Mordred

Using math and redshift I can show cows are blue. Does that mean cows are blue? This is why the textbooks become important Just because a math can demonstrate a model isn't proof the model is 100% correct. Or that a postulate is correct. You still need experiments and evidence

Pop media learning is highly misleading. I found that out the hard way. Nothing replaces the actual mathematics and textbooks It wouldn't be personal they would correctly point out it is two seperate particles just Entangled Ie shared properties

That analogy alone could get the QM ppl screaming at me lol The rate of influence between the two is indeterminate. We cannot examine one or the other ftl.

Instantaneous communication is the pop media misunderstanding. Entanglement cannot be used for ftl communication. Instead you need to treat two entangled particles as one particle with two localities. If that makes sense. I'll let a QM expert go beyond that. This is one area of QM that makes my teeth ache

If I'm following this correct. The only way to test spooky action at a distance is to use entangled particles. Classical models doesn't demonstrate spooky action at a distance. Even if the end result is the same. The cause of that coincidence is via a different process. Spooky action at a distance is a non locality process. It's an influence that does not necessarily depend on particle a's environment. An influence on particle b in a completely seperate locality invokes the change upon particle a.

Truth be told the thread is getting difficult to follow. particularly when your trying to ignore the non related commentary.

Your still not understanding. Entangled particles is when a single photon splits into two photons. Whose total wavelength between the two is the sum of the original. If I recall the spin is opposite on each. This site has a quick breakdown. Note the collapse with the split. Not the only type of collapse that can occur. http://davidjarvis.ca/entanglement/quantum-entanglement.shtml Please note not the best site but it's a basic explanation.

The geometry of our universe is inherently flat with a consistent k constant since inflation. The key points to show is expansion that maintains the same k. Light paths being straight not curved. As well as no change in angles between measured objects. 3 objects in a triangle best demonstrates this as you can introduce the angle aspects. Start with the flat images here then add the only change being the distance between the 3 points http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ Just the top images the lower images are the other two curvatures Page one is here and has another flat image with the triangle and graph lines simply expanding the points on the image would be another good example http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry The red lines on the image of the second link is the light paths. (Red triangle on a flat graph) Geometry is basically an energy density descriptive of light path influence. The pressure to light path relation is extremely important in measurements. A variation in curvature would influence those light paths causing distortions If you place the clusters at each point then use a second zoomed image with no change in cluster volume that would work

I work from the phone as well I usually switch to full version when I add rep points Then switch back

Assuming your talking about the BB you have some misconceptions. These will help "Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies

Ok let's pick an equation. [latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a{t^2}d{r^2}+{S,k}{r^2}d\Omega^2[/latex] In this equation you see a value for time. You see c for speed of light to handle relativity. You see k for the curvature constant. You also see two different terms for distance. a is the scale factor (handles the expansion history) This formula is used when you spot a new galaxy and you find its redshift. now we know the galaxy will not be there in our present. So where will it be? This is the function of this formula to calculate its current location due to expansion. Or in its more correct usage its used to tell us the size of the universe today as opposed to what we visually see. The value k curvature constant is set at different values for flat,positive curved or negative curved. Any time we spot a new object and state its distance we calculate expansion and the observer effects such as redshift as well as difference in time to obtain its proper distance or commoving distance. Now the redshift of z=1089 CMB is a calculated value that corresponds to a calculated radius. In this we take into consideration luminosity to distance relations. However we know the object is no longer there so we calculate its position. Thermodynamics However needs to be calculated at a specific time. So if we wish to know what properties it has at that time we must measure samples of that time. Do this for various times and keep doing it till you establish a time evolution pattern. The average redshift per time period allows us to test expansion change and how it evolves. From this we can test the thermodynamic history and vice versa. Methods such stellar parallex allows us to test redshift. Every measurement technique undergoes numerous tests to ensure the accuracy of the methodology. This is critical as we need to confirm the universe is flat to calculate the size of the universe using the above equation. We also need to know redshift is accurate, and the expansion history. Keep in mind the ideal gas laws alone could be used to show the expansion history. However we need to account for possible intermediate changes. This is where observation and measurements of redshift is used. Now as mentioned this assumes homogeneity and isotropy. The CMB and stellar data sets confirm that. These are just a few of the steps to model a system with such a huge time change between and b. PS we also never rely on any one method. Universe cosmology relies on extensive datasets. Those datasets allow the development and confidence in the formulas used. Unlike most physics that model clearly seen entire processes. Cosmology doesn't have that luxury. The continuous tests and formulas allow us to overcome this obstacle. Prior to WMAP every time you did a calculation of distance you had to dob it three times. Why? Well we didn't know for sure what k was in the above formula. Now let's play hypothetical mayhem. let's imagine we discover conclusively that the universe underwent a 2000 degree Kelvin increase in temperature for say 1 million years roughly 2 billion years ago. What does this effect. first off it means the universe underwent either a phase change, a decrease in volume or an increase in density. Ideal gas laws. In all three cases this will effect redshift as well as rate of expansion. The above formula will no longer work as is so a correction must be made. The calculations for the age of the universe must be redone. Distances of objects earlier must be recalculated . Datasets must be adjusted. All formulas that derived from the above formula must be redone. wow lot of work. Glad that hasn't happened. However that example didn't happen instead dark energy and dark matter did get confirmed. If you pick up an article prior to WMAP. You will probably find the wrong metrics. The FLRW metric underwent a change to include the cosmological constant. Conformal distance based on the Hubble sphere as being the size of the observable universe is no longer valid. Older textbooks sold today still have these problems. So study recent articles and textbooks Publishing date 2000 and later should be ok Lol you should have seen forum debates in the ,90's Your lucky we didn't have LCDM back then. The best fit model was anyone's guess BB , quintessence, trespace, HCDM WCDM HLCDM MOND etc etc etc....many of em you can't even Google anymore The main point Is how you limit the model. You can model the past with the present if you can collect enough data, experimentation to do so. Can the model change absolutely. Can it be disproven then yes. Can the model make predictions yes it can. LCDM does make predictions it includes past and present events. It can describe what we see , it can describe aspects such as proper distance that we don't see. So is time a limit to a model? If LCDM which describes the dynamics of the universe isn't a model then what is lol. Try to link to the calculator in my signature. Set steps to 100, then open column selections. Then press Calculate. It will give you the expansion history of the particle horizon, the observable universe, the distance now,the distance then (proper and commoving. The redshift . Past, present and 80 billion years into the future based on our current knowledge Forgot the recessive velocity It also uses the Planck and WMAP datasets so you can compare the differences.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.6154 Neutrino mass from cosmology. Looks like they use the same formula.

The balloon analogy is used to describe expansion. These two articles are good reading on expansion and the misconceptions superluminal expansion 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 The last is excellent and easily understood it was designed to answer forum questions by a professor friend of mine Questions on expansion has been answered numerous times in the astronomy forum which also covers cosmology. You can also look there

Space is simply volume. The spacetime fabric is oft misunderstood. GR does not teach us that space is composed of a fabric. The expansion of space being faster than c depends on the distance being measured. Per Mpc space expands the same at all locations not gravitationally bound. That rate is the Hubble constant roughly 70/km/sec/Mpc. Hubbles law states the greater the distance the greater the recessive velocity. [latex]v_{recessive}=H_oD [/latex] So lets say we have two objects 10 Mpc apart. The next second expansion affects each Mpc by 70 km. So we gained 700. Km. Now if your original seperation distance is however equal to the Hubbles sphere. (c*age of universe.) Each Mpc between us and the Hubbles sphere would add up the same way 70 km/Mpc. The result is an Apparent recessive velocity greater than c. However the object measured has no inertia neither does space. It is simply an increase in volume whose total change between two objects depends on the seperation distance. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion You can find numerous articles to help understand expansion in the misconceptions section of my site http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/

There is no need to move to speculation as it's a direct question on a main stream theory

Correct it is invariant in a vacuum.

The speed of light is invarient in all inertia frames. The author of this page is on crack Lol I see xyzt confirms my opinion of the author

The older models suffer the most, atm I would place the SO(10) models as the strongest possibilities. There are some variations. Much of the Experiments are ongoing though the initial data looks highly promising. The main area needing further research is the Higgs metastability By the way I also have you +1 it isn't often someone presents a model then accepts it as being in error. More often than not they ignore the evidence and comments that conflict with said model

I have a good understanding of numerous GUT models if you wish to SIM GUT I'm game to help provide you assistance. I would recommend looking at the SO(10) GUT models and perhaps N Body codes GUT theories http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdfThe Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Baez and John Huerta http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdfGRAND UNIFIED THEORIES Here is the info on various models

To add to this statement, if a poster makes a mistake in a correction or reply,we fully expect other forums to correct our mistakes. If I make a wrong statement I trust other respected members to point out my mistakes. For example xyzt is far better at relativity than I. If I make a mistake I know he will supply a correction

Dishonest because you refuse to understand it. Yeah right. Tell me why you claim everyone that is telling you your wrong is dishonest. Read it for yourself mate http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau If you think I'm lying to you on the conservation laws pick up "Introductory to particle physics" by Griffith Euclidean means flat space no spacetime curvature. Non relativistic conditions means you do not need General or special relativity.

Whoever told you relativity conflicts with Newtonian laws in incorrect. Newtonian laws works just fine in euclidian non relativistic conditions By the way both Newtonian and relativiy follows the conservation laws

Fine we choose not to listen to your fantasies. Have a good life

By the way that response is precisely the hand waving Swansort is referring to. It means your ignoring any advise and math or theories that conflict to your idea. Not very scientific.

Your right but they are by more experimentation and scientific methodologies than you have shown. They are tested on a regular basis, if you wish anyone to seriously look at your model. You will need to account for them.