Mordred

Ah no problem thought ya did The relationship is shown in the stress energy tensor http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/current/teach/module_home/px436/notes/lecture6.pdf

Have you looked at the calculator? You can graph the expansion history distance now and distance then Here this might be clearer http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/info/press-releases/flows/ http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0091. This is local data group The others I located require software example http://supernova.lbl.gov/union/ I'll keep looking

Lets put it this way your learning far more due to your listening and applying what we explain. Some posters no Matter how you correct or teach them never learn and ignore anything that conflicts with their ideas. Even when the idea is utter nonsense Speaking of studying. I'm not sure I posted this excellent aid for you. It's extremely handy though math heavy http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau it's a little over 900 pages but it covers numerous metrics used in GR

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0402278v1.pdf[/url Here is a dissertation specifically on expansion. This calculator will allow you to see the expansion history yourself. It can calculate redshift distance now distance then evolution of the Hubbles sphere and observable universe etc Etc open column selections to choose. Number of steps for row control. http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/LightCone7/LightCone.html http://cosmocalc.wikidot.com/lightcone-tutorial http://cosmocalc.wikidot.com/lightcone-userguide As far as my proving the most proven model to observational evidence model to date LCDM. There is no need for me to prove the concordance model. There is tons of supporting evidence. The Planck datasets are in strong agreement with LCDM http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/planck/publications tons of datasets there for ya

And your point? The wording comes from trying to correlate a positive energy density that gives a negative vacuum. Here is the simple related FLRW metric for that term. [latex]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex] The stress energy tender has a similar relation in its tensor matrix. In other words it's describing negative vacuum as replulsive gravity When you think of an influence such as dark energy in terms of a pressure influence it removes the mystery on how it's influence works. We still don't know the cause but in terms of pressure its easily understood. I've posted numerous posts stressing the importance of thermodynamics in the FLRW metric and EFE. If you really want a solid understanding of cosmology. Study the ideal/perfect fluid laws. It will also help understand nucleosynthesis.

I'll see if I can dig up some of his earlier papers from my archives later on. No I heard the analogy before and studied what they meant by it.

Yeah I read his analogies before. Keep in mind he's simply stating similarities between gravitational pressure influence and other pressure influences. He is not stating gravity itself is repulsive. Nor is he claiming anti gravity. Just anti gravity like influence There is validity in the correlation. I prefer to relate to the dynamics in terms of pressure distributions Guth's false vacuum model for inflation is a higher energy region false vacuum tunneling to the true vacuum (lower energy region). Though he was involved in numerous inflation models trying to solve runaway inflation.

I never trust pop media vids. I'll stick with the metric and textbooks

Short answer all particles exert pressure via interactions. Matter exerts effectively zero pressure. Then the acceleration equation correlates the positive pressure contributors and the negative pressure contributors. (Positive vs negative vacuum). Cosmological constant being positive. This relationship also determines the curvature constant. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Page 2 http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ These two articles will also help 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/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues There is considerable different between pressure and gravity Though gravity does exert pressure via the stress energy tensor it isn't the only pressure contribution to consider in the acceleration equation.

To understand why you need to look at the acceletion and deceleration equations, curvature constant and the equations of state for the various contributors. Radiation,matter and the cosmological constant. The FLRW has ideal gas pressure terms you need to look at. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations The acceleration equation is on this page http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceleration_parameter

Imatfall you were looking for Dr Chinese website. http://www.drchinese.com/Bells_Theorem.htm Good reference site covering Bells theorem

What spooky repulsive gravity thing? Gravity isn't repulsive. No one knows which of the 70+ good fits to observation inflation models is correct. Some models are thermodynamic phase transitions. Some involve the Higgs field. Others involved the inflaton. While others the curvaton. My personal bet is on Higgs related thermodynamic phase change via the seesaw mechanism Don't mean I'm right.

Of course not the image you showed is no where near precise. It's simply a tool to aid understanding not an exact map. Its simply showing that galaxies are closer together the further you look back in time.

The space foam is a descriptive once used to describe the quantum fluctuations of the quantum oscillator in QM. GR doesn't have space foam. This is where the debate is space smooth or lumpy came into play . Side note the process I described leads to 120 orders of magnitude to much energy. So either QMs quantum oscillator is wrong or something unknown is suppressing the energy. It's why you don't see it mentioned much anymore

How many times have you heard me say space is geometric volume. According to QMs zero point energy it's never empty. You didn't catch my edit. V is frequency in QM.

Did he also tell you that energy and momentum can also generate gravity lol say hi back been awhile V is frequency h is the planck constant

I think you missed the point of E=1/2hv The critical density value I gave you is all the major energy matter contributors (dark energy ,photons,radiation,dark matter etc) average of the universe You just got into an explanation that virtual particles pop in and out of spacetime. Empty in QM isn't empty neither is it in field theory. Particularly since you didn't specify a volume Energy has a mass equivalents. E=mc^2. Photons have no rest mass but they have a mass equivalence due to their kinetic energy. Virtual particles often come in the form of photons/anti photon pairs. So even photons can generate gravity. So can a gravity wave.

No clue but the average critical density of our universe is [latex]1.87*10^{-29} grams/m^3[/latex]

Are you sure they are stopped? Are we talking visible light or did we test for light no longer visible? Or is the light caught between the glass medium due to the critical angle of Snells law of refraction? By caught I mean bouncing within the two surfaces of the last glass entered. Or what's called total internal reflection. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_internal_reflection

Ok I have to ask you these questions. What is the difference between a supernova becoming a black hole and the situation I will describe in a later questions? Why does a super nova become a black hole in terms of pressure.? Now if you remove all voids between large scale structures thereby increasing the average mass density of the universe. What is preventing gravity from doing the same thing to all the resultant galaxy mergers? Keep in mind the current critical mass density is 10^-29 grams per cubic meter. Or if you prefer 6.0 *10^-10 joules per m^3. It will be far higher without the voids. Without the voids the universe will be matter dominant as the cosmological constant is extremely weak per cubic meter. So what will keep gravity from attracting all that matter? Keep in mind you already allowed for galaxy mergers Lol don't forget to change all the dark matter to the same scale. The reason for the above questions is this statement makes zero sense. If you place all the gravitationally bound objects side by side in the universe. You can bet in any metric not just the FLRW metric that universe will collapse without an opposing force to counter the gravity

I think your getting lost again. Let's try this angle. The Scwartzchild metric starts with a flat geometry. Essentially massless. No deformations due to mass/energy. (Vacuum) Then we place mass on this manifold. This then causes the deformity. That's how classic SR uses the coordinate system..Minkowkii So lets switch coordinate systems to field theory. Let's set that previous coordinate system to reflect the minimal energy per volume. This is called zero point energy. QMs minimal vacuum. Based on the Heisenburg uncertainty principle the minimal energy of that metric above is [latex] e=\frac{1}{2}hv[/latex]. This energy is essentially virtual particle/anti particle pairs popping in and annihilating. Now in first scenario the metric does such a good job predicting GR influences such as gravity that it is an excellent approximation. The second set even though it sounds more accurate its still an approximations. ( most models are just good approximations) Neither one is incorrect nor is either one. more accurate Both are accurate in terms of the model. In the latter case you can normalize a positive energy density and set the value at zero. That's one thing about differential geometry. You define the relations. You can choose to set any positive or negative property with a value of zero. By the way QM treats all vacuums as having at least zero point energy. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

Umm am I missing something here. First you say a region cannot be smaller as it is gravitationally bound. Then you state only gravitationally bound regions can collapse. Which is the exact opposite.

Here is a related article http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0407274 Haven't studied this theory yet

We observe the image you posted. You calculate the proper position

Yes correct but that's uniformity including time. You can also have uniformity at the same time depending on WHAT you are modelling. Thermodynamic states is at a point in time. Distance uniformity is limitted by what distance measurement your using. That image is commoving volume. If you calculate those to proper distances you have uniformity at a specific time. There is Three forms of distance measurements. Conformal ( no longer used) commoving and proper. So again How you define uniformity is specific to the model In commoving distances the change in time and expansion is the scale factor. Using this formula you calculate its proper distance at a moment in time [latex]d_2=-c^2dt^2+\frac{a^2dr^2}{1-kr^2}[/latex] K is the curvature constant. In other words apply this formula to all the distance measures your back to homogeneous distribution. Today