show your source, provide citation. The proper term is helicity I already covered the difference between premise and modelling regardless of your personal beliefs thermodynamics involves density as well as pressure. It is fundamental in Every cosmology application. Its also involved in GR. (Stress energy momentum tensor) . Where do you get this idea??? Let's clear up one point space time is not made up of some mysterious substance. Pop media articles refer to terms such as space time fabric. This is a misnomer. Space is just volume. Space time is any geometric (coordinate) system which uses time as a coordinate or vector. Space time curvature is simply describing in laymens terms. The differential geometric relation of influence that gravity has on the standard model. Gravity cannot and does not affect a region with no particles to act upon. photons are measured per quanta. If you calculate the temperature variation. Between red and blue regions you will arrive at the same quanta of photons. However wavelength variations can cause variations in the energy of a photon. For the miniscule temperature variation the quanta of photons is identical, just a slightly difference in wavelength. Think of redshift to get the idea. In this specific case it's the Sache Wolfe effect. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachs%E2%80%93Wolfe_effect The variations and timing of the Sachs Wolfe effect dictates which version is used and when. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachs%E2%80%93Wolfe_effect Good luck on this as the four forces are fundamental aspects of particle physics and QFT. All field theories utilizes and studies in detail those forces to the point where we have near exact coupling constants describing them. All physics mathematics today rely upon the four forces. Regardless of Your opinion If your talking about the top quark theory. That theory died when the Higgs boson was discovered. Sorry . Let's clarify one aspect. Particle decay isn't determined by the rest mass of a particle. It's determined by its total energy. Rest mass and inertial mass. Here particle physics aspect of Cosmology isn't the easiest field to pick up. I don't know how strong your differential geometry is. So here is a very handy set of articles to help teach the mathematics of particle physics. http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328 A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395 part 2 Article one is primarily the differential geometry. Part two delves into relativity. Another two excellent textbooks is Griffiths Introductory to particle physics. And Quarks and Leptons by Francis Halzin. http://www.amazon.com/Quarks-Leptons-Introductory-Particle-Physics/dp/0471887412 Roads to Reality by Sir Roger Penrose is also handy for learning the mathematics. (Non model specific) Another good textbook on Cosmology that also does an excellent job covering the Coupling constants in GUT theory is "Fundamentals in Cosmology" by Muchanov Introductory to Cosmology by Matt Roos does one of the better jobs in teaching the correlation between the FLRW metric to the Einstein field equations. He also has a down to Earth explanation on the stress energy tensor and how it is responsible for space time curvature relations.

Your seriously missing the point here. All physics modelling even in speculations require an effort to being mathematically modelled. That's the whole point behind a model it's to make testablepredictions. Even the speculation forum has its rules and guidelines. Without the mathematics all you have is a premise. That's it that's all. Scientists don't think of spin as a rotation. There is simply mathematics similarities. Honestly do you even bother reading the material I link to you? Spin 1\2 = [latex] \frac{h}{2}[/latex]. What do you think the term quantum state and quantum phase means? Your honestly giving me the impression you have no interest in any theory or model that disagrees with your personal model. I provided you the formulas you need to develop your model. If you can't adapt those formulas to develop your model your not going to get your model beyond mere conjecture. Choice is yours. If you ever hope to get your model to a professional peer review format. You will never do so without applying the mathematics. I provided the tools and material so that if you apply yourself you could do so. No one else will do the math for you.

,I'll try to locate the article, but it essentially boils down to interference radiation. I can't recall what the source was. The Planck results overview article covers numerous calibration and filtering corrections they had to perform from their previous dataset. Between the two sets of images the "axis of evil" is far less prominent. So their calibration on the second set is far better than their first set. Though fine tuning is still required. A couple of points Cobe, WMAP and Planck images variations is nothing more than sensor resolution. The Planck sensors are far more sensitive than either Cobe and WMAP. So I wouldn't place any greater meaning onto the difference other than sensor sensitivity. Secondly the temperature variation from the hottest spot to the coldest spot on the CMB Planck dataset is less than 1/1000 th a degree Kelvin. That's extremely uniform considering the volume Being measured. As far as the directions of flows your believe your seeing. This is explained via the Baryon accoustic oscillations of an adiabatic fluid. There is some indications that anistrophies of inflation may show up in those BAO waves. This may indicate (possibly which inflation model is more accurate) From what I've read thus far your model has two influences. Unfortunately the Planck dataset supports single scalar inflationary model processes more than the multi scalar or otherwise processes. One of the articles in the 2012 dataset specifically mentions that. For example Scott Dodelson Modern Cosmology included a multi scalar model. This model utilizes the Bose Einstein and Fermi Dirac statistics. ( if you want your model to get off the ground, your going to need to master those two formulas) they are essential in the BBN big bang nucleosynthesis. Anyways fermions and bosons have different degrees of freedom depending on their spin statistics. Your idea that spin 1/2 is necessarily slower than integer spin particles is off. Right hand neutrinos and left hand neutrinos have the same spin. This is where you need to study Patti Salam portion of the SO(10) model and understand what this model states in terms of the Higgs interaction variation between the two. Granted this is also still currently being explored in greater detail. (May lead to understanding leptogenesis and baryogenesis.) I linked the relevant materials. Evidence in physics means supplying the mathematical details. Images and verbatim isn't considered evidence in Physics. In order to properly design a model you need to mathematically compare your model against existing models. Physics is the lanquaqe of mathematics. Unless you can do that your model will never be seriously considered no matter how well thought out. I'll look over what you described later on in more detail. However thus far the only thing I see is a model premise. Not evidence. Let's think about this. Your going from t=0 to 380,000 years in the early universe thermodynamic history without covering any of the thermodynamic history of when each particle species drops out of thermal equilibrium. As a result your drawing conclusions based on images without covering how the particle species can affect those images. Every standard model particle drops out of equilibrium at specific temperatures. Each has its own number of degrees of freedom, each has different influences on the thermal blackbody temperature and distribution. You haven't covered any of these steps in any detail. I can for example calculate the number of photons or neutrinos that exist in the CMB data. Via the Bose Einstein and Fermi Dirac statistics. ( The steps to do so is in two of the articles I posted) (The filament images you posted are N Body code simulation images. It took one of the most advanced supercomputers over Three months to generate those.) Those N Body codes are based on the current mathematics and LCDM model as a test of its accuracy. Fundamental to that is the N Body codes to model our current understanding of gravity. So essentially your using images that strongly supports the current models as your evidence, that the current models are incorrect. When Those images support the current models. You have not shown this as you haven't posted any mathematics only images and your explanation. Volume of space time is no different that General space time. There is no such distinction. Space is simply geometric volume filled with the standard model particles. Space time is any metric of space that includes time as a vector. You cannot have volume of space time and general space time as the term space time is geometric volume of space with the time component as a vector. Also it isn't light dispersion causing the blue or red zones. It's an extremely minute difference in temperature. Not light dispersion. Using the Bose Einstein statistics for the Bosons in this case the number of photons that temperature difference will be extremely close in the calculated number of photons. In point of detail the number of photons will calculate the same. The only difference is a slightly lower wavelength for the colder region. Which is not the same as dispersion. What the red regions show is a slightly higher density than the colder regions. Not the other way around. Higher density of particles per volume = higher temperature not colder. [latex]pV=NrT[/latex] The temperature contributions of each particle species in combination and separately is calculated via the Bose Einstein and Fermi Dirac statistics which includes Boltzmann. Here is a quick coverage of some of what you will need. First off we need to define how a force is mediated. This is done through the related bosons. -Photons are the force carriers of the electromagnetic field. -W and Z bosons are the force carriers which mediate the weak force. -Gluons are the fundamental force carriers underlying the strong force. -Higgs boson mediates mass for guage bosons and W and Z bosons(not all particles) graviton mediates gravity???? essentially what this means is the transfer the force from one particle to another. This is important. Now we need to consider the ideal gas laws in thermodynamics or specifically thermal equilibrium. Particle reactions in thermal equilibrium are essentially unstable, its a factor of temperature, density and volume, which are all related by the equation [latex]PV=nRT[/latex] The relation forms used with bosons however is Bose-Einstein statistics or distribution now to explain this is further detail. Bosons become indistinquishable from one another where N is the number of particles and V is the volume and nq is the quantum concentration, for which the interparticle distance is equal to the thermal de Broglie wavelength [latex]q=\frac{N}{V}+\ge+n_q[/latex] the number of particles of the 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] You can google each for better information I posted those relations to show how the ideal gas laws are done in regards to fermions and bosons. as opposed to the first formula. Now when the particle species except gravity are in thermal equilbrium the types of bosons become indistinquishable from one another, hence the forces are indistinqishable as well. They would all have the same temperature and wavelength. Also any reactions that do occur such as as I said are unstable any reaction will quickly have the reverse reaction. In regards to the forces this also apply to the fundamental interactions. You can see the chart and wiki coverage here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction Now your going to also need to show how your model also leads to the acceleration equation. [latex]H^2 = \left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2 = \frac{8 \pi G}{3}\rho - \frac{kc^2}{a^2}\dot{H} + H^2 = \frac{\ddot{a}}{a} = - \frac{4\pi G}{3}\left(\rho + \frac{3p}{c^2}\right)[/latex] The second derivitive of a [latex]- \left(\rho + \frac{3p}{c^2}\right)[/latex] Shows the relationship of how energy density and pressure determines the rate of expansion. This is what your model doesn't show by your descriptive. You need the math not descriptions. Each particle species has energy density to pressure influences that collectively combine to form the acceleration equation. The radiation dominant, matter dominant and lambda dominant have different variations. This section is complete garbage. Particle spin is nothing like rotational spin... "Bosons are particles whose wavefunction is symmetric under such an exchange, so if we swap the particles the wavefunction does not change. Fermions are particles whose wavefunction is antisymmetric, so under such a swap the wavefunction gets a minus sign, meaning that the amplitude for two identical fermions to occupy the same state must be zero. " https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin%E2%80%93statistics_theorem Spin 1/2 particles do not return to their original quantum state after a 360 degree rotation. They are in the oppsosite quantum phase. It takes a 720 degree rotation to return to its initial state. that's covered here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics) So your images does nothing even similar to describe particle spin. Which by the way is an intrinsic property of the particle. The rest of the post in how you have rotations generating energy without causing changes to the initial rotation. Is quite frankly a clear violation of the conservation laws. You cannot have a system maintain the same rate of rotation create energy that is removed from the rotating object and maintain the same rate of rotation. That part should have been obvious. particularly since we already discussed the conservation laws. I should note the conservation of angular momentum for a particle itself is different than the conservation of angular momentum of say a disk. I would study this link. In particular the quantum sections. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum Other conservation laws in particle physics is Conservation of charge, isospin, color, strangeness, parity, baryon, flavor

I think you better look at the later datasets the Planck anomoly turned out to be a calibration error.

Just open a new thread in speculations. Or place a request to mods to move the thread

Not quite the risk is reduced not eliminated. It depends not just on frequency and power but also on soft tissue resonance. Here is a sample chart. https://www.google.ca/url?q=http://www.bccdc.ca/NR/rdonlyres/ECBB20E0-A717-4FE9-BAE1-B1E48334459C/0/Section13Final06062013.pdf&sa=U&ei=unWVVYvdAYuWgwSFjbUQ&ved=0CBcQFjAC&sig2=GLJEqGALUuhv8SYdlWfY3g&usg=AFQjCNGh9dzZ5U9nPARwYYRpS4iKEdQBZg safe threshold limits is the safe exposure time. and it depends on the SAR value.

Here is the problem, personal models need to be in the speculation forum. Not the mainstream physics forum. So I would recommend opening a thread there to discuss your personal model. Despite your model though the Higgs boson is a confirmed particle. This is confirmed not just at Cern but several LHCs.

Lol ask him why people that have travelled around the world haven't fallen off the edge of the World.

Completely wrong with how expansion works. Expansion is not due to astronomical objects gaining inertia. It's due to a change in volume between objects. The objects themselves are not changing in size. Nor is the mass changing in size, whatever that word salad means. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion 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 As far as particle physics is concerned. The electron can only potentially decay into less massive particles. Particles only decay into less massive particles. Not the other way around. Then you also have your conservation rules which dictate which decays are possible. Conservation of charge, Lepton and baryon number, flavor, energy/momentum, spin, parity, isospin.

There is no professional answer to what happens at t=0 to t=10^-45 seconds that is beyond speculative models. Those models include the ones I've posted. Our physics breaks down at this era into what is known as the big bang singularity state of unknown size and origin. All these alternative ideas are just proposals. You have to understand particle accelerators cannot come close to generating the temperatures involved. So we can only make reasonable guesses based on current particle physics understanding. Also we cannot observe anything prior to the surface of last scattering on the CMB. Photon light path has too short a mean free path due to other particle interference. Prior to last scattering is the dark ages. It's hoped detecting the cosmic neutrino background will help gather data before the last scattering surface. Grand unification models depends on which particle physics models are most accurate. The list includes SO(10) MSM minimal standard model SO(10) MSSM minimal super symmetric. These are currently the two main contenders. The hope is we can finally detect super symmetric particles. All multiverse model proposals are hoping to find evidence of a previous interaction in the CMB. Baryon accoustic oscillations offer some clues on inflation itself but the data isn't thus far conclusive enough to narrow down the list. Any knowledge we have prior to the surface of last scattering is based upon thermodynamic, GR, the ideal gas laws and particle physics tests not upon actual observation. So any of the models I've posted are all valid until proven invalid... They all make testable predictions otherwise they wouldn't be a model. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe So there is no mainstream professional answer to your question. Your quantum foam model is currently in the form of LQC loop quantum gravity. This model avoids the singularity issue by using a bounce from a previous collapsed universe. Quantum foam itself was essential proven inaccurate as it lead to energy levels 120 orders of magnitude too high. Also the tests that were done showed no evidence of space being lumpy as opposed to smooth. They timed different wavelengths of light from supernova and found no difference in arrival times due to wavelength interactions of space time quantum foam. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam Though counter arguments still exist So I can't give you an answer to a problem with no conclusive answer. I can only point you into possible proposals. By the way GUT happens to be a field I enjoy studying. Here is some of the better materials I found. http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdfGRAND UNIFIED THEORIES On Higgs involvement in Higgs inflation, potentially dark matter, and the cosmological constant. (These are based on the S0(10) primarily MSSM minimal super symmetric standard model.) Note these articles all intensily involve the Higgs field metastability Mexican hat potential. 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 The left hand right hand neutrinos involves Pati Salam model. Which is a subset of SO(10) SO(10) A La Pati-Salam http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0204097 Another helpful article is this gem The Phenomenology of Right Handed Neutrinos http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6912

Have you thought to look into the safe threshhold limits on radiative power in RF frequency ranges? Being near 25 watt antennas at RF frequencies is dangerous enough. Your talking about using a similar process at potentially higher wattage from space. You might want to consider those hazards not just to humans but to insects birds etc. Lol not to mention your talking about radiating a signal on a steady stream through the atmosphere. That would have the additional side effect of temperature changes in that area. Depending on frequency and transmission power. Might want to consider potential climate effects. Let alone any political concerns on a nearby population. We are dealing with a regulated body. Every country has its frequency control regulations.

Well I can't really state a 5d dimension is impossible. There has been similar ideas though they refer to them as Branes. Aka a version of string theory. In the case I'm thinking of is the Ekpyrotic universe. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0103239v3.pdf I should however note the Planck dataset measurements specifically state the observations do not support this model. I'm sure there is other possible alternates.