Mordred

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

If you post it as a specific question and set of relations of influence. Probably. Your now trying to understand GR specifically so I don't see why not. Keep the post specific to understanding the GR metrics rather than your own model ideas. Your golf balls is an exercise is the conservation of angular momentum.

Lol latex is the syntax to post math equations Instead of F=GM/r^2 If you use latex you get [latex]f=\frac{GM}{r^2}[/latex] The guide will step you through how to use the syntax. Just like that formula you cut and pasted in your earlier thread. Like the dominatrix joke though

Well if you were a former student of physics then you know the importance of the mathematics. My signature contains some material that may help. A couple of GR related articles. For particle physics look for SO(10) standard model+ Higgs. It's more current than SO(5) in terms of predictive ability. Lots has changed in 10 years both in Cosmology and particle physics

According to this memoir reprinted translation his work references work done by Dalton and M Gay Lussac http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/avogadro.html

Your right it is the main problem with your hypothesis. You can't predict behavior without the mathematics. How else can you know the hypothesis works. It's easy to suggest a leads to b, but if you can't show how or why it does then it's lacking. For example if Eistein tried convincing everyone that time is relative to the observer without mathematics. No one would have believed him. A model requires the mathematics, those mathematics allows for the possibility of testable and repeatable tests. I didn't even see any of the well known and related mathematics. Where are your related GR equations? How does your Hamilton apply? How is your dimensions being applied, in which specific interactions? Your ToE doesn't even include the basics. Particle physics include lie algebra which includes differential equations. So that statement on particles requiring differential equations but not algebra makes no sense at all. It also tells me you spent no time understanding The current applicable models. It's always best to learn what we do know before trying to solve the mysteries of the universe.

with no mathematics how can your model predict anything? I read your article I didnt see anything with predictive power. No mathematical equations. All I saw was a run of the mill attempt to lay claims without any supportive evidence.

These concepts get everyone just learning. Let's start with dark matter. First off most people don't fully realize that not all particles have the same interactions with the four forces. A primary example is the neutrino. It doesn't interact with the strong force nor the electromagnetic. Photons only interact with the electromagnetic. Each force carrying boson has limitted interactions. Dark matter only interacts with gravity as far as we know. This makes direct detection extremely problematic. However this isn't as ususual as people think. After all we ran into the same problem with neutrinos. Dark energy is another matter. The universe is expanding isn't surprising. Cosmology is based upon GR and the ideal gas laws. So it's incorrect to think of dark energy as anti gravity. An accurate way to describe dark energy is positive vacuum , gravity being one of the influences in the negative vacuum. The FLRW metric reflects this detail in the relation [latex]w=\frac{p}{\rho}[/latex] P is pressure [latex]\rho[/latex] is energy density w is the dimensionless number reflecting this relation. The equations of state show the particle relations in their energy/mass density to pressure relations. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) The main problem with dark energy is why is it constant. As well as what mechanism keeps it constant. here is a good article http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966"why the prejudice against a constant" on the geometry relations due to pressure distributions here is a starting article http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Page 2 http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ Though page two is more on distance measures of the three geometries. The cosmological constant aka dark energy has an equation of state roughly w=-1

What Santa's underwear is not made out of sugar and spice? Seriously though if you have an issue with a particular aspect of physics post it. You might learn something. Then we can also discuss something meaningful

This is from another post but it's related Hertzprung-Russell diagram. http://www.google.ca...ykycf5uRqs9dB6g