Mordred

I stated I would find some references to ideal gas law usages in Cosmology applications. This coverage is decent without excessive complexity. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=14&ved=0CCMQFjADOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.damtp.cam.ac.uk%2Fresearch%2Fgr%2Fmembers%2Fgibbons%2FSPCnotes.pdf&rct=j&q=ideal%20gas%20law%20cosmology%20pdf&ei=MqW4VKjUB8vYoATEw4DgAw&usg=AFQjCNGPVyfYvYkuu5dntQ9P4dnaJ-HArQ&sig2=2g3SCjSAu_n5CaiVEYQIGA If you look under the textbook style articles under the link in my signature. There is further applicable articles. One I posted earlier. The article I just posted is easier to relate to though.

Now he does the dance of joy!!!!

Look the term critical angle via Snells law. Refraction angles. You can hit an angle where the light will not exit the medium. http://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/courses/m309-01a/chu/Fundamentals/snell.htm Keep in mind your mirrors have glass refraction index roughly 1.600 if I recall but that depends on the glass itself. Then you also have the air between the two glass plates. I won't comment on your divine/alien source theory

Light was found to not require a medium to travel through. As a matter of fact if it travels through a medium it will be slower than c.

The metric term was probably added to point out space is geometric volume. Aka metric expansion. How often do you hear people ask what is it in space that expands. Orb if space expands what is it made of? The term metric implies geometric volume distance. Lol I wouldn't be surprised if the term originated from some forum frustrated with answering those questions. Oh but GR says space stretched it must be some form of fabric. Lost track number of times I heard that one

Lol

The references I posted will help. I'll dig up some easier to relate to material on individual particle species influences. Bose-Einstein and fermi-Dirac distributions are not for beginning understanding

The main concern is the contracting of one set of species and the expansion of another set coupled with two directions of flow. No matter how I view this set of interactions. I see no way to maintain uniformity. This would mean any equation of the ideal gas laws, cosmology and the Einstein field field equations in Cosmology applications would be wrong. An ideal gas is a uniform gas approximation. LCDM and the Einstein field equations both employ the ideal gas laws. You have not yet shown a solution as to how to maintain sn isotropic and homogeneous universe with your descriptives. If anything your descriptives are the exact opposite. We would know if the density is rising by an increase in temperature. Which is by the way another critical piece of evidence that the universe is expanding. We didn't just rely on redshift. There is 10^90 particles roughly in the universe. Energy is a property of particles. Our universe is cooling down. Therefore the universe must expanding. It cannot drop in temperature without a lower density. Here is the cosmic energy inventory http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0406095v2.pdf"The Cosmic energy inventory"

In 2d 3d or 4d contraction implies an increase in density. How is your contraction different? Doesn't matter the distance scales or how many dimensions you use. Or even what is contracting. It still an increase in density of a particular property influence or particle species.

Your right I posted the related math of just that statement. Your model you considered just redshift. I'm pointing out you also have to think thermodynamics But instead of trying to understand why you choose to hand wave it away You present a model we present what we see wrong with it. You show us why we're wrong. Then we move to the next argument or hole in your model. That's the process

You change expansion to contraction for one particle species This will raise the temperature. [latex] pv=nRt[/latex]

You want the math I don't feel like posting the latex from a phone. Read the first 25 pages here. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 Then look at chapter 3 in this article. http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf particle physics in the early universe. This entire article discusses how the Einstein field equations work in terms of vectors and stress energy momentum tensors. Flipping directions does matter. http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau

Wrong I do mathematically know it won't from your descriptives. I already showed you the related thermodynamic reasons.

Lol well if you look at the math your model runs counter to Einstein's field equations.

Then study the reasons, pop media and YouTube articles are more misleading than helpful. My signature has numerous free textbook style articles.

Good example think of weather patterns.

The thing is as I mentioned in Cosmology studies the cosmological principle has been questioned and tested. These tests were not restricted to just the overall dynamics as a whole. They also involved all the individual contributors to those dynamics. These contributors in energy density would influence the BAO, baryon accoustic oscillations, CMB temperature measurements ( the anistropies you see have largely been accounted for as consistent with current LCDM, despite counter models) You made it clear you never looked at the math involved. Might be a good idea to listen to those that have studied the math. Especially since we also study the math of suggested alternatives. However we will not do someone else's math for them. In your model you have two energy density flows. Each has a resultant pressure correlation. When two different pressures collide they don't mix smoothly. You can test that yourself at home.

Expansion and contraction are not forces. These are pressure terms when applied in terms of an ideal gas. Relativistic radiation has a well studied and measured equation of state relating its energy density to pressure relation. Seriously cosmology MUST conform to the thermodynamic laws. We can measure light and it's influences on pressure. So explain why we don't measure a directional flow ? We can also measure matter particles so why don't we measure a directional flow in the opposite direction? Two flows that are interactive in opposite directions will cause perturbations in the thermodynamics. Why don't we see this ? In terms of two preferred directions? You can bet there have been models that would love to find preferred directions as it would validate their models. Homogeneous and isotropic Cosmology is constantly examined and tested. Your model needs to conform to that in order to work with observation. If you have photons flowing one way and mass flowing the other way. There will be measurable influences on not only pressure but also temperature.. we do not see preferred direction in any form of radiation or matter and we do have a well known and understanding of how they influence each other in thermodynamic relationships

This breakdown might be easier to understand than the wiki article http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Carroll2/Carroll2_1.html From your post above "Expansion is an omnidirectional force, and gravity is an omnidirectional force" Think pressure. Which is how it's treated In the FLRW metric. There is your key

Straight up I don't see how you can possibly have a homogeneous and isotropic universe with this model. Your model describes two preferred directions. We can observe directly how matter expands and your statement of mass moving one way while massless particles move the other way makes no sense as your model also describes a preferred location. Center of contraction for example. 30 years in the making? Surely you looked up the cosmological principle in all that time. Did you bother looking and studying the FLRW metric? If you did you would have learned that Cosmology is compatible with the ideal gas laws. Certain contributors in energy density has an equation of state that has a pressure influence either positive or negative. However guess what these positive and negative pressure influences are homogeneous and isotropic. [latex] w=\frac{p}{\rho}[/latex] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) the crux is you spent 30 years on your idea without even learning how the existing model works. If you did you would have realized the preferred direction issue with measurements. And if you claim there is no preferred location and direction post the math to prove otherwise

In the case of expansion and in accordance with the ideal gas laws. The cosmological constant aka dark energy was at one time been thought of as being due to virtual particle production. Unfortunately the Heisenburg uncertainty principle aka quantum oscillator turned out to be 120 orders of magnitude too large. Now as energy is a property of particles and does not exist on its own. The statement you made isn't inaccurate. Unfortunately we don't understand the mechanism that keeps the cosmological constant constant. In terms of being a positive pressure influence with gravity being negative pressure as per the equations of state it isn't particularly mysterious. What process causes it to remain constant is. There has been some recent papers that are based on the Highs field interactions in the SO(10) standard particle physics model that may or may not solve the problem. The idea is still waiting for more data on the Higgs boson. Here is some of the related material. Higg's inflation possible dark energy http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801

It's easy if you don't think of space as having a substance its just a change in geometric volume. As far as why only the voids are affected this is due to the energy density per volume of the cosmological constant. This energy density is roughly 6.0*10^-10 joules per m^3. Locally around gravitationally bound objects gravity can easily overpower the cosmological constant. Cosmology is based on the ideal gas laws so the energy density relations per region is critical.

Our universe is not static, it is expanding as a result we have the cosmological redshift. Expansion is also supported by thermodynamic reduction in temperature.

Our model LCDM model supports cold dark matter

Well you got a direction on some of the issues. Good luck