Mordred

Yeah you will have to modify the formula.

Fair enough for the scalar field you can use the necessary modifications to the vacuum equation of state. See scalar modelling bottom formula http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) this formula works for above VeV conditions You need to mathematically show how the particles form for the fundmental ones. Not merely describe it they are fundamental for a reason. Energy is a property of particles it does not exist on it's own.

You need to show how your Planch epock model leads to the GUT epock not ignore it That is the point.

Really no particles how do you have gravity? No particles how do you have Hawking radiation? How do particles form? What makes up electrons that get formed during your Epoch to lead to the GUT epoch? How do the quarks form? Not very well described in my opinion

What you describe here is thermal equilibrium. Just as I stated. You might want to research the specific issues as to why we caanot accurately describe the universe prior to 10^-43 seconds instead of merely hand waving away those issues with the statement that's not my model. For one thing you have not shown how you deal with the singularity conditions. You also chose to ignore the planch temperature issue and it's relations to the Compton wavelength. In all honesty you need to sit back and look at the math from 10^-43 seconds forward in time. Then you need to show how your model leads to those mathematics. You can't just hand wave them away. A must lead to b if not you need to show why in terms of the math Now you say all particles disappear. So how did fundamental particles form ? Quarks electrons?

Hawking radiation from a BH only functions when the blackbody temperature of the universe is lowered than the blackbody temperature of the BH. If the BB temp of the universe is higher then the BH will increase in mass not decrease. As it will absorb the thermodynamic energy Vacuum expectation value formula is used to describe the universe as an ideal gas when particles are in thermal equilibrium. Which is during the Planck epoch.

You miss the point you have a hypothesis. You need math to claim it can predict. Hawking radiation only works when you have differences in thermodynamic states. So how will your idea work? During a period in thermal equilibrium? It seems your also claiming unification of the 4 forces. For that you need to run the gauge constants as per the methodology in the GUT models. You will also need to apply the VeV formula as your dealing with temperatures above 246 GeV. But in your case you need to show how gravity will affect the VeV vaccuum expectation value. I'm not the one with the model that needs proof. This is your model that needs proving. I mentioned nothing more than the already recognized and accepted models already established.

You have a hypothetical idea you know as well as I do you need math to have a predictive ability.

You evidently never heard of gravitational redshift. Gravity affects the light paths. You need to show how your model does.

Every form of math involved you claim cannot be used. You also claimed to be a former physics student with degrees. Sorry the two don't work. Anyone who has studied the field of physics knows you can't predict anything without the supporting math. Without math your model predicts nothing zero zip.

How do you explain gravity when the temperature was too hot to allow atoms to form. Say prior to the CMB?

You wouldn't be alone in this..

The greater than c you hear about is whats called the recessive velocity. This is an apparent velocity not an actual one due to inertia. The speed limit is an inertial limit. In expansion there is no inertia seperation distances is simply increasing. Now keep in mind as Strange pointed out the recessive velocity depends on the seperation distance. Hubbles law states the greater the distance the greater the recessive velocity. [latex]v_{recessive}=H_oD[/latex] Locally and everywhere the rate of expansion is 70km/Mpc/sec However recessive velocity depends on the measurement distance. At roughly 4239 Mpc (Hubble sphere ) the recessive velocity is 1 c, at the furthest we can see it's 3.2 c However to the first Mpc from us it's only 70km/sec. If you could teleport to the furthest observable distance. The measurement would be the same for the first Mpc 70 km/sec. Inflation is calculated by number of E folds and the number depends on the inflation model. More than 60

Probably the type of galaxy has nothing to do with the odds of colliding galaxies

Lol no prob

Roughly three. Good thing I bring textbooks to read. Not as far north as my last trip lol

Ok look at newtons three laws of motion http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion These laws is what makes up the conservation of momentum. F=ma. Force and accleration is both vectors Mass being scalar. In the case gravity the acceleration is due to gravity. What I recommend is to look for practice problems applying those three laws to first two bricks then to two balls like the pool table example. Once you do that you will have understand how spin is induced due to gravity as it is completely explained by newtons laws of motion. The vector calculus book I posted has numerous examples. I'm heading back up North for field work for the week, so my online times will be limited to when I catch a connection.

Lol why a BH spins is the same reason a planet does or a sun. Same rules conservation of angular momentum. The chances of having a non rotating BH is nearly nil. Possible but highly unlikely. Any star that collapses into a BH will have a higher rate of spin just like the figure skater that pulls her arms into her body. The article I posted on the accretion disk covers angular momentum extensively.

Good post

Dark matter and regular baryonic matter are effected by gravity in the same way. The difference is where the two are distributed. The density of dark matter is less than baryonic matter due to not having a strong force interaction. Take two dark matter particles, moving toward each other. The force of gravity between particles is negligible. As the two dark matter particles do not have a strong force they will drift by each other without interaction. If this were two baryonic particles if they drifted close enough the strong force interaction will take effect. This will continue as more particles are collected. Causing mass

No head on in the non rotating BH case no spin is induced. For a rotating BH yes. This is due to the frame dragged space time path

The pool table Is easier to understand angles of deflection spin and how the laws of inertia apply to the conservation of angular momentum. The math involved Is easier to calculate as involve less sources of force. In the golf ball you have the force of the swing the centripical acceleration of the end of the golf club force of gravity to add. In pool you just have the force applied to the pool cue. Which one would you like to start off on? The harder problem first or The easier problem set ?

Try something similar look at when you hit a ball on a pool table. If you hit the cue ball straight on without spin on the cue if it hits straight on the next ball it moves straight. Now if you hit an edge of the second ball the angle of deflection opposite to the surface of impact. Ie if you hit the ball at 5 o clock it will head to 11 o clock If you convert that to degrees ball will move 180 degrees from point of impact. Now say the second ball is hitting the rail on a bank shot. In this case measure the angle in the angle out will be the same (provided no spin is introduced). Here is a free vector calculus book to help study http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mecmath.net%2Fcalc3book.pdf&rct=j&q=vector%20calculus%20pdf&ei=toC0VIfCEIaoogS104KoCA&usg=AFQjCNHaZioCHqqCO924EPbzoMQrUS2fIg&sig2=uAzhUQQ0eu4MpH9HM78yyg&bvm=bv.83339334,d.eXY Pool is a good game to understand angles of deflection. Keep in mind in the first example you will induce a spin on the second ball.

Lol lot of differential geometry and trigonometry involved.

Classical physics covers the angular momentum laws GR simply conforms to it. Frame dragging of space time is where GR kicks in. The rest is explained in the classic models