Mordred

That's how I understand it as well. Helium 3 is fermionic while helium 4 is bosonic.

Rotating universe models have been considered and discounted as it's impossible to maintain isotropy regardless of how slow a rotation. No evidence is conclusive enough to counter the cosmological principle. The reasons galaxies spin is the same reason planets and stars spin. During the formation process, plasma state as the plasma forms centers of mass other particles etc start orbitting the higher mass density. This influences the center of mass to start rotating. (According to the conservation of angular momentum laws). As the plasma volume decreases the spin increases. A good analogy place a marble on a trampoline, roll another marble toward but not directly at the first marble. You will see the second marble orbit the first. Now apply that in terms of gravity. Gravity of both objects affect each other. So the motion of one rotating object influences the spin of the larger mass. Google tidal locking for an example of how a moon or planet can affect the spin of the planet or star it is orbitting. Galaxies are more complex, however the reason they rotate is the same. Conservation of angular momentum during its formation.

I agree wrong. For the reasons provided.

That second image is specifically showing aberration of light see the link provided under the image. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light I see Janus best me to it

Yeah I figured as much as the Bose-Einstein statistics apply to Bose-Einstein condensates. For the OP fermions is thermodynamically described by the Fermi-Dirac statistics. Though those two formulas are advanced. (Incredibly useful though ) The latter formula applies to the Fermi-condensate.

I agree it was one example of a variation I should of specified that example applies to Doppler. I didn't want to get into corrections to the cosmological redshift as that gets too distracting to the OPs question.

Good point I should specify that only applies to fundamental particles. Ill try to remember that next time

Time is relative to the observer. From outside the BH it appears time is slowed down. However from the frame of the singularity itself time moves normally. As a side note the Schwartz child radius is when the escape velocity equals c this is also the point that seperates a bh from a neutron star. How we view the BH depends on the reference frame of the observer.

What constitutes as a matter particle depends on if the particle is dimensionless or if it takes up space. Fermionic particles of the same quantum state cannot reside in the same space. Bosons such as photons can occupy the same volume without limit. So essentially only fermions count as matter particles. Now into where momentum fits in e=mc^2 is not the complete formula The formula you want is [latex]e^2=(pc)^2+(m_0c)^2[/latex] P in this case is momentum The subscript of o on the mass denotes rest mass. Which isn't the total energy of particles with momentum. Rest mass doesn't include momentum. inertial mass is based on total energy. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation The use of relatistic mass has been replaced by inertial mass

There is Three main forms of redshift, Cosmological redshift is due to space expansion Gravitational redshift is due to photons climbing into and out of gravity wells Doppler redshift is due to motion This article covers the three of them http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion Keep in mind there are variations on the formulas for reasons such as transverse redshift etc. (Transverse different angles ie object moving left to right at different angles)

Look at mass-energy equivalence for tests. http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2005/emc2

Actually he is half right. What bends space time is energy/momentum, photons have both so they can bend space time. Note the effect from individual photons is negligible. Density is involved as you have greater energy/mass per volume.

The problem is finding datasets that are easily related to. I could post numerous articles with datasets such as this one http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/07/perlmutter-team.pdf but would it help you? It is a dataset supporting and constraining systematic errors. However the paper is not easily understood. Papers like this are easily found. However visualization of expansion from this is not an easy task (Ps that's one of the reasons Jorrie built the lightcone calculator in my signature) I've been scouring the internet for several days looking for the easy to relate to articles etc with the data sets included. Not as easy as one might think most require software installations to use. Speaking of videos you guys will love this one. http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/virgo/millennium/ this took incredible supercomputer time over 3 months to generate. Note these two videos is a 100% simulated universe to test out model LCDM http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NjSFR40SY58

Symmetry is the relation being modelled. This can be shape, density, pressure, or interaction. Etc We define how we choose to model any system and how we describe that system. Naturally we tend to use easily understood reference points and baseline values as a reference point. North is convenient as we normally graph x as longitudinal, y as horizontal. For baselines we look for most common average value or zero then model the deviations from that baseline. ( good example temperature change from room temperature, then model the change in temperature from that point) You can always set the initial values,then describe the deviations. Most often this is based on convention and logic,

As long as you can define the coordinate relations that is in my opinion accurate. All models are described by mathematics. Most of the complex terminology in peer reviewed papers are differential geometry descriptives. Look on math is fun for transformations. Ie rotation transformation. Ps this also describes symmetry Including symmetry in particle physics Double PS that includes QM, fields, and string theory There is one expression to take note. "The universe does not care how we measure it" I'll let you ponder upon its philosophical ramifications.

Fully agree with that

Roflmao you are coming a long way since your first post

Basically accurate all forms of influence can be described by geometry Correct

Works with both WMAP and Planck datasets

As to the last calculator that's the lightcone calculator for the expansion history of the universe. I helped write the user guide and tutorial. Jorrie is the programmer. It can use the FLRW metric to show any distance measures in Cosmology expansion. As well as plot it in the lightcones and world lines. Starts at CMB forward and can plot 88 billion years into the future.

Distance calculators is no replacement to knowledge. Particularly when you need to adapt a formula

Use the rules on your Schwartzchild image, practice the conversions so you don't need to think about them. Start with the examples on that link. In your other thread I posted a calculus article. There is examples there. Its best to eat the Apple one bite at a time. As far as exact conversions, there is more exacting coordinate systems. Though in the angles they get extremely precise. Degrees minutes seconds for example. To be honest I can't recall a single formula that uses tan

You need to apply the polar to Cartesian conversions I've posted. See the math is fun link the conversion rules will answer your question. ( when do you choose to use sine,sineh cos and Cosh?). See link. Now your getting it.

Linear vectors are more often done in Cartesian. Ie a constant force applied in a vector direction. Look at the metric to describe the flat euclidean plane. Positive x is typically north. - X south +y east -y west A helpful visualization tool Is look at how polar coordinates is used to map locations on the Earth.( Polar coordinates is common in navigation) We could map locations on Earth in Cartesian coordinates but it's more inconvenient to do so. Here is a basic polar to Cartesian coordinate conversion link http://www.mathsisfun.com/polar-cartesian-coordinates.html

The collateral and lateral terms are polar coordinates. Angular momentum is often done in the colateral coordinate for example. X,y,z,t are Cartesian coordinates. I recommend studying the two coordinate systems in detail and look at the conversions between the two. Inertial frames of reference can use either system so knowing how to convert between the two Is an invaluable skill. This will also help you connect the sine and cos rules as they are involved in the conversions. Curvature influences are more often than not use the polar coordinate system. (In some cases one assigns the north direction of influence.).sine waves is a good example. In this case the curve of a sine wave is more convenient in polar coordinate change than doing the coordinate change in Cartesian coordinates. ( spherical objects and interactions are typically done in polar coordinates)