Mordred

Think in terms of thermodynamics. PV=nRT as the volume increases energy density, pressure and temperature decreases. This is one evidence of expansion. In the case of matter contraction the ideal gas laws also apply even for solids. Now as a side note each of the four forces has a field strength that depends upon radius. Then as mentioned you also have the speed of light and redshift effects to account for. All these point to expansion, as opposed to matter contraction. As Delta mentioned its possible to make a coordinate system work but it will require more than just distance measures.

Incorrect, the sun is no different than any other gravitational body such as planets. We certainly do have meteorites that strike the Earth. Yes objects can fall into an orbit but they can also strike the sun depending on its momentum and trajectory.

The last question delves into another mystery. Baryogenises and subsequently leptogenesis. Once again the hope lies in the left hand and right hand reactions of the SO(10). Which incorporates Patti Salam. Well done we covered a huge volume of subjects albeit briefly my hope is you study each in greater detail. (As I have). Feel free to ask for clarity and I recommend starting new threads on the particular aspects on each subject matter. Nice discussing physics with someone truly willing to learn. WELL DONE. +1 reputation If you can afford textbooks on cosmology I recommend Introductory to Cosmology by Barbera Ryden. Modern Cosmology 2nd edition by Scott Dodelson. Introductory to particle physics via Griffith. (All his books are excellent) (Signature on my posts has numerous articles, including a good expansion redshift calculator)

Correct 100% this is where we hit the matter dominant era into the lambda (cosmological constant era). Roughly universe age 7.3 billion years age Cosmology chronology follows three key eras . Radiation dominant, matter dominant and lambda dominant. Key note all eras has expansion, just different rates. During the matter dominant expansion was slowing down. However due to the increase in volume the cosmological constant was able to overcome the force of gravity becoming the lambda dominant era we see today. In terms of thermodynamics having a negative pressure term isn't the dilemma. The dilemma in the cosmological constant is "why is it constant?" And why is it so close to zero. Currently the best hypothesis has to do with SO(10) Higgs field metrics. At least according to my extensive research into the cosmological constant problem. Last 10 years lol. I never agreed with quintessence, I also firmly believe expansion and inflation can be described via particle physics and the ideal gas laws without the need for exotic virtual particles such as the curvaton and inflaton. Granted there are still 70+ observable to accurate inflation models. I spent years studying expansion, inflation is simply one aspect of the same. All of Cosmology breaks down into particle physics and how the Four forces, gravity, electrodynamics,weak and strong force interacts. Those interactions are described via the ideal gas laws. (Side note you can describe any solid as well via those laws) Particle physics of course introduces New interaction laws. Conservation of baryons,leptons,color,flavor,isospin,charge,etc. All in all gravity is merely one of four primary forces. Coincidentally the weakest. (Another mystery) Here is some of my favourite articles GUT theories http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdfThe Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Baez and John Huerta http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdfGRAND UNIFIED THEORIES 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

No space is not made of fabric. Space is geometric volume. That volume contains the standard model particles. How particles interact is described by differential geometry relations. Those relations is what is called curvature of space time. Let's try this. Gravity affects mass. Mass is resistance to inertia. Gravity cannot affect volume as volume has no mass, it affects the standard model particle that reside in space. Space time is any geometric model that includes space with time as a vector component. Space time curvature is a geometric relation of gravities influential strength upon particles at a given radius and location. In expansion it is simply a change in volume. No new energy/particles is created to change the volume. This would violate the conservation of energy laws Hint think of how the universe expands or contracts as an ideal gas. The Einstein field equations also uses the ideal gas laws. Look at the equations of state in cosmology. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) Edit. GR is a coordinate system metric, space time curvature can also be accurately described as a coordinate influence upon mass within space time.

The strength of gravity falls off as a function of radius. Look at universal gravitational law. It's strength the further away decreases over distance. The big bang isn't an explosion. It is a hot dense state at 10^-29 seconds forward. Inflation is a rapid expansion of space. Not an explosion. You might want to read these articles covering common big bang 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 By the way +1 you are actually studying. Feel free to ask any questions on the material I'm presenting. Of particular importance is the balloon analogy. The first two links cover that. (Keep in mind they are analogies in how every object moves from each other equally with no change in angles only) You cannot get the same effect from an explosion. (PS as to gravity the article isn't completely accurate all forms of energy density can cause gravity, I tried to keep the articles as simple as possible. The cosmological constant has in terms of the metrics only...anti gravity like metrics. But it is NOT anti gravity.). I left that part out to avoid confusion. (Lol Brian Powell and I had a discussion on the preferred descriptive, we decided in favor of least confusion. He has a PH.D in Philosophies of Cosmology. Also the author of the second link. Coincidentally he also visits forums)

Could mean GR needs adapting or you didn't correctly apply GR. Without further detail one cannot say. Keep in mind how well tested GR is. The latter part is accurate, mathematics is a tool of modelling. If evidence comes along that the math doesn't support the mathematics can and does change. Good example is the FLRW metrics before the discovery of the cosmological constant aka dark energy. The problem is most people and older articles don't include the later versions of a metric. Leads to confusion. For example older cosmological textbooks used to use conformal distance. This is pre cosmological constant. Now the FLRW metric uses commoving distance. GR and SR also adapts though I'm not as familiar with its evolution in the last 80 years.

Not when you look at scales of 100 Mpc and above. The universe becomes extremely homogeneous and isotropic. What your describing is localized gravitational variances covered under the Einstein field equations.. In particular the stress energy tensor to pressure relations due to gravity. [latex]T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U^\mu U^\nu+p\eta^{\mu\nu}[/latex] Here is two articles I wrote with some help http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry The second page of the last article covers distance measures in the FLRW metric which includes the ideal gas laws. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ If you look at the CMB images those variations in temperature is 1/1000th Of a degree variation. It that scale it is incredibly homogeneous and isotropic. The FLRW metric translates from the above into the form [latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a{t^2}d{r^2}+{S,k}{r^2}d\Omega^2[/latex] [latex]S\kappa r= \begin{cases} R sin r/R &k=+1\\ r &k=0\\ R sinr/R &k=-1 \end {cases}[/latex] Granted you need the full Einstein field equation (I didn't include the curvature and ricci tensors) as well as the ideal gas equations.

You might want to watch This excellent video. Posted in a thread by Swansort on the subject. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87347-why-hidden-variables-dont-work/ The video would be a good one for being in a pinned thread

Zero energy universe was an older model of a universe from nothing universe. It involved the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The total sum of energy is zero but not on the localized regions. The model relied upon a Cartesian metric and requires pseudo tensors to define curvature. Here is a good review on it. http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605063

Black holes typically rotate, it's rotation would impart upon a universe inside its EH. Also they feed upon material at an inconsistent rate,(available matter). This alters the amount of incoming energy as well as spin rates. The universe inside a BH has been proposed in a few forms. BH inside a white hole included. The problem with the idea is the above as well as maintaining the cosmological principle. A homogeneous and isotropic universe. (No preferred direction or location). This principle is extremely tested via measurement data in particular WMAP and Planck datasets. Prior to those datasets is when the universe inside a BH models were strongest. At least the ones I am familiar with. It's not so much a change in physics as a measurement agreement problem. Any rotating universe has a preferred location and direction. Poplowskii used to support a spin and torsion model (inside the EH.). I don't know if he's still pursuing this idea since Planck.

PV=nRT ideal gas law http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law higher energy density via smaller volume means higher pressure and temperature. Here is two handy articles. 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 First is a full textbook. The second covers particle interactions and temperature using the Bose-Einstein and Fermi Dirac statistics. In which the second law of thermodynamics can be written in the form. [latex]TdS=d\mu+PdV[/latex] [latex] \mu=\rho V[/latex]

distance measures, of expansion isn't the only piece of evidence. Thermodynamics is also a key piece. Let's use your example if we were moving toward some BH of unimaginable portion, other matter would also be moving the same. As that matter starts to compress the ideal gas laws tells us the temperature of the universe should increase. However expansion is an increase in volume this the temperature is dropping. From CMB roughly 3000 Kelvin to now at roughly 2.7 Kelvin. This can only occur via a change (increase in volume) Measurements also show there is no preferred direction or location to how bodies move due to expansion. Your idea has both.

Expansion and the energy density to pressure relations that determines how the universe expands is covered under the acceleration equation. The wiki equations of state page has a decent coverage. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_group See details on the Lorentz group

Insulting the people that are trying to show you basic physics will not help your case. Thus far this thread I count not less than four physicists on this thread of various fields tell you your wrong. I also agree this has nothing to do with perpetual motion/energy. For the same reasons provided by the others

The improvement I see needed in the GR section is in details. One recommendation is to show its compatibility to the SO(3) symmetry Lorentz group. Details on how you arrive at your modifications is also recommended. Remember GR is incredibly well tested. So the more detail the better your chances of publication you have. Currently traveling willing look closer later on.

Take a 2" line at 20 psi if you reduce contents of the 2" line to a 1" Line you get greater pressure. Pressure means force. So for instance in Hydraulics greater pressure is greater lifting capacity Thanks I couldn't remember the technical term lol.

A transfer pump cares about volume not pressure. Ie move contents of tank a to tank b. Line size just needs to be sufficient for the volume rating. Pressure pump applications are different line diameter is critical

Its not necessarily speed but change in pressure. Though velocity can come into play. It depends on what the pumps application is. Not all pumps have difference inlet/outlets. Transfer pumps have identical inlet outlets. Those type of pumps doesn't care about pressure. Their function is to move a fluid from a to b. Pressure pumps are designed to increase the pressure, placing the same volume of material inlet to outlet side and reducing the area of piping from one side to the other increases the pressure. Hydraulics is based on pressure/volume relations.

Volume of flow, when you increase pressure you are moving a greater volume of material compared to a lower pressure inlet. In short its to make sure you have enough inlet material to prevent pump cavitation, which can damage a pump

Ok recognizing this as under development I will offer some advise on direction. 1) get a spell/ grammar checker as well as someone to proof read it. (Numerous spelling errors and broken sentences) 2) show in mathematical details how GR or QM and the ideal gas laws describe a homogeneous and isotropic universe (accurately in accordance with well tested and well established models). 2) mathematically describe where those models break down or become inaccurate 3) show how your model can better describe or overcome those problems (again mathematically) 4) come up with a means to provide testability. 5) finish with a conclusions section reviewing the details within the article. Treat the paper in a similar format as a short dissertation that you would hand to a professor who strongly believes in GR. (Naturally requires detailed math and comparisons to the concordance models) Particularly if your goal is to gain a sponsor for arxiv (I didn't see any references to your reference articles, your going to need those as well. You will need to detail which reference applies at which principle and how it applies to your paper)

Lets try this approach, Special relativity has the following relation. [latex]ds^2=c^2dt^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2[/latex] (coordinate in Cartesian form) lets define the conservation laws of a perfect fluid in the rest frame of CoM that homogeneous and isotropic. [latex]\rho=0[/latex] =energy density=0 [latex]\bigtriangledown p=0[/latex] Energy density defined by [latex]\rho=nmc^2[/latex] n is number of particles of mass m. Pressure is in direction i [latex]p_i=nmv_i^2[/latex] Pressure is [latex]p=\frac{f}{A}[/latex] Where the force acting on a surface area (radius) is[latex] f=\frac{mv}{dt}(nvdt)A[/latex] This equates to the stress energy tensor relations to energy density and pressure relations. [latex]T{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)v^{\mu}v^{\nu}-pg^{\mu\nu}[/latex] The above is in the Minkowskii special relativity limits. However it shows the relationship between gravity and how it correlates to energy density and pressure How a particle moves is defined by the curvature tensor (which incorporates the stress energy tensor) [latex]G_{\mu\nu}=R_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}R[/latex] The Reimann manifold is defined by the ricci tensor. [latex]R_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}R[/latex] Don't worry if you can't follow the math itself. This is just to show how energy density and pressure due to gravity distribution relations correlates to the curvature of what is oft termed space time. Space is simply volume. That volume has the standard model particles. Gravity influences those particles. The geometric relation of that influence via the strength of gravity at various distances is what is referred to as space time curvature. (None of the above requires a medium. Just standard model particles and subsequently gravity via mass.) Hope this helps By the way the electromagnetic force is carried via particle to particle interactions by the electromagnetic force boson which is photons. Edit minor correction of curvature tensor formula

In point of interest the QFT specific study of gravity is Quantum geometrodynamics, No problem thinking is good, the Einstein field equations do include the ideal gas laws. So your thinking isn't particularly far fetched. It's just not the same as ether. Lol were just online at the same time on this thread (As you are asking a legit question in true interest in learning +1)

Key word of importance in Ajb's answer is "assign". For example a vector field you assign every point in space a baseline vector value. Then describe the regions of influence upon that vector field.