Jump to content

Mordred

Resident Experts
  • Posts

    9707
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    36

Everything posted by Mordred

  1. I can't find the paper right now, but the Godel universe and subsequent rotating models have been discounted. AFAIK . To define the problem, a rotating universe would have a center or rotation. So if you watch the movement of galaxies there would be a tendency for galaxies on the other side of the center of rotation to be moving one direction. Opposite to ours. None has been observed to do so. The other consideration is when the Universe was smaller that rotation would have to be faster. However keep in mind we can only see the observable portion. So these two observations alone are difficult to determine a rotation. That being said even if the center was somewhere outside our observable portion, expansion wouldn't be homogeneous or isotropic. All the galaxies would appear to be moving in the same direction (outward) with different rates depending on how close to the center the galaxy is. Think in terms of angular momentum. None of the data sets support a rotating model. The universe is extremely homogeneous (no preferred location) and isotropic (no preferred direction). Also as the CMB is essence all around us, we would have been able to measure a rotation in the temperature spectrums, with varying values due to expansion. Counter argument is of course the rotation being incredibly slow, however it would have to be so slow to maintain an isotropic universe that 1 revolution would need to be longer than the age of the universe if memory serves correct. Unfortunately I lost the paper when my older comp crashed, I've never been able to relocate it. a simple way to visualize the problem is to take a large flat round object. place numerous points on the object then rotate it, the outer edge will have a faster apparent velocity than the dots towards the center. regardless of your reference point, then place sand on that plate as you rotate the plate the sand will move towards the outer region on the plate (assuming you rotate the plate fast enough). Now visualize the motion in a 3d object such as a balloon. (with a layered center lol). This would represent our observable universe. If you can visualize the 3D multilayer, you can see how easy it would be to detect a rotation regardless of location.
  2. Not to discourage you on your programming aspects its a good goal, however you will find the average desktop computer cannot handle all the needed equations. Even in one of the most advanced and simplified algorithms such as N-Body codes. This I can honestly tell you from personal experience as I am a programmer myself. Though I deal primarily with industrial applications. I made the mistake of buying an N-Body code textbook just to cover gravity. I had to hook up a 12 CPU network just to run a decent galaxy merger program. That program between two galaxies. With 250 particles in each galaxy took over 4 weeks to complete the merger. Mind you I did it in C++. (Fortran is the recommended language) Don't even have the code anymore as it turned out to be futile and I made some mistakes in the P-P interactions. and my galaxies flew apart lol to understand what I posted above here is some free material 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 (Full Textbook, public release) http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf: "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein (beginner level GR)
  3. your not showing your understanding of whats in the box. If anything you've shown you don't understand the basics. For example can you understand this equation? [latex]\rho_{crit} = \frac{3c^2H^2}{8\pi G}[/latex] or this equation? [latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a{t^2}d{r^2}+{S,k}{r^2}d\Omega^2 [/latex] by the way how these two equations work, is how the universe is defined according to the FLRW metric flat space in this would be [latex]{ds^2} = {dr^2} +{r^2}[d\theta^2 + {sin^2} d\phi^2][/latex] positive curvature k=+1 [latex]{ds^2} = {dr^2} +{R^2}{sin^2}(r/R)[d\theta^2 + {sin^2}\theta d\phi^2][/latex] negative curvature k=-1 [latex]{ds^2} = {dr^2} +{R^2}{sinH^2}(r/R)[d\theta^2 + {sin^2}\theta d\phi^2][/latex] when we ask to see your maths, that you tell us is supposed to argue against the known metrics. You must show us your knowledge of those metrics. Then perhaps you understand Einsteins field equations? describe your model in either form. we have all mentioned you need to learn the basics in physics, it would appear you don't even understand Newtonian laws let alone GR
  4. agreed, that was the motivation behind constructing my website. That and I find it far easier to answer repetitive questions on the forums lol. The misconceptions section is particularly useful for that. Its also why I wrote the site link articles. Though I made sure to have a couple of professors look them over. One of them being Brian Powell, he is currently working on the degeneracies of inflation. Has around 8 articles on arxiv atm that I'm aware of he also wrote one of the articles in the misconceptions section. My articles are basic information designed for the non cosmologist to understand as best as possible. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry
  5. Just a side note The Godel universe is a rotating model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_metric "Constructing the Godel Universe" http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0106/0106070.pdf "Is the Universe Rotating" http://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.4575v3.pdf
  6. here read Phind's balloon analogy start with the known science, here is some links. Keep in mind you can't just model your idea in just Euclidean geometry, it most also work for curved space. Explaining your model without knowing the basics of cosmology simply will not work. You need to understand whats in the BOX, before you think outside of the box. My signature has more material. Study this material and you will see why your model will not work well, as your describing it 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://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry here is some free textbook style articles (note some of them include particle physics) 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 http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf: "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein this one is very advanced so you may want to just keep a copy till you can understand it http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau Learn the current Science first. there is reasons why it works the way it does. Just like there is reasons why dark energy and dark matter is needed. As much as science first fought it. I've studied cosmology and numerous models from EFE, FLRW, MOND, TeVeS,QFT, ADS/CFT, LCDM, Tolman-Bondi-Lemaıtre space-times, Szekeres space-times, Shakarov Gravity, twistor theory, M-theory, etc That doesn't even include the GUT models. I know of no way your model can be described in any of those models nor even work in any of them. For that matter what you described as the fusion process in regards to protons and neutrons isn't even correct. Fusion in stars is hydrogen to helium at the earliest steps so protons and neutrons are not destroyed. They combine to form heavier elements
  7. right but in order to understand that you need to understand the math relations behind the cosmological constant, what is its value? why is it constant no matter where you measure it. Why does all the galaxies move away from each other at the same rate without a change in the angles? In your model why is Earths gravity not weaker when a satellite is between the Sun and the Earth? as opposed to that same satellite being on the other side of the planet, if gravity comes from the suns fusion. The Earth has no fusion process in its core. trust me once you study the math of current science it won't take you long to see where the problems your model will have to prove this post above is well written but I would include, show you understand the current theories before you claim they are wrong. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/22442-so-youve-got-a-new-theory/?p=309694
  8. right you need to understand the math inside the box and why that math works before you can reinvent the wheel as they say. If you want to prove your theory you need to compare it to existing theories with the mathematics. As well as show where the existing mathematics is in error or how your mathematics is an improvement. Then when you have your model with the mathematics. the next step is to find observational evidence to support it, then the next step is to try and prove your model wrong, with existing models or scientific evidence. I know that last step doesn't sound good but any good model is subject to being proved wrong or undergoes those tests to prove it wrong
  9. Math is the basis of science. You cannot model any scientific principle without math. Now I'm confused you purport to model how GUT works without including particle interactions? Then you model is incorrect and so is your so called program
  10. you need to reply outside the blue box when quoting lol. I had to cut and paste your reply out of the qoute of my post. "-my model of the universe is constructable in a computer simulated world and is designed to be symetrical to the universe from beginning of the big bang to the end of the big crunch. and this counts as math because its all very logical and symetrical to the universe. which is the point and as i make this im sure ill find mathematcal equations to support my theory i just havent done this yet." Not really, I can construct a mini universe out of N-body codes or using similar relations although due to computing power the number of particles is greatly reduced. I do own an N-body code textbook. Gravitational N-Body Simulations: tools and algorithms. by Sverre J Arseth. A simple 250 particle N-body code done properly takes over 3 days to show a mere 1 million years of development, on an average desktop computer. Do you honestly think you can compete with this Virtual universe? in detail? http://www.cfa.harva...du/news/2014-10 http://www.illustris-project.org/ this took the fastest supercomputer 3 months to perform, on a desktop it would have taken roughly 2000 years. You claim to have a program that covers the entire Universes history? and yet you cannot even post a simple mathematical relation to show your model??? What do you take us for? You need the mathematics to write the program in the first place. Post the math you used. I'm not that gullible here is a simple point to point algorithm grr can't get it to latex properly equation 2.1 http://www.usm.uni-muenchen.de/people/puls/lessons/numpraktnew/nbody/nbody_manual.pdf page 8 that's just a P-P gravitational code between two particles, now repeat that for 250 particles with interactions with each other, and keep track of each location using memory stacks and indirect addressing via pointers you have a program PPFFFTTT you do.
  11. Its just a review paper, its not introducing anything that isn't in the original peer review paper, that isn't in this paper. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009013 or this one http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5663 besides its a NASA published paper, I'd say that gives it some credence considering all the scientists they have working for them for that matter why would NASA want to publish its test results? Ever heard of security? They wouldn't want the details published until they have a working drive edit forgot to add, NASA probably won't even tell you which scientists are working on the project, the name on that paper is probably just some NASA public relations editor. For something like this all the scientists would have to have a security clearance
  12. no unfortunately you would need to show the math as they say. A simple verbal explanation isn't sufficient to understand what your describing. Particularly since you didn't answer the 10 questions I posted also a rotating universe is not homogeneous and isotropic
  13. oh my, OK where do we start. LOL some of the repliers have already started. So lets start with a couple of key questions with the asumption your model is correct. 1) How do you explain the gravitational attraction between asteroids in the Oort cloud? 2) How do you explain how we do not detect increased gravity or dark energy in nuclear reactors here on Earth? 3) How do you explain a homogeneous and isotropic expansion ? according to your model any relevant math, would show that the rate of expansion due to dark energy would be stronger near the galaxy centers and radiate outward, it would follow that larger galaxies would have a stronger repellent force than smaller galaxies, in other words the rate of expansion between any 3 galaxies would depend on their overall size and number of stars in a given region. So I cannot see how you can have a cosmological constant. It would entail a cosmological variable, that depends on location. Ie localized preferred locations and direction. 4) if gravity was similar to magnetism via a polarity, why do we not detect gravitational polarity curves such as we do with magnetism? For example the radiation belt surrounding Earth due to Earths magnetism. Why isn't there similar waves around gravitational bodies? We do analyze the same spectrums used to detect the Earths magnetosphere, when we look at stars and other large bodies.( it would follow that matter would follow similar pathways in much the same way as iron filings) 5) How would stars form in the first place without gravity? According to you model gravity is due to the collapse of stars, What about when there is no stars? The strong force is extremely short range compared to gravity. 6) How would you explain the universe expanding at a time when the temperatures was far hotter than any star, how did inflation work in this circumstance? Ie hotter than when protons and neutrons could form be stable (quark/gluon plasma). 7) Can you describe you model in terms of the ideal gas laws of thermodynamics? with relevant phase transitions? 8) How would nucleosynthesis work in this model? 9) can you show the particle interactions within the precepts of your model with the relevant Lie algebra, and guage symmetries? 10) Can you describe GUT, starting from Planck time forward in the thermodynamic and quage symmetry steps? Ie when each particle species would drop out of thermal equilibrium (after all your claiming to have solved GUT. lets see the full model)
  14. To be honest I never trust Youtube, nor any individual site that makes claims. There is no replacement to buying textbooks, and using pedagoginal peer reviewed articles from www.arxiv.org as one example. Though nothing is as good as formal education through an institution. When I first started studying cosmology I fell into the trap of looking for the easy ways to relate to cosmology. Ended up with all the wrong misconceptions as a result. Finally I broke down and started buying textbooks. My first was a lucky hit, in that it was well written in an easy to understand format. Introduction to Cosmology by Barbera Ryden http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Cosmology-Barbara-Ryden/dp/0805389121 my second was also excellent but a bit harder to at first understand Modern Cosmology 2nd edition by Scott Dodelson http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Cosmology-Scott-Dodelson/dp/0122191412 my collection has grown tremendously from there, in that I currently have 21 various textbooks, not all in Cosmology, though related. Some in QFT, particle physics,physics,QED,QCD,QM,Differential Geometry, etc Another useful avenue and one often overlooked is the read various Dissertations. Sometimes you can get lucky and get Introduction to a particular model from Arxiv.com. this one is an older textbook that Liddle has released, as its now outdated. However its still good for a starter http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde Here is a few examples 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 http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf: "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4598 "Introduction to Loop Quantum Cosmology by Abhay Ashtekar http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205 : "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields Forums are handy regardless of what method you use in learning, they help clarify, correct and teach. Keep at it, and always be aware there is lots of misleading information. However forums such as this one do help filter those out.
  15. Warp Field Mechanics 101 Dr. Harold “Sonny” White I've uploaded a copy to my website try it there make sure you have a pdf reader http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/local--files/main/Warp%20Field%20Mechanics%20101%20Dr.%20Harold%20%E2%80%9CSonny%E2%80%9D%20White.pdf
  16. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html there this one works
  17. string theory by itself isn't as strong however ADS/CFT correspondance and twistor theory still have a decent following AFIAK. Both are string based models
  18. some do, some don't The older, some involve lasers such as the Michelson Morley tests, there is a huge range of tests I added one site on an edit. http://math.ucr.edu/...xperiments.html this site has a huge list of various tests done
  19. Here is a list http://www.quantum.physik.uni-mainz...._861(2007).pdf Length Contraction in Heavy Ion Colliders : http://home.broadpark.no/~ccsernai/Csernai-textbook.pdf Tests of General Relativity Universality of Gravitational Red Shift : http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/...2-PRL10401.pdf Gravitational Potential at Short Distances : http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/...2-PRL10401.pdf Tests of Lorentz Invariance : http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...005-5Color.pdf Gravitational Red Shift / Pound-Rebka : http://luth2.obspm.fr/IHP06/lectures...avRedshift.pdf Light Deflection within the Solar System/Shapiro Delay : [astro-ph/0302294] The Measurement of the Light Deflection from Jupiter: Experimental Results Lunar Laser Ranging to test Nordvedt Effect : Phys. Rev. 169, 1017 (1968): Equivalence Principle for Massive Bodies. II. Theory Hafele-Keating Experiment for Time Dilation : Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains Thirring-Lense Effect : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture03007.html
  20. you might want to check out Shakarov Gravity. Sakharov's 1967 notion of ``induced gravity'' is currently enjoying a significant resurgence. The basic idea, originally presented in a very brief 3-page paper with a total of 4 formulas, is that gravity is not ``fundamental'' in the sense of particle physics. Instead it was argued that gravity (general relativity) emerges from quantum field theory in roughly the same sense that hydrodynamics or continuum elasticity theory emerges from molecular physics. In this article I will translate the key ideas into modern language, and explain the various versions of Sakharov's idea currently on the market. http://arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0204062 here is another related http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2012/Files/damasco.pdf While general relativity explains gravitational interactions well, it only answers the question of the nature of gravity by telling us that the geometry of space-time is gravity. Some physicists theorize that gravity is not fundamental, but emergent Coincidentally the quantum study of gravity is quantum geometrodynamics. currently reading this article, it will take me some time lol 231 pages GEOMETRODYNAMICS:SPACETIME OR SPACE http://arxiv.org/pdf/grqc/0409123.pdf
  21. This question has come up in another thread, rather than post again the same articles I'll add a reference. As the zero point articles are already mentioned here I'll link the later post where I posted some of the original model articles including Sydney Coleman's work in the question "Why is there something rather than nothing" http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82331-universe-creation-theories/?p=807150
  22. found some older articles, showing the Universe from nothing tunneling process. http://mukto-mona.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf in this paper the tunneling is done via the instanton tunneling from nothing. now as Sydney Coleman was mentioned, who also showed it was possible to have a universe start from nothing, using false vacuum by Allen Guth. Here is one of Sydney Coleman's earlier works http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/ph564/Coleman.pdf here is his biography http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/Coleman_Sidney.pdf Unfortunately I never could find his Fate of the false vacuum II. Here is a copy of one of Allen Guth's 1980 papers https://www.astro.rug.nl/~weygaert/tim1publication/cosmo2007/literature/inflationary.universe.guth.physrevd-1981.pdf This paper discusses the Hartle Hawking mechanism as well as the Wheeler Dewitt relations. http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/scccweb/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%203%20Religion/CH-3-Documents/ch3-Stengler-on-Origin-math-model.pdf As you can see Lawrence R Krauss in not the only one to consider a universe from nothing nor even the first scientist. There are numerous forms and equations that can be used to show a universe from Nothing.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.