Mordred

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

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.