Mordred

Good answer +1

The universe doesn't have a rotation, a rotation also implies a center, and preffered location and direction. Measurement disagree with this hypothesis, with the huge number of galaxies and super clusters we have mapped thus far there is no discernable nor detectable preffered direction or rotation. Another evidence supporting no rotation is Ray casting from the CMB. Scientists are currently mapping today's structures to the CMB. No rotation is detected however slow. "The spherical map matter projection, in both the Born approximation and ML imple- mentations, can be particularly useful in cross-correlation studies between the CMB with other tracers of mass and foreground sources, for characterizing the simulation of mock cat- alogues of observables built from N-Body simulations. The tomography of LSS, which is an intrinsic feature of the two lensing approaches analysed in this work, can be exploited to investigate different cosmological scenarios, looking at the effects of different DE models on small scales as well on the whole evolution of the matter in Universe. These feature will be of great importance for upcoming projects such as the Euclid satellite that can fully exploit the capabilities of cross-correlation as cosmological probe." http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.7680 Black holes will never suck the entire universe up. After all this time you still have no mathematic support for your personal model?

Some people are I interested but are having difficulty following your line of thought. I've read George Gamows "one,two,three infinity". I still have a copy as some of his mathematics I find useful.Though that book is very basic math (I also tend to collect a lot of textbook in physics subjects, my earliest was written on 1921) You might try showing how the formulas you posted thus far compare to the GR methodology.

No prob glad to help

Roflmao sorry about that

You unfortunately have this scenario wrong as well. The big crunch, and big bounce requires that the universe actual density to be larger than the critical density. Though the critical density term used to define the turning point between an expanding and a contracting universe, this was prior to the discovery of the cosmological constant. 3 [latex]\rho_c=\frac{3H^2}{8\pi G}[/latex] [latex]\Omega=\frac{\rho}{\rho_c}=\frac{8\pi G\rho}{3H^2}[/latex] Today the actual density equals the critical density. This leads to an average mean energy density of [latex]9.9*10^{-30} g/cm^3[/latex] Above is WMAP value Planck is roughly [latex]10^{-29} g/cm^3[/latex]. I would have to check the latest Planck dataset Or if you prefer [latex]6.6*10^{-10} joules/cm^3[/latex]. By the way this also means the universe geometry is close to flat. Here is a universe geometry article I wrote http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry page 2 covers the FLRW metric in terms of distance measures. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ The metric forms is from Barbera Rydens Introductory to cosmology

Your view of how the Big rip occurs is inaccurate. First off the big rip requires the cosmological constant to increase in energy density, sufficient enough to overcome the binding energy of gravity then the strong force. Thus far their is no evidence of an evolving constant. So the big rip is considered highly unlikely. Keep in mind the big rip was published prior to WMAP and Planck. Back then the exact average energy density wasn't known, we also didn't know the value of w [latex] w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex] The big rip requires phantom energy with equation of state w [latex]w<-1[/latex] The cosmological constant is currently [latex]w=-1[/latex] Here is the big rip paper. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302506

All forms of energy can create particles, keep in mind energy is a property of particles. Doesn't exist on its own. The LHC works by speeding up hadrons, This gives the hadron greater energy. Particles other than the photon has rest mass, when you accelerate a particle it gains kinetic energy and inertial mass. Particles can only decay into smaller particles, so to create the Higgs boson one must accelerate protons to sufficient energy larger than the Higgs boson. (Including its anti particle.) We haven't found any form of dark matter in the LHC. Anti matter has the exact characteristics as its normal partner, except they have opposite charge. The reason they form in pairs is conservation of charge, how particles decay and form follows several conservation rules. Lepton number, energy,color,flavor,charge, baryon number,parity, spin and isospin. Might have missed one or two. Here is a free cosmology/particle physics textbook http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde This article covers BBN extremely well in the same format as Scott Dodelson's "Modern Cosmology" textbook http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis these two articles provide a decent overview of cosmology. 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 Here is one on particle physics in regards to GUT theories (covers indirectly how BBN works) http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdfGRAND UNIFIED THEORIES As your also interested in relativity these articles are useful. The first is low level math strictly in Minkowskii metric form. (Excellent introduction level) http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/ This one is intermediate level, lengthy and high math. However it's an excellent reference. http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau my signature has numerous other articles on my webpage. I setup the page to help teach textbook Cosmology. I don't push any personal views on the chosen articles. If particle physics is of interest this guide will be invaluable, (teaches primarily the related mathematics, in particular differential geometry, as well as lie algebra.) Part 2 also includes a good section on relativity. http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395part 2

Here is how to calculate a geosynchronous orbit. http://m.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-calculate-the-period-and-orbiting-radius-of.html

Actually there is two forms of singularity though they are based upon the same causes. One is the singularity described by black holes. The other is when physics can no longer accurately describe a condition, too many infinities occur. This is the case with BB. We don't know the size of the universe, it could be finite or infinite in size. BB doesn't attempt to describe how the universe began. It only describes our region of observation. From 10-43 seconds after BB forward. Prior to that our understanding of the processes breaks down. BB describes our observable universe or region of shared causality. Now back to multiverses, we can only conjecture the possibility, we have zero evidence of a multiverse. The bubble universe conjecture arises from chaotic eternal inflation. In this process small anisotropy regions expand at different rates forming different universes. Keep in mind chaotic eternal inflation is only 1 of 72 viable inflation models. There is numerous equally viable inflation models. The Planck datasets may have reduced this number to roughly 7. As it's measurements support the single scalar models.

The expanding faster the further away you look is an apparent velocity. Your correct that expansion is the same rate everywhere roughly 70 km/s/Mpc. This is regardless of location. Now for the apparent velocity bit. This is a consequence of Hubbles law. Note recessive velocity is an apparent velocity that depends on distance from the observer. It is not a true velocity as none of the galaxies gain inertia from expansion. Hubbles law states the greater the distance the greater the recessive velocity [latex]v_r=H_OD[/latex] these articles will help cover expansion. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry 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. The last one is particularly good in covering various misconceptions.

. No problem. I unfortunately, how one particle can decay into another follows numerous conservation rules. Co conservation of momentum, charge, Lepton number,baryon number, isospin, energy. Just to mention a few lol One of the better textbooks is particle physics by Griffith. How particles change from one form to another follows varyious conservation rules. Many not commonlY known. It's easy to think you understand until you study in depth.

Lol emotions and logic never equate well. Try talking science to my wife. Especially since I had a few. "Why are you so interested in this space, universe stuff, you will never go there ?" reply " I am already there" She still doesn't get it lol (PS she has no prob spending the money from my skills lol)

Here lets do a fast and dirty breakdown of solar formation.(probably lead to some corrections lol) Start with an isothermal sphere of plasma that is homogeneous and istotropic. Hit the plasma with a significant influence. One conjecture is a shock waves from a nearby super nova. This causes anistropies. Aids in star formation as a higher density region of gas will condense due to gravity. Now as the sun condenses from all the gas particles conservation of momentum applies. Each particle imparts a minute influence on its rotation. It starts to spin. As it is the greatest mass other particles start orbitting that body. This orbitting causes the isothermal sphere to flatten into a disk. Density increases as the materials from the isothermal sphere compresses into the disk. This allows particles to interact and combine in dust and asteroids. Larger asteroids start gathering other material via gravity. Now here is an important factor f=ma. Different particles start seperating into regions. (Same method as you can spin blood to seperate white blood cells, plasma and red blood cells). Different elements will develop different orbits. However the force influence itself moves faster than the particles. So much like how galaxies form and the if Saturn form is via density waves. Ever wonder why gas giants are where they are? Why different planets have different compositions? Now the Sun has influence such as the ones mentioned in this thread, this causes a limit on planet formation. There you have it extremely rough and dirty lol not my usual style. Depends on the rate of temperature change primarily and duration of temperature variations As well as the rate of spin prior to the xray (photon ) hitting it. As well as trajectory of the photon. All electromagnetic interactions are mediated via photons ( good way to understand conservation of angular momentum, study the game pool) Also teaches deflection angles Side note this has gone beyond the subject of the thread, however excellent information is coming from the side notes. Hopefully the mods allows a continuation or split the threads into its individual subjects. (As you are showing a keen interest in learning the full physics. Albeit some misconceptions I have awarded you 3+

We're dealing with dust the size of sand on a beach, ever try heating one side and keeping the other side significantly cooler. Wouldn't take long for heat convection to balance the temperature. Dust usually has some spin in space, minute variations in temperature, collisions with other particles impart spin. Follows the conservation of angular momentum just like any other object. I seriously doubt you would find a significant % of dust without some rotation. Would actually be an extremely small % Remember the size. 1 µm to 1 mm in diameter.= dust..or grains of sand if you prefer The Poynting Robertson metric only affects this size range. However as this size range gradually conglomerates to larger rocks, such as the proto plasma disk, having a significant reduction of dust available prevents formation of larger bodies such as planets. ( This is where the debate on the lifetime of dust is so vital and highly contested.)

( We see evidence that this basic principle works all the time, we know Heat, kinetic energy provides thrust) Recall the size of the particles affected. Now let those particles tumble spin etc, can you say one side is consistently hotter than the other? The rest of the above is accurate Where would you define a point of impact in a gaseous body

Think of it in terms of thermodynamics. Heat one side of a particle that heat radiates from the particle itself. A good example is using a laser to move an asteroid trajectory. This effect combined with gravity and radiation pressure causes the curved orbital. The radiating heat assists in degradation of the particles orbit. Basically because the dust is reradiating heat, it slows down. When you slow down an orbitting body you change its orbit. Poynting vector is simply one of the more well known methods of clearing dust. The solar winds only affect a small % of the infalling particles and only charged particles of small size

Roflmao sounds like some of the beer conversions I've had describing thermodynamic processes in BB nucleosynthesis.

Lol true, however it is in a textbook style with excellent supporting descriptives, as well as good visuals aids. All things considering it is an excellent coverage of the solar winds in all its dynamics. My advise read through it, use it as a reference aid to ask questions regarding the material. If you start a new thread on those questions. Post the article then refer to the section. In all honesty that's the best way to truly learn on forums. Find a reference article, post that article and ask questions on specific sections. (Your more likely to avoid drawing false conclusions by doing so. It's a method that served me well when I first started studying physics) Just make sure the material isn't copyright

Ok now we're define definetely hitting a tricky subject matter. Unfortunately there is no truly easy way to explain solar winds. First we need to decide it into two categories. Fast solar winds and slow solar winds. (Highly important as it involves different processes, as well as source) Now one thing to realize is what particles are affected by solar winds? We decide this into two groups ions and electrons. (Charged particles). Those charged particles are accelerated via magnetic convection in the fast solar wind this convection is generated by coronal holes. But only charged particles with the right momentum to start with are accelerated. Charged particles slightly slower than the magnetic wave phase velocity are accelerated, particles faster than the magnetic wave phase velocity is decelerated. Those charged particles must resonate with the magnetic wave phase velocity to become solar wind particles. Best analogy think of how a surfer must match speeds with a wave of water. Same principle Google Landau damping for further details. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landau_damping Now particles that do resonate behave differently ions will rotate with a left handedness electrons with a right handedness. ( visualize a spring turn that spring left (left handedness, or right Right handedness. (Gyromagnetic ratio) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyromagnetic_ratio here is a detailed article on solar winds. It's rather involved and I certainly didn't paint the full picture...... nor can I in one post without wrting a book. Lol http://www.ieap.uni-kiel.de/et/people/wimmer/teaching/et2/et2.pdf It's been awhile since I last read the last paper, I pulled it from my drop box archives (If I recall it correctly there is a section on Poynting Robertson as well as the effects of redshift)

What is matter? What constitutes matter are particles that take up space, these particles are fermions. No two fermionic particles of the same quantum number state can reside in a volume at the same time. (Pauli exclusion principle). This group includes electron, proton neutron etc.) An infinite number of bosons however are excluded, an infinite number of bosons can reside in the same volume. Energy doesn't exist on its own, it is a property of particles. Energy is transferred from particle to particle via gauge bosons. Photons for the electromagnetic force, gluons for the strong force, w and z bosons for the weak force. Possibly gravitons for gravity. The Higgs boson gives mass to only fundamental particles. Mass is resistance to inertia, that resistance is due to the binding energies of the above forces, the primary source of mass is the strong force. Black holes have mass so must therefore be comprised of particles, (not necessarily fermions). We cannot gather any data past the event horizon, but we can still understand how they work via GR, thermodynamic laws, and particle physics. I can show you a 1000 page article chock full of the metrics involved in the study of black holes (in particular the accretion disk). So what we do know on BH's is more extensive than you realize. Anything beyond the EH is modelled possibilities, we cannot directly test beyond the EH, we can however apply indirect measurements. One test in this paper proposes a test to see if the BH is solid or singular beyond the EH, via indirect measurements of the accretion jets. Black holes can acquire as well as lose mass, mass and energy are equivalent via e=mc^2 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 (Ps it's never a good idea to state limits of what science understands, when you don't have a comprehensive understanding of a particular field). That amounts to the limit of what you yourself understands not what science understands

Asking questions isn't a problem or getting clarification on something you heard in pop media literature. As mentioned personal theories require mathematics, this aspect is normal on any forum, as the only way to see if a model has merit is comparing the mathematics against the existing models. It also helps to show how predictive a model is. We have an excellent body of experts on this forum willing to teach and provide guidance. For those that want to learn it is an excellent site.

Redshift is a change in frequency not momentum. Momentum of photons is always c. The change in kinetic energy is a function of the temperature in the PR equations.

May be outward initially but the Poynting Roberston metric applies to the entire solar system. Gradually it will cause sufficient change in momentum to clean up the dust. You've already noticed this so the rest is more fyi of other readers The reason for the change in momentum is simple. Gravity works it is a continuous force acting upon the dust. The only way it can escape is if it exceeds escape velocity. The force of gravity also exceeds the radiation pressure so the net force is toward the sun The last link covers the metrics study it in detail. Look at the term radiation pressure. Specifically the definion of pressure=force per unit area. Solar sails work with a large surface area which provides more thrust due to more force. Dust has a minute surface area so radiation pressure exerts negligible force upon dust. Gravity however is the same force regardless of surface area. No idea on the negative score though I myself rarely give negative points.

Here is an examination for you key note the line under the Poynting Robertson effect. "the absorption of this radiation leads to a force with a component against the direction of movement. (The angle of aberration is extremely small since the radiation is moving at the speed of light while the dust grain is moving many orders of magnitude slower than that.) The result is a slow spiral of dust grains into the Sun. Over long periods of time this effect cleans out much of the dust in the Solar System" http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting%E2%80%93Robertson_effect Here is an examination on fluffy particles. This article specifically calculates the lifetimes of particles. Key note they still fall into the sun eventually.... "Because fluffy grains rotating rapidly in random orientations are weakly perturbed by the nonradial radiation pressure, the equation of motion assuming β2 = β3 = 0 can reasonably well describe their trajectories. As a result, the rapidly and randomly rotating grains spiral into the Sun due to the PoyntingRobertson effect even though they are fluffy aggregates. " http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksite/library/kimura02a.pdf The last link has the relevant equations. (By the way the question is a good one, as it leads to a greater understanding of solar system dynamics. Radiation pressure vs gravity) Also note the Poynting Robertson effect is smaller particles ie the comet trail or exploded comet material. Larger grains also fall into the sun as the radiation pressure is negligible compared to the Suns gravity for larger bodies . ( unless that body has achieved escape velocity, but that also depends on trajectory as well as velocity)