Mordred

The other details you need to include is the vector aspects of spin and how spin-spin interactions interfere with one another. Yeah that formula looks easy, it's a good approximation only, the reality is far far from simple. As it's a decent aspect here is Jeans instability and Jeans mass http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans_instability http://m.iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/507/1/226/fulltext/?providedHtml=38384.text.html

Not all particles behave the same, charged particles behave different than uncharged, DM behaves different than baryonic. Then you have collisionless vs collission hydrodynamics, relaxation times etc. Hydrodynamics is a complex field, so is thermodynamic temperature influences. These can be appropriated using the power laws.

That's why I provided the other links in your other thread. Keep in mind I'm trying to keep the explanations simple and straight forward. To account for every aspect is usually several chapters in textbooks. In " Essence of Astrophysics" they go through close to 30 related formulas. The majority players being Jeans equations, Poisson, Euler, NFW, Einstein field equations, etc, these are simplified to the power law equation I posted. I'm certainly not going to post dozens of equations and relations when I can supply you references and links that show the details.

That's not the truth, that is one of numerous models one without supporting evidence. We have zero zip evidence of a multiverse. We have zero zip evidence of a rotating universe which is one of the consequences of that model. No matter how slow a rotation you cannot maintain a homogeneous and isotropic universe. So observation evidence doesn't support the above model. This forum is specifically for mainstream questions and answers. What one would find in a textbook for example. The model you presented has been considered before it is not a unique idea. However no study has been able to support it. A universe forming from a wormhole has a preferred direction. Black holes rotate that rotation will impart its rotation upon ours. Measurements show no rotation. Poplowskii tried this model for years its still has not gained mainstream acceptance. Last I checked he is now trying an ADS/CFT approach.

Ajb's mention of fields is what I also see you explaining. Instead of interconnected, think of it as a field of baseline particles. well use the electromagnetic field as an example. Fill every point in space with photons (photon is the force carrying gauge boson. Add a particle to this field then describe the range of influence in that field. The key thing to note the forces are mediated by particle to particle interactions. Called gauge bosons, electromagnetic is photons strong force is qluons weak force is w and z bosons gravity would be gravitons but we have no proof of gravitons

Here is the problem I already did that in the other thread, I already explained if you have a force that has a rotation, it will affect different mass particles at different acceleration. Force =mass*acceleration. So Smaller dust will move faster than stars. How simple can you get? Eventually the faster dust will catch up to the previous formed stars. Wow is that hard for you? The above formula is simple it is the mass at each radius, it doesn't use a point center of mass. Rather it uses the accumulated mass as you go from the center of the galaxy outward. Get a Newton scale, hook it up to different mass weights measure the amount of Newtons it takes to move different mass objects. Spiral arms is not Rigid body. Each particle is influenced separately. They all have different mass, therefore they have different velocities. Here follow this N Body simulation, and explanation. http://articles.beltoforion.de/article.php?a=spiral_galaxy_renderer&hl=en&s=idTheory#idTheory That's really the crux of this thread, your upset your thread got locked, as you couldn't offer any supportive evidence or proper math. You also refused to accept anything that disagrees with your model. Despite the numerous professional papers we showed you. Well just too bad, You can either learn why the mainstream science supports the current models and theories and learn. Or you can keep deluding yourself. The subject of this topic is not rotation curves your thread on that subject was locked. Science follows the theory or model that best fits the data. Take this formula [latex] v^2=\frac{GM_r}{r}[/latex] Which is your velocity of TEST particles (test particles have zero mass) The numerator term is total mass of the enclosed radius. So this is basically a radius evolving mass calc of [latex]f=\frac{Gm}{r}[/latex] Now if f=say 10^5 Newtons how much acceleration will it give a one solar mass as opposed to a 2 solar mass? Will they have the same acceleration? Will hydrogen move faster or slower than helium? Use atomic weights now apply that to all the gas types in the interstellar medium. Apply that to the different mass stars. Get the picture ? Then look at what elements make up what classifications of stars. There is your regions aka hydrogen vs helium lines etc. Why do younger stars burn hotter than older stars. They are made up of heavier elements. Plus they burn up faster. That extra brightness illuminates the gas in the spiral arms making them highly visible. That provides your power law to luminosity functions on rotation curves.

Also the flat/curved is a density profile its a comparison of the Universes actual density to its critical density. (Calculated density at which the universe will expand, slow down then start collapsing) The first two articles I linked cover the above questions. Expansion only affects the regions not gravitationally bound. Galaxies are not dragged, the volume of space between large scale structures simply increases.

You can believe whatever you choose professional astrophysicists around the world use the rotation curve power law profile This is due in part, to density wave but only in part. [latex] v^2=\frac{GM_r}{r}[/latex] The thing is you do not apply f=ma or Newton properly, you also have no understanding on the hydrodynamic equations. if you want a good book read Elements of Astrophysics. The detail you refuse to accept Is galaxy rotation curves is based on gas laws. Every particle not just stars. Star formation is due to gas.... where the highest density is located is where new stars form. This is no different than Saturn which is dust that forms larger rocks. I think your biggest problem is you don't think at all scales of partulates. Saturn's rings has particulates of dust that dust makes larger rocks as they combine. Same as galaxies, plasma hydrogen, lithium etc etc, form to make stars so where the plasma is located is your star formation region. What I find fustrating is that I posted professional papers for you to study, yet you keep missing the important details which I repeatably explain I even show you an example such as the whirlpool (density wave) when you pull the plug in your sink full of water. Same principles, difference in the influence strengths due to different particulates and medium

Density wave works for both Saturn's rings as well as galaxy rotation curves. In principle the influence and nature of how particles of various mass move are the same. Just different size scales. I posted you dozens of articles and explainations on this topic before. Yes there are always alternative explanations no theory however solid is without a competing theory. No matter how effective a theory is. In density waves the majority of the competition is primarily fine tuning the metrics involved. Galaxy rotation curves have a huge variety of influences over an extremely long period of time so this is a natural consequence. On something as complex as detailing the average movement of every particle from gas to stars over its entire history of development, it would be foolish to think a few formulas cover every possibility. Wiki is not a final authority on any subject. If one wants a clear picture on what models or theories are considered " concordance". Ie the more effective and well recognized theories are. It's best to study the textbooks and dissertations written by professional physicists. Every textbook on astronomy I own or ever read covers density wave, this includes the vast majority of any related papers I read on galaxy rotation curves, this is over a course of the last 20 years. (Though I myself am not an astronomer I've had plenty of experience helping other forum posters understand this topic on numerous forums). Whenever I have seen rotation curves come up in questions on those forums, the professional astronomers on those forums answer with the density wave metrics. No theory is 100% every theory has a margin of error regardless of how accurate. Every theory has room for improvement. No theory is considered proved, so your proved,unproven classification is pointless. The correct classification is which theory is considered the most accurate to observational evidence. Currently this is density wave theory in regards to both Saturn's rings as well as spiral galaxy rotation curves. Here is a direct quote from one of the Astronomy textbooks I own. I'll have to free hand copy it in as its a hardcopy text. (Try not to make any mistakes) This is from page 294 Ian Morrison's "Introductory to astronomy and Cosmology" "In its life, our Sun has circled the galactic centre about 20 times so why have the spiral arms not wound up? The solution is hinted at by a visual clue. Spiral arms seen in other galaxies stand out because they contain many bright blue stars remember a single very hot star can outshine 50 000 suns like ours! However, very hot bright stars must be young as they have very short lives, so the spiral structure we see now is not that which would have been observed in the past. As Bertil Lindblad first suggested, it appears that the spiral arms are transitory and caused by a spiral density wave rotating round the galactic centre a ripple that sweeps around the galaxy moving through the dust and gas. This compresses the gas as it passes and can trigger the collapse of gas clouds so forming the massive blue stars that delineate the spiral arms. The young blue stars show us where the density wave has just passed through" I own 6 Astronomy textbooks, they all include similar statements and refer to the density wave theory. PS I have a huge collection of textbooks. I just bought Quarks and Leptons. Good book for entry level particle physics very informative. My current collection is approaching 50 textbooks.

Density wave is currently considered the best fit to observation theory, no theory is ever 100%

The figures on wiki pages will usually be referenced, for the source, look under the page reference. The Gut models today ie SO(10) break down the epocks differently, and at different temperature values

Singularity has two meanings in science, one is the point like BH, the other is singularity conditions, This can mean a condition that the maths and physics no longer makes sense. Ie infinities. The T=0 point like descriptive is just our observable portion of our observable universe. We do not know if the universe is finite or infinite. A finite beginning cannot become infinite in volume. So if it's finite in the past, it's finite now and vise versa

That's Ok I just located the information I was looking for, sometimes it's in how you define your Google search. SO(10) A La Pati-Salam http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0204097 Another helpful article is this gem The Phenomenology of Right Handed Neutrinos http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6912 With the various dissertations and odds on SO(10) I have the details I'm looking for. I'll hunt down diquarks later on after I study what I have.

Lol ex sailor so can relate

Yeah that was already caught earlier P:

There is no clear answer on this, The temperature figures depends too much on predictions and knowledge of particle physics. In terms of what particles drop out of thermal equilibrium at what estimated temperatures. The figures you have are based on one of the original GUT models. Something Glashkow which is SO(5) as we don't fully know what caused inflation, we can only estimate the temperature of start and finish. The problem with inflation is there is still 70+ good fit to observation models. So there is too much discrepancies between the start/stop and volume change. This also occurred prior to the dark ages which makes matters worse

You need a lot of detail here to understand which particles are formed when. There is still a lot of ground to cover. Here is some guidelines. The order generally but not always follow how massive the particle is in terms of total mass not rest mass. In total energy the photon is massive, due to its kinetic energy. Bosons are typically massive particles, they will drop out of thermal equilibrium earlier than less massive particles. Photons for example drop out of thermal equilibrium before neutrinos. So does the other quage bosons. Quarks, and W,Z bosons. I have no idea what you mean by expansion symmetry. Did you read the link I gave you earlier? Chapters three and 4? 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 Second link, Keep in mind both these cover the SO(5) model. So they don't cover the Higgs field itself. For GUT specifically you want this http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdfGRAND UNIFIED THEORIES Unfortunately if you really want to understand all the mixing rules in particle physics the best teacher is textbooks well professional institutions preferred. Introductory to particle physics by Griffith is excellent. you need to study the following conservation laws. Color,spin,flavor,baryon number,Lepton number,charge,isospin. these form the rules on what decays and interactions are allowed. key components. baryon octect meson nonet. these form the eightfold wayen. you can Google each of those. I don't have a good free resource coverage outside of textbooks. The above will allow you to understand those complex images and tables on this link http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory

Electrons are fundamental particles, they are not formed from other constituents particles, though they can decay from neutrinos, they must be available to form the neutrinos in the first place. the earlier particles out of thermal equilibrium is quarks and fundamental leptons ie electrons. They are are present prior to neutrinos. Thermal equilibrium does not mean they are not present, just that they become indistinguishable. The aspect you are missing is "what does fundamental particles mean? and how do they gain mass? This is where the Higgs field becomes involved fundamental particles are not composed of anything but themselves.

Bump... goes the weasel. Guess this topic doesn't catch too many ppl.

Well we can take currently known and we'll studied dynamics and make probable predictions with the assumption that those known relations are not going to change. One example is based on today's rate of expansion, we can predict how much it should expand tomorrow. This may or may not actually occur, however most likely it will. The light cone link in my signature is a calculator that does just that. It takes today's rate of expansion, and other pertinent information, then calculates how much the universe will expand, in the future. Up to 80 billion years into the future. However this is based on current datasets. We could discover tomorrow, Hubbles constant has significantly changed value.

Oft times looking at the history of development, leads to a greater understanding of the modern formulas. Particularly in learning how the modern formulas are eventually derived.

Fundamental definition of mass is "Resistance to inertia". Now think about that, in terms of the strong force that resistance is due to the binding energy of the strong force, in terms of Higgs field interactions its due to the Higgs field interactions, (only applies to certain particles, (neutrinos, quarks and Leptons) 1% the mass of the proton, the rest of the mass of the proton is the strong force. Historically there was also electromagnetic mass, relativity replaces this via the energy momentum formula I posted earlier. The first two are specifically rest mass. Electromagnetic mass has too many historical connections to inertial mass for you to ignore. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_mass This link covers some of the key points

I always prefer the term cosmological constant or Lambda to the term dark energy. Reason being dark energy may only be one contributor to Lambda. As mentioned we still don't understand what causes Lambda, but the indirect evidence of its existence, is partly redshift and distance measurements. Those measurements include galaxies of just about every observable time period. This is how we know that Lambda is constant, at least since the CMB forward. The other piece of evidence is the thermodynamic laws, in terms of rate of temperature drop in the universe. The full details on how this is done is lengthy, but essentially pv=nRT pressure, volume and temperature of an ideal gas have relations with each other. as the volume increases the energy-density and pressure decreases so does the temperature. We can calculate the temperature and pressure influence of every contributor such as photons, neutrinos, baryons, fermions and leptons by knowing the number of degrees of freedom (interactions) of each particle, the mass of each,the entropy density and energy density per volume. The two key formulas is the Bose-Einstein statistics, and the Fermi-Dirac statistics. Bosons is the previous, Fermions the latter. So as far as the standard model particles, we can account for their influence. This by the way includes the Higgs field @126 GeV. Dark matter or non relativistic baryonic matter has negligible pressure/temperature influence w=0 It's simply too slow moving to exert pressure. Radiation, both relativistic and non, has a greater temperature to pressure influence. However all these exert positive pressure influences. That's all the standard model particles. Hrrrm we have a problem. Lambda has a negative pressure influence. None of the known particles account for this. Then to make matters work, the only way it can remain homogeneous and isotropic, as well as constant, it must be a uniform and equal everywhere (at a point in time distribution). To stay constant work is being done( where is this energy coming from?) Virtual particles via the Heisenberg uncertainty principle was once considered. However it creates too much energy by 120 orders of magnitude. There is currently hope in a property of the Higgs field, this is currently being tested. (Might also answer dark matter, as relic, sterile neutrinos.) Time will only tell. here is the related Higgs papers. 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 Now as far as thermodynamic relations in Cosmology as I said that's lengthy. Training (textbook Style Articles) 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 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 Chapter 3 and 4 of the last article. Indirectly measurements and observational evidence, say DE is present. There is little doubt about that after WMAP, and Planck primarily, though not exclusively, those are just two of the key datasets out of hundreds over the last 20 years. We just can't properly define it. We can define its influence, not the source or cause Oh forgot to add this paper by Lawrence R Krauss. A Higgs--Saw Mechanism as a Source for Dark Energy http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.3239

The big bang isn't an explosion. There is no single point of origin. Read the articles here including the balloon analogy. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Misconceptions (Useful articles to answer various Cosmology 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

Just to be clear per volume the energy density of the cosmological constant stays constant. It's the volume that changes. The accelerating expansion is due to the recessive velocity V=Hd Hubbles law states the greater the seperation distance the greater the recessive velocity.