Mordred

I didn't take your question as specific to the mars rover Obviously there is no camera watching the rover land or on the surface. However looking at the wiki link below it took color images at a rate of 4 frames per second during its descent. Using the Mardi camera http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_(rover) 4 frames per sec would be rather blocky so I would imagine some CGI was used to add intermediate images

You can infer from this article even the data is computer processed You asked why computer graphics are needed I didn't explain redshift it is simply one of the reasons. Look at the types of sensors used.

The majority of research does not use visual based telescopes. How can it, take a star for example that is emitting light in the visual frequencies. Then redshift that light till it's just barely detectable in the infra red spectrum. Redshift is merely one aspect of visual limitation. We also have the limitation of sheer distance. Those stars and planets we find are mere dots in some cases. For that matter some galaxies are barely detectable. So we don't rely on the visible frequencies. Instead we look for signals in the entire range of the electronagnetic spectrum. Then when a signal is found you need to determine its distance (Google cosmic distance ladder for a variety of methods as no one method works at all distance scales). Once the distance is known then you need to compensate for the redshift and possible blueshift to those detected frequencies. Rarely will those frequencies fall into the visual spectrum of light. More oft than not they will fall into the infrared spectrum. Particularly the further away said object is. The majority of research does not use visual based telescopes. How can it, take a star for example that is emitting light in the visual frequencies. Then redshift that light till it's just barely detectable in the infra red spectrum. Redshift is merely one aspect of visual limitation. We also have the limitation of sheer distance. Those stars and planets we find are mere dots in some cases. For that matter some galaxies are barely detectable. So we don't rely on the visible frequencies. Instead we look for signals in the entire range of the electronagnetic spectrum. Then when a signal is found you need to determine its distance (Google cosmic distance ladder for a variety of methods as no one method works at all distance scales). Once the distance is known then you need to compensate for the redshift and possible blueshift to those detected frequencies. Rarely will those frequencies fall into the visual spectrum of light. More oft than not they will fall into the infrared spectrum. Particularly the further away said object is. Here is one of the better articles on the cosmic distance ladder http://terrytao.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/cosmic-distance-ladder1.pdf Forgot to mention you also have to filter out all the gas and plasma interferance in order to find objects. Our galaxy has lots of plasma that prevent visual spotting of objects Let's look at the Hubble satellite for example its sensors detect ultra violet visual and near infra red light. However not at the same time. See link below http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/hubble_essentials/

They do. In cosmology calculations we have, conformal time and cosmological time. Of which any calculation can be converted between the 3. The lightcone calculator in my signature uses proper time. Cosmic (cosmological time) is often referred to as look back time http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_time Conformal time coincides with the particle horizon http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_horizon Then we have as well different types of distance. Proper distance conformal distance and commoving distance. This article covers these in detail http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CCsQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fastro-ph%2F9905116&rct=j&q=proper%20time%20cosmology&ei=o4uhVOe8EpOnyATs6ICYAw&usg=AFQjCNENt8vXuRz1vhm6vF3-TawOcXsUcA&sig2=_FVL77t2rD6gMvWYoBTx7A "Distance measures in cosmology" David Hogg Grr I ya modified your last post while I was typing mine. Lol Tar we can calculate how many photons are in the universe using the blackbody temperature of the universe and the Bose-Einstein statistics. We also know how that radiation affects expansion and universe geometry using the equation of state for radiation http://www.google.ca/search?site=&source=hp&ei=io-hVIehAc35yQT-koDYCg&q=equation+of+state+cosmology&oq=eq&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.1.0.41j0l4.2472.2918.0.4678.3.3.0.1.1.0.239.608.0j1j2.3.0.msedr...0...1c.1.60.mobile-gws-hp..0.3.429.3.u--EvSC4PwU See particle physics of the Early universe under my signature chapter 3 for how to use the Bose-Eintien statistics in regards to photons However the answers on how much of any contributor to the universes energy budget can be found here http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0406095v2.pdf"The Cosmic energy inventory You really need to sit back and understand what we can and do calculate both in the how and why. The cosmic inventory should give you quick OMG we can calculate all of that?!!?. My signature has the books and articles to assist you in learning how Ah it wasn't a change in post just an earlier one lol. The first part of my post is in regards to how time and distance is calculated to include how it evolves

Ps my link has some historical articles as well my personal fav is the great debate Have a good night mate late for myself as well

Several centuries of research oft wrong. At first the Earth didn't move. This is where philosophy interfered with true science. Empirical evidence showed otherwise. Much like the topic at hand. Study the evidence before formulating a theory. Study current models before you state they are wrong.

Those metrics are not specific to the aether theory. The first is the speed of a wave in a continuum. The second is equation of drag in a continuum. Your theory by your words is a continuum. Therefore those metrics apply to your model.

You have zero empty space just as per the metrics posted here. It's the same problem no matter how you shake it It's the same thing as everything you posted you have a continous medium precisely as the aether theory does. It's metrics and associative problems are identical

This covers the aether problem read it carefully

It has everything to do with it you simply don't understand why it does.

Look at the properties he mentioned they conflict with each other that is the problem he wants your solution for

Nice post +1 from me good descriptive

Then read this article as you mentioned dark energy and dark matter and address the problems of dark matter and dark energy as aether described in the latter article http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/06/08/dark-matter-vs-aether/

Here read this then explain how your theory differs http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

How is this different than luminiferous aether? And now were back to continuum of matter not continuum of energy which is it?

As you can tell in order to be a model such as the one your presenting you will need to be able to answer the questions on this thread in a rigorous manner. We only presented a few questions. Might help if you study why scientists believe so strongly in dark energy dark matter quantum tunnelling the FLRW metric as represented by LCDM. My signature contains several articles and textbooks to help truly understand the above mentioned This is describing the eather theory which has been disproved by the experiments mentioned by Bignose

Is your continuum matter is it energy? Perhaps you should look up the definition of matter. After all your opening post is a continuum of matter. Ah now we're changing it lol.

Only one fermion can occupy a given volume

Bosons are not considered matter. Matter occupies a given volume. An infinite number of bosons can occupy a given volume. However although bosons interact with fermions they cannot occupy the same space. Fermions is what forms matter. You left no room for bosons as all your available space is fermionic

For that matter how could you have compression in your wharehouse b there is no available space to allow compression Oops I see bignose covered that

Great why does wharehouse b with its higher density not have a higher temperature than wharehouse a. Where does this solve the particle wave duality you mentioned above.. which of the 4 forces does your foam interact with? Where do the bosons fit in when all the available space is matter. How come this medium doesn't limit light below c? How does redshift work in wharehouse b? Your model is rather lacking on some of the essential questions. This far you only described a possible conservation of momentum. What about conservation of color, isospin, flavor, Lepton number? What is the specific properties of your foam when applied to the lie algebra groups? Google SO,(5) or SO(10) for examples. After all your going to need to cover all particle interactions with your foam to be a model Explain blackholes then. Thus far there is no theoretical limit to how much matter can be compressed into the singularity that I am aware of

Mate you have no clue nor have you posted any relevant metrics. Here is a question for you if the universe was a continuum on matter. Why isn't it collapsing under its gravity. You already stated your model has no cosmological constant. So what pray tell Is preventing it from collapsing. Next question which particles are considered matter particles. Photons certainly aren't matter particles. So virtual particles which in the form of virtual particles do not count as matter. So which matter particles that we cannot detect fill all those empty spaces? Then answer why we can't detect them? In the case of dark matter I can easily explain why. I however won't provide you an easy way out. Prove your right over the thousands of physicists and some of the greatest minds in Cosmology as well as particle physicists over the course of the last century. Post your metrics would be a good start which is also a requirement on the speculations forum

Yes and no. If you take the critical density formula the average energy density per cubic meter works out to roughly 1 proton per cubic meter including dark energy. The cosmological constant adds roughly 6.62*10^-10 joules per cubic meter. Even with the cosmological constant this leads to lots of empty space. Heisenburgs uncertainty principle in terms of virtual particle production is 120 orders of magnitude too large to be used as the Cosmological constant. Now to the OP anything we can measure or influences our universe is part of our universe. The universe is everything we can see,measure and has an influence upon the previous 2. There is no outside our universe. The concept is meaningless by the definition of universe However that being said there is the theoretical possibility of multiverses. However we have zero evidence of such beyond mathematical probabilities. So describing a medium between them is also improbable. How do we know those other universes have the same physics? Will the uncertainty principle still apply? This theory remains untestable and therefore highly speculative

In terms of cosmology and thermodynamics. All forms of energy density and particles are included in the calculations. The FLRW metric includes the ideal gas law relations along with the appropriate equations of state Here is the related articles my signature contains more Training (textbook Style Articles) 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/0409426An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis Though if you can afford a textbook the best book on modelling the universe as per the individual contributors in terms of their individual energy contributions is "Introductory to Cosmology" by Barbera Ryden. She shows numerous toy models of single as well as multi component universes with the FLRW metric as well as having one of the better breakdowns of universe geometry I have ever read (close to 30,textbooks). My universe geometry article is based mainly on her work. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Page 2 is here http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ PS the link on thermodynamics of the Early universe is essentially the same as per chapter 3 as Scott Dodelsons "Modern Cosmology" However the book by Linde is a free full length textbook enjoy its based on the SO(5) particle physics model. Now the strongest interest is the SO(10) MSM minimal standard model which is the SO(5) with the Higgs added in the SO(10) lie group

Not really sure on this. I've seen both solutions on the Eistein field equations. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=11&ved=0CBoQFjAAOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fgr-qc%2F9502020&rct=j&q=is%20the%20Einstein%20field%20equations%20holonomic&ei=TF6fVK72JYSGyQS6joFQ&usg=AFQjCNHy-kpcgybVtV9dV2g8RHZMMjVGVg&sig2=YqL7xP_teDJxgDRiyeoDTg&bvm=bv.82001339,d.aWw http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=14&ved=0CC0QFjADOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.emis.de%2Fjournals%2FUIAM%2FPDF%2F41-267-272.pdf&rct=j&q=is%20the%20Einstein%20field%20equations%20holonomic&ei=TF6fVK72JYSGyQS6joFQ&usg=AFQjCNGpWG66xeRtknG9WevXVfUFVkqvpw&sig2=7JvkPpJGymHWoDT_HIpxdA The above apply holonomic solutions Here is some examples of nonholonomic http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.0647 http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3986 Your guess is as good as mine Lol if not better than mine