Mordred

that's the problem, we simply don't know prior to inflation, there must have been some form of expansion prior to inflation otherwise the universe would have simply collapsed. (temperatures would have also increased, instead of decreasing) However we simply do not know as we can never collect any data prior to the dark ages. There is the possibility we will one day see further than the dark ages using the cosmic neutrino background. However our ability to detect neutrinos are still too limited. So making any statements prior to inflation is purely conjectural. If we can resolve which inflationary model is correct that would also provide clues. For example if say one of the Higg's inflationary models and either supersymmetry (MSSM) or SO(10) proves to be accurate. Then we can at least develop a thermodynamic process. More specifically we would be able to understand the particle physics and thermodynamic relations of the Higg's field and standard model/supersymmetric particles involved. An expanding universe is one that would cool down, that cooling allows particles to drop out of thermal equilibrium and results in phase transitions. Inflation may be a result of one of those phase transitions. One other detail is if the GUT models are accurate, then the planch epoch, GUT epoch and electroweak epoch can only occur for an expanding universe. To the best of our understanding the universe must have had a pre-inflation expansion rate. However we do not know what that rate or mechanism is due to no direct measurement data. As far as quantum explanations Loop quantum cosmology has the pre inflation expansion as the result of a bounce from a previous collapsing universe. However this is only one possible model. There are numerous bounce, cyclic and universe from nothing models, as well as the black hole models In the universe from nothing models, its the result of Heisenburg's uncertainty and the zero energy model. However another universe from nothing model has quantum tunneling from nothing. Similar to inflation's false vacuum to true vacuum in the false vacuum inflation model.

Earth itself went through 5 known major extinction events, with 12 minor extinction events, these are only the known ones from fossil records etc. Other planets would also have extinction level events. Planets without an atmosphere having a higher susceptibility. Radiation, meteors etc. The number and types of planetary scale extinction events are numerous. Evolution on a planet does not necessarily always produce intelligent, technological life forms. It took millions of years before humans came into being. Part of the reason we did was that the Dinosaurs were wiped out giving mammals a chance to develop beyond rodent size. As I mentioned before mathematical statistics rarely involve every variable into their equations. Exponential growth is a prime example. For one thing nature trends to establish a balance between animal and plant species. The only reason mankind isn't balanced with nature is our technology, allows us to fight natures processes. Take a region where one species becomes dominant outside of technology his food supply is limited, so that species can only survive to a certain population. If the species survives long enough. Then the likely hood another species evolves, that uses the previous species as a food source increases. Exponential growth is a statistic involving one species, the mathematics you showed doesn't cover food competition, diseases, extinction level events etc. (the numeric scenarios are endless) edit just recalled an interesting story in regards to exponential expansion... When I went to high school in grade 10, I recall watching a video as part of the curriculum. In that video they talked about exponential expansion based on the (then ) current birth rate and death rates. This was back in the early 80's, according to that video by the time the year 2000 rolled around mankind would have lost 98% of its population due to starvation. I recall this as I spent the better part of my younger years worried about population growth. Now that I've studied far beyond those days I learned to realize the numerous factors those numbers never accounted for.

Its good to see a 15 year old so interested in Cosmology, that being said the best route for you to undertake understanding cosmology is to understand what the current models and science already understands about cosmology and why. A very common mistake is to try and reinvent the wheel or think outside the box, without understanding what is inside the box. The FLRW metric is an exact solution to Einsteins field equations, currently the strongest model is the LCDM model or lambdaCDM ,[latex]\Lambda CDM[/latex] this is essentially the hot big bang model with the cosmological constant aka dark energy and dark matter included. In light of my advice here is some entrance articles other than the 2 I already posted above. http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model. http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry textbook style 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 http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde historical articles handy to get a picture in how cosmology developed http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/hubble-law-redshift1929.htm Reprint of one of Hubbles papers. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/relativity.pdf An authorized reprint of Einsteins Special relativity paper. http://apod.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/debate20.html The "Great debate of the 20's" jubilee reprint article available this one covers Friedmann (FLRW metric) http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.1498 " “The Waters I am Entering No One yet Has Crossed”: Alexander Friedman and the Origins of Modern Cosmology" written by Ari Belenkiy these articles are essentially entry level with some exceptions, but they should get you started, good luck in your studies.

scientifically speaking space is just geometric volume filled with the contents of the universe, space itself has no energy or matter. Space geometry is determined by energy-density relations between matter and the cosmological constant, as compared to the critical density. 7 and 6 are in conflict with one another "if space is constant with no pressure etc how does it expand? Superluminal expansion depends on the separation distance of measurement. Hubble's law states the greater the separation distance the greater the recessive velocity [latex]V=HD[/latex] here is a good article on the misconceptions on superluminal expansion http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies how particles gain kinetic energy, is well understood there is little mystery there, much of which is described by basic physics (heat) laws of thermodynamics. Your theory doesn't explain how to handle the laws of thermodynamics, which in cosmology is covered under the ideal gas equations. The FLRW metric does include the equations of state, which is the ideal gas portion a theory such as this without the supportive math is just a hypothesis without proof

Neither do I, far too many variables

gotcha

one thing that hasn't been mentioned is the lasers are traveling through a medium, which means they are being influenced by the atmosphere. The process of refraction is involved. this article has the general refraction index formula http://www.rp-photonics.com/effective_refractive_index.html here is some at home inexpensive eperiments http://www.euhou.net/index.php/exercises-mainmenu-13/classroom-experiments-and-activities-mainmenu-186/203-determination-of-the-index-of-refraction-using-a-laser-pointer

One can always volunteer for the Mars one program lol, though its a one way trip. http://www.mars-one.com/mission/technical-feasibility http://www.mars-one.com/mission/roadmap

no worry no one will steal, it as it makes absolutely no sense. If photons was gravity every time you turned on a light bulb things would be attracted to it. Photons is part of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum. Mass is due to the strong force primarily, with a very small percentage due to the Higg's boson interactions. Perhaps you should step back and study the science already available. For one photons mediates the electromagnetic force Photons are the force carriers of the electromagnetic field. W and Z bosons are the force carriers which mediate the weak force. Gluons are the fundamental force carriers underlying the strong force. Higgs Bosons give other particles mass via the Higgs mechanism. Their existence was confirmed by CERN on 14 March 2013. (This should read only fermions and the massive W and Z gauge bosons.) ah well its Wiki not the most accurate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson

no problem Studiot, I'm certainly not a chemist lol, those definitions were from some chemist websites. May have not been the best of sites. quantum tunneling also occurs in a higher vacuum or energy state, with particles tunneling to a lower vacuum or energy state. Inflation is one such process.(earliest form of inflation (false vacuum) Hawking radiation at the accretion disk is another. There are numerous forms, Unruh radiation, Hawking radiation, Schwinger mechanism, Parker radiation, I can't recall the name of the one related to strictly magnetism. However there is also a tunneling process at magnetars., neutron stars etc These are all cosmology based applications involving quantum tunneling.

cool site thanks

here is the chemistry definitions Solid Definition: state of matter characterized by particles arranged such that their shape and volume are relatively stable. The constituents of a solid tend to be packed together much closer than the particles in a gas or liquid. - the state in which a substance has no tendency to flow under moderate stress; resists forces (such as compression) that tend to deform it; and retains a definite size and shape A liquid has a definite volume, but takes the shape of its container. liquid state - the state in which a substance exhibits a characteristic readiness to flow with little or no tendency to disperse and relatively high incompressibility A gas has neither a definite volume nor a definite shape. The state of matter distinguished from the solid and liquid states by relatively low density and viscosity, relatively great expansion and contraction with changes in pressure and temperature, the ability to diffuse readily, and the spontaneous tendency to become distributed uniformly throughout any container. Plasma has neither a definite volume nor a definite shape. Plasma often is seen in ionized gases. Plasma is distinct from a gas because it possesses unique properties. Free electrical charges (not bound to atoms or ions) cause plasma to be electrically conductive. Plasma may be formed by heating and ionizing a gas.

I never stated f=ma proves a solid lol, f=ma simply behaves differently from within a solid, how would it work within a solid? ok that lines need a bit more detail lol it simply intended to say the universe is not a solid. then I wanted to describe how forces acted on different mass bodies within a fluid,or gas like state sorry for the confusion, that evidently got lost in translation lol. The perfect fluid calculations are commonly used in numerous cosmology applications so the synonym is applicable

correct we measure how movements of different bodies relate to each other all the time. We do this by comparing how one bodies movement is different from another in the same way your using 2D vectors, we use 3D vectors. To correlate this with the time component we need 4D vectors. Now if there is an overall rotation the vectors of motion will show motion due to how points on any rotating object or universe works. Take the solid example lets forget open spaces, simply make the solid clear so light can move through it (visibility). place any number of measurement points throughout that solid ball. Now rotate that ball. the points on the other side of the center will move in the opposite direction as the points on your side of the ball. When you think about it the only reason we know the Earth rotates is due to comparing our planet to other planets, how many years did we think the universe revolved around us? Its easier to detect a rotating universe, than say if that entire ball was moving moving in the same direction without rotating, in this case we would not have any measurement reference point to tell us differently, We can only measure within our universe, if every reference point was say moving right at the exact same vector and velocity, we wouldn't know. (solid case, linear motion) now the real universe is not a solid, far from it. remember f =ma, also remember newtons 3 laws of motion. if the universe has a rotation this causes centrifugal force, less massive bodies would move outward at a higher rate than massive one, rotation would also tend to flatten the universe into a sphere, just like it does for a galaxy.(provided the center of rotation in is our observable portion) So there would be a higher energy density near the equatorial epicenter. We see no evidence of this. We would see the same point to point correlations as the solid but with the added considerations of how forces work. In the case of of a consistent linear motion with absolutely no change in rate of velocity and absolutely no rotation we wouldn't be able to detect this (a body in motion will stay in motion till a force acts upon it). in the case of rotation with a center of rotation outside our observable universe, the objects closer to the center would have a slower rate of apparent movement than those further away from the center, also objects will still have a preferred direction outward away from the center. As f=ma smaller objects will move outward faster than larger objects. (centrifugal force) In many ways you can think of what occurs in a centrifuge used to separate red blood cells from white blood cells, why do they separate ? after all the same centrifugal force acted upon those blood cells.

No problem everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I'm not about to bash you into my way of thinking, I don't come to a science forum for that. I'll leave that to religion and philosophers. Scientifically speaking we don't know one way or the other.

if its so simple explain it using the correct equations, while your at it explain why Wiki has not one but two mass values for the photon 0 and mass is less than 1×10−18 eV/c2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon 1) prove mathematically mass=0 is right or wrong 2) prove mathematically the second value right or wrong.

Please read these three articles 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 http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf: "Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies your not getting smarter if you don't study what is already available you want a direct answer how to model the particle physics involved at the big bang? I can't think of a single scientifically accurate article that doesn't involve complex lie algebra and quage symmetry. here is two examples (trust me you want to start with the basics before you get into these articles below) http://arxiv.org/pdf...-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde (this one is older may be a bit out of date) http://www.wiese.itp...es/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis here are two direct GUT articles. SO(10) and super symmetry MSSM (minimal super symmetric model) these articles require advanced differential geometry, as well as a solid understanding of particle physics. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf http://pdg.lbl.gov/2...11-rev-guts.pdf

the big bang is not an explosion it is simply a hot dense state of unknown size and origins, this state simply expanded geometrically. It is not a an explosion like a bomb. I really wish you would at least read the articles I posted in your other thread. In particular the misconceptions articles.

Actually in this I can appeal my feelings any way I choose. There is no scientific evidence to even base a conjecture on. We do not know the number of habitable systems and we do not even know the likely hood of another technological species there may or may not be other than our own. All models or conjecture on such are simply statistical conjecture. Yes I do know the math involved. Yes I do feel it is highly likely that life exists elsewhere, no I will not be worried about it. No I do not feel it is likely we are in danger of alien attack. Yes I am aware of the statistical probability of a technological life form like our own. The likely hood increases with the growing number of planets we discover. Both the great filter and the Fermi Paradox are both statistical conjectural arguments plain and simple. Their numbers will continuously vary, as our knowledge increases. Let us not forget they are arguments based out of sheer statistics. Quite frankly the very title of this thread shows it belongs in the Speculation forum. Beyond the science news of finding a potential habitable planet the article mentioned is simply conjectural. take the Fermi paradox for example which is essentially with all the potential habitable planets and the statistical probability of another technological species why haven't we detected aliens life forms. we can barely detect planets how does he expect one to detect aliens? We certainly cannot expect to spot spaceships when we can barely see planets. We certainly cannot tell if life exists or not on a habitable planet except through potential hydrocarbon spectrum analysis. Even then we can only conjecture its possibility. Th great filter also has similar problems, it doesn't account for our inability to even detect life on other systems

You also seem to have a misconception of the hot big bang model, scientifically speaking we do not know how the universe first formed, the hot big bang model simply describes a hot, dense beginning. Due to the dark ages we will never be able to see far enough back to see the beginning. The furthest we will be able to see is the time of the CMB. Light prior to that had too short of a mean free path. (dark ages). Our knowledge prior to the dark ages is based upon our stidies of particle physics. The so called explosion you often read about in pop media is an explosion in the volume of space. It is not the same as an explosion like a stick of dynamite. Simply put the universe suddenly expanded exponentially during inflation. The universe today continues to expand due to the cosmological constant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe there is significant difference between the singularity of the hot big bang and the singularity of a black hole. in the first case the BB model does not predict a finite infinitely dense volume. he singularity is simply a point where our physics can no longer describe what is going on (the math etc cease to make any sense, too many infinities etc.) In the BH singularity this is said to be an infinitely dense state in the GR model, in the QM model the smallest size would be a planch length. In particular the balloon analogy and "What we have learned from Observational Cosmology" these articles will help catch you up to speed on current cosmology 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 http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf: "Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966 "why the prejudice against a constant" http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052 "In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0219What's in a Name: History and Meanings of the Term "Big Bang" Helge Kragh http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.1442v1.pdf Is it possible to see the infinite future of the Universe when falling into a black hole?

One can only hope that by the time we develop the means to colonize another planet, we will also develop the technology to avoid the mistakes we have made on this planet. Our history is full of mistakes, however thankfully we also exhibit the ability to learn from our mistakes. Though some lessons take longer to correct than other. Other problems are also more difficult to solve than others (energy crisis). There is a solid chance that by the time we can colonize another planet, we will also have a sustainable power supply that isn't as harmful to the planet as fossil fuels. In many ways were still a young species, our technology advances is limited to a few 100 years. Naturally we learn as all creatures do by trial and error, though this isn't the only means, however very common. If an alien species was looking for colonization and looking for a new habitable planet or resources, there is plenty of other planets for resources than Earth. If they are capable of space travel then they are capable of mining resources on planets that don't have a technological species to compete with. As far as colonizing a habitable planet, well lets just say if I was an alien with interstellar capabilities. I would take one look at Earth and the damage we have done to its environment, and keep looking. Not to mention wars are expensive, the chances of habitable planets are probably higher than we realize, we have great difficulty detecting smaller planets than larger ones. Probably plenty of planets around that you don't have to worry about going to war with. Although a war with another race, might just be the thing we need to finally unite our race. I certainly don't hope that is the case, and that we can finally unite without the need of a common survival cause. There is always hope, we do have greater world wide cooperation now than we did 200 years ago. On the subject of habitable planets, a planet in the habitable zone is simply one of the considerations, as well as the mass. The mass is part of what atmosphere the planet can support, so is certainly important. There is some articles I found interesting in habitable zone planets. On the origin and evolution of life in the Galaxy http://eprints.port.ac.uk/3478/1/On_the_origin_and_evolution_of_life_in_the_galaxy.pdf http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6674 "Habitable Zones Around Main-Sequence Stars: New Estimates" Various authors this one discusses the possibility of life around red Dwarf stars. The "Living with a Red Dwarf" Program http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.1860

Even a solid has plenty of empty space between the particles. That being said if everthing in the universe is held together by the strong force. Or a solid the only observer inside that toy universe would need to be able to percieve beyond a solid from his view point. In other words he wouldn't be able to measure anything if he couldn't. If he could see between the particles making up the solid. The same messurement and momentum rules would apply. Keep in mind this is a highly conjectural toy universe

I 100% agree with what Bignose just said, that's also why throughout this entire thread I provided the materials you need to study in order to make your model work. If I truly felt your beyond hope I wouldn't even bother trying to teach you. However that being said you must show an effort in learning the material provided lol for that matter I have my own ideas on the cosmological constant problem. I've been working on it for 3 years, However I keep proving my own model wrong. I never post the idea on forums,or in papers simply due to knowing the maths involved already. I keep working on it even though it has very little chance of sucess. Its a good way to learn if anything else (also I haven't proved the premise wrong, I keep proving my modelling wrong)

Dark energy is essentially one proposed solution to the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant is in essence a vacuum state. prior to inflation there is vacuum states. So in essence this statement is correct. However dark energy doesn't need to "orbit" The problem you will have is dark energy is the same no matter where you measure it.(although in order to measure it at all, you need an extremely large scale, and is a calculated value that depends on particles. (much the same way gravity is measured) Its energy-density is not stronger or weaker near large stellar bodies. [Latex]\Lambda[/Latex] has been measured with tremendous precision. According to all precision measurements its value is constant from the CMB to present times, regardless of where you measure it. (we cannot observe anything prior to the CMB to see inflation) If you have any hope of making your model work your going to need this http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0406095v2.pdf "The Cosmic energy inventory"

neutrons weren't around at the time of the big bang. The temperature was too high for any neutrons to be stable. Quarks and gluons (Quark/Gluon plasma) became stable shortly after BB, but this occurs after inflation. Prior to inflation, according to the standard model, ignoring supersymmetry including the SO(10) Susy model. the universe is essentially a vacuum state with virtual (quantum) particle production. This is where the planch epoch, GUT epoch and electroweak epoch timing comes into play. At the planch epoch there are no quage bosons, so the forces are unified, with the exception of gravity, the Higg's field is not active so no particles that exist have mass. All virtual particles at this time is relativistic, however that's meaningless as virtual particles are short lived. Then you have the GUT epoch in which the Strong force separates. The force carrier is the Gluon, This is essentially a quarks/gluon plasma. Then the electroweak Epoch. starts in which the remaining forces drop out of thermal equilibrium. However at the same time inflation starts.(may or may not be related to the Higg's field, depending on which inflation model is correct) Inflation generates a supercooling due to rapid expansion. (see the ideal gas laws). However when inflation slows down, there is a significant reheating phase.. The remaining forces separate from the unified electroweak force. and the Quark epoch starts. Now you have a quark/Gluon plasma. Hadrons can now start to form. Hadrons is a composite particle made of quarks held together by the strong force (gluon interactions) a neutron is made up of 1 up quark and two down quarks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron a proton is made up of 2 up and 1 down http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton these particles could not form preinflationary, they are formed after inflation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#Dark_Ages this is also evidence as to why your model doesn't work as gravity exists without the presence of neutrons or protons. It also proves that you never even looked at the existing GUT models if you weren't aware of these details.