Mordred

Space is merely volume or distance a common mistake is thinking it is some substance. Space time is a geometric distribution of gravities influence upon particles that resides in that volume. This doesn't change even with virtual particles. Nor does this fact change with string theory. When you see terms such as stretching, created, curved etc they are describing geoemetric influences upon particles and their geometric distribution. Not that space itself is a fabric or substance. The Einstein field equations, GR, and FLRW metric all treat space time as an ideal gas. These equations all conform to the ideal gas laws. So does the cosmological constant and dark energy. A lot of pop media articles use those terms but when you study their professional papers they describe the geometry relations with their mathematics.

The others answered the question on spin rate frequency, but didn't cover the question "what determines the spin rate" Take any star with spin, now decrease the stars radius. The spin rate will increase. Conservation of angular momentum. Think of a spinning figure skater that tucks in her arms.

Take a large enough object moving fast enough then it could strike the sun. The evaporation process takes time to occur. Comets are typically icy, a conglomerate of material, they have a higher tendency to explode than say iron bodies

That's probably one of the worse wiki pages I've read. It's clearly under development. The author is extremely hesitant and doesn't have adequate supporting links. Nor any of the mathematics. No where near the quality on this page http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

Might help if you explain what you feel is wrong with relativity. It's impossible to provide assistance without knowing your understanding on the subject

Not sure myself, I found most of the tangents of this post far too distracting to wade through. (Which is rather amusing considering the articles and materials I typically wade through). Some of them being arxiv articles, by posters on this forum. ( Though I won't divulge whose)

Here is what he is referring to, look at this link and the relations between the coupling constants and the fine structure constant http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_constant Now here is the trick what happens to the fine structure constant during the electroweak phase? Wiki has a decent short hand answer. "In the electroweak theory unifying the weak interaction with electromagnetism, α is absorbed into two other coupling constants associated with the electroweak gauge fields. In this theory, the electromagnetic interaction is treated as a mixture of interactions associated with the electroweak fields. The strength of the electromagnetic interaction varies with the strength of the energy field." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant

No prob, they were the better quality articles I was able to track down. Judging from my search, I gathered that the primary study and data involves the GRB, star quake stability. So it may simply be not enough measurable data to determine other quake rates that don't lead to GRB's. Though it doesn't take a large quake value to cause a GRB. So in this your guess is as good as mine. Lol

This wouldn't work with observational evidence. Cosmological redshift is rather homogeneous and isotropic. We have tons of observational support in this. For example Planck and WMAP must filter out redshift to make their images. The technique goes something like this. Use a spectrum analyzer, examine the 21 cm hydrogen line. We know how light is influenced by hydrogen (as well as numerous other every day elements and composite compounds, lab tested). Measure a distance object. Look for the redshift of the spectrum, calibrate the image by removing the redshift Influence, then measure the CMB temperature. Redshift causes temperature reading errors so must be calibrated out. (Its also a good way to look for gravitational lenses and gravity wells. You stated we can't test redshift. Quite frankly your wrong. We test redshift data with every measurement we make of our universe. It's fundamental to account and make neasurement corrections due to redshift. As such we use a huge variety of methods to detect and account for redshift. Parallax is merely one method. I just described another. Google Hershals map sometime. The hydrogen spectral series is commonly used in cosmology http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series You'd be surprised just how many theories, principles goes into the BB model. To list a few GR, high energy particle physics, thermodynamic laws, QM, QED, QCD, QFT (yes BB involves these Good example of QM related and BB is inflation itself.) LCDM (hot big bang with cold dark matter) is the leading model. It isn't based on a mere few theories but a huge collection of various theories applied to both test and attempt to disprove the LCDM model. It's still around as it is still the best model for to observational evidence. ( not because of some funding popularity contest)

Found one paper of interest. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=13&ved=0CCEQFjACOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fice.as.arizona.edu%2F~dpsaltis%2FPhys305%2FShea.pdf&rct=j&q=neutron%20star%20quakes%20pdf&ei=WxI3VYmHN4G_sQSS2IBQ&usg=AFQjCNE3dA7c9ip3nAZVXlF9YLygTibGWA&sig2=0uguIrhj6Eba0di9epjmgw Here is one covering glitch rates http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=47&ved=0CC8QFjAGOCg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FInnocent_Eya%2Fpublication%2F262637319_Statistical_study_of_neutron_star_glitches%2Flinks%2F02e7e5384a624b149f000000.pdf&rct=j&q=neutron%20star%20quakes%20pdf&ei=hxw3VaCPONDjsASa04HQDg&usg=AFQjCNFBohVQaRs7DTq0csIeATgvhGedqQ&sig2=429SSVl1F3sQj8jxW5V7zg

I would think if you have larger quakes you should also have smaller quakes

Take a look and Google density waves on the protoplasmic disk. ( if you study it in sufficient detail, different element/compound mixtures result in varying velocities due to the sum of forces and acceleration). Key note f=ma now think in terms of a system wide force (system universal) upon particulates of varying mass. ( why do planets have different compositions).)(think sand and water)

Don't recall seeing any papers on that particular aspect. Though Its certainly feasible.

Not really it just means that early formation may be faster than suspected. Might hint for an earlier stage of anistrophies. There is variations in data sets for the exact age of the universe. That link for example didn't use the Planck age. 13.8 as opposed to 13.7.

Every observer today at rest will see an observable universe of 46 Gly We don't know if the entirety of the universe is finite or infinite The rate of expansion today is the same everywhere. Roughly 70 km/s/Mpc, as mentioned recessive velocity is an apparent measurement. Here is a good paper on it. 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 I included the balloon analogy as an aid

They do have quakes, those quakes release gamma radiation. The frequency of quakes is roughly 1 every decade or so in some stars examined. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starquake_(astrophysics)#Starquake

Looks like I'm close according to Ned Wright's redshift calculator 1.055 sec is z=5*10^9http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

Imatfaal I'm not sure I trust my calculations but I'm getting roughly z= 6*10^9 for neutrino background based on 1MeV decoupling.

Thanks String was in a hurry lol

Universe expansion, as the light travels to us the space behind and ahead of the light path expands Yes 92 billion light years is the radius. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion

The universe is our laboratory, we test the above formula with various methods such as parallax distance calculations. This includes gravity well influences from light crossing bodies. Redshift is extremely important. In distance measures, as such it is continously tested and studied. Here is a handy 191 slide coverage of the cosmic distance ladder which allows us to validate and test redshift in cosmological uses http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fterrytao.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F10%2Fcosmic-distance-ladder.pdf&rct=j&q=cosmic%20distance%20ladder%20pdf&ei=7GAxVZDYEsrVoATezYCgDQ&usg=AFQjCNE2Ja92G14PtyiIChUBDCfDwTlNvw&sig2=iQdeqwFggpyD24XnBvAF2A&bvm=bv.91071109,d.cGU As you can see from that slide we don't rely on just one method

Not completely all but a huge factor is. Take the background temperature, then use the Fermi Dirac equation for combined species of neutrinos. This will give the neutrino temperature. Today with blackbody temperature 2.7 k the neutrino temperature is roughly 1.9 k. The other problem is the standard cosmological redshift formula needs corrections. If your after the redshift of neutrinos, this is due to two phase ,matter dominant and radiation dominant eras. These two eras have influence upon redshift due to the different expansion rates, temp and pressure via the equations of state. Probably easier to just backward extrapolate the distance via the acceleration equation. Here is one related paper probably help http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.5632 The result should be roughly at a distance near 45 to 46 billion light years. As the cosmological event horizon is also the region of shared causality. However I just ran across this article the massive neutrinos will travel slower. http://physics.aps.org/story/v24/st15 Confuses the issue further. Currently looking at this thesis paper http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CDgQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-library.desy.de%2Fpreparch%2Fdesy%2Fthesis%2Fdesy-thesis-05-024.pdf&rct=j&q=distance%20to%20cosmic%20neutrino%20background%20&ei=WDIxVYvRFcWvyAScjIDgBw&usg=AFQjCNG5luClDfbtS6eRi-7q9Or7Xsj90Q&sig2=2lEDhxKO1o67-M0giXG4zw (I'll have more time later today to look at the calcs in greater detail) Located Dodelsons paper in regards to the second link. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=11&ved=0CBoQFjAAOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F0907.2887&rct=j&q=distance%20to%20cosmic%20neutrino%20background&ei=e0AxVdqKFYT6yASXoIHwCA&usg=AFQjCNHrxyfLWo_WV4Wr6ZOSOZXOLsDxZw&sig2=TCOdofb7-k195qXYtUFCfQ

Roughly 1 second after BB, which is later than inflation. So you still won't be able to directly detect inflation.

There is the means via [latex]\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2})}}[/latex]

Let me get back to you on how to do this in terms similar to assymtotic freedom. (Death in family, wrong frame atm)