Mordred

Now what does the term universe mean? One way to define that is everything that is. So by that definition how can you have an outside? Anything we can see, measure either directly or indirectly is by definition part of our universe. Concepts such as what is outside our universe is then nonsense. If our universe is by the first definition there can be no outside. There is no universe wall seperating us from some void. What would it be made of? spacetime is a mathematical descriptive of space and time. Space itself is not a fabric or substance. It is merely geometric volume filled with the contents of the universe. The average energy density of intergalactic space including dark energy is roughly [latex]6.62*10^-23[/latex] joules per cubic metre. You can calculate this from the critical density formula.

indeed however the southern region turned out ti be a calibration error. It is in fact not cooler, however the next dataset may tell a different story. Our universe is simply expanding. It is not expanding into anything. I know this concept is hard to grasp however think of it this way. How can an infinite universe expand into something? We do not know if the universe is finite or infinite our data sets only tell us we are expanding. Anything beyond the observable is untestable. Therefore conjectural. There has been numerous tests for universe collisions with the CMB however nothing conclusive has been found.

If you work out the metrics in the scenario you posted the universes would have a preferred outward direction from a central point. Unfortunately we know expansion is homogeneous and isotropic. In your scenario the central regions would have a higher energy density than the outer regions. In our universe the average energy density and rate of expansion are the same regardless of location. There is no preferred location or direction either. Dark energy of vacuum energy is constant regardless of location within our universe. We also do not know if our universe is finite or infinite. Nor do we know if a multiverse even exists. For all intesive purposes there is no outside our universe. We can only determine our observable portion. Anything beyond the observable universe is mere speculation

Intetesting paper. Not sure I agree with the superluminal light aspects. They do show how it can occur without violating causality but I'm still studying it. However some of the metrics in it are handy irregardless. Thanks for posting it

Charge is an electromagnetic interaction in this case it has no net charge even though it does interact with the electromagnetic force

The sterile neutrino is based on the SO(10) standard particle model more info can be found there http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954

Explosion is the wrong way of thinking of expansion and inflation, the term explosion implies a preferred direction and location. Inflation and expansion measurements show no preferred location or direction.. This is referred to as the cosmological principle. Our universe is homogeneous and isotropic, (no preferred location or direction) . Expansion is sometimes referred to as an explosion in space, however its important to recognize it as a rapid expansion in all directions and locations, not from an original point like object. We do not know how big the universe was at 10-43 seconds, it could have been finite or infinite.

lets clarify a few details on Hawking's radiation, first off Hawking's radiation occurs outside the event horizon not within it When the particle pairs form the negative particle falls into the BH causing a loss of mass, the positive particle escapes, Secondly Hawking's radiation only occurs if the blackbody temperature of the universe is lower than the blackbody temperature of the BH. Otherwise the BH absorbs the heat from the surrounding universe and gains energy-mass. Now the other problem is that if BH's were creating universes those universes would not be homogeneous and isotropic, there would be preferred directions and locations involved. Observations do not support and anistropic and inhomogeneous universe here is a handy article on BH's and the various processes involved http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499 :''Black hole Accretion Disk'' -Handy article on accretion disk measurements provides a technical compilation of measurements involving the disk itself. wiki isn't the greatest on the subject however it does support this in its reference 11 "A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). By this process, the black hole loses mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle. In another model, the process is a quantum tunnelling effect, whereby particle-antiparticle pairs will form from the vacuum, and one will tunnel outside the event horizon" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#cite_note-kumar2012-11

maybe your universe does but one of the strongest tenets of observations is that the universe is indeed homogeneous and isotropic at scales of 120Mpc. This is been a well documented and testable observation. More attempts and theories than I can name have tried to fight against this fact. However the PLANCK and WMAP data supports the homogeneous and isotropic universe. However this doesn't change the detail you missed. Recessive velocity is a distance dependant measurement. Yes there have been challenges to the homogeneous and isotropic universe, however in most cases its in regards to the scale of 120 Mpc or higher needed. A few years ago it was accepted to be 100 Mpc, now its more accepted as 120 Mpc. If you can supply peer reviewed and professional data that supports a preferred axis I would be more than happy to look at it. Until then, well lets just say your model will never match observation and therefore is not a practical model except to describe a toy universe expansion measurements show that if you take 3 or more galaxies they expand away from each other equally and away from each other without a change in angles, its pretty easy to measure a preferred direction, even in the slow rotating universe theory (Godel Universe) this however was shown to be inaccurate by observations. After years of studying cosmology I lost track of how many models have been discounted due to not being homogeneous and isotropic models. Both the Einstein field equations and the FLRW metric require the cosmological principle, in order to work the LCDM model is 100% compatible with both those metrics and they do indeed match observational data, this is constantly being retested and challenged, no attempts have thus far succeeded

in some regards your diagram has some basis but not in the way you think. recessive velocity aka expansion is a distance dependant observation based on Hubbles law. the greater th distance the greater the recessive velocity. [latex]V_{recessive}=Hd[/latex] in other words past the Hubbles sphere you can have an apparent recessive velocity in excess of c, at the furthest reaches we have a recessive velocity of 3.1c. however this is due to the distance of measurement not on the actual rate of expansion per unit volume. expansion is homogeneous and isotropic its rate is approximately 67 km/s/Mpc. In other words if you measure that rate of expansion here at Earth to a nearby object, then teleport to the futhest reaches of our observable universe, re-measure the same distance you would get the same rate of expansion. ie from Earth measure 1 Mpc it will increase at 67 km/s then teleport to new location measure 1 Mpc your measure will be 67 km/s the difference in recessive velocity is your adding all the individual Mpc's up to the total distance so naturally the rate of recessive velocity will increase at an exponential rate. say you measure 10 Mpc well this is 67+67+67+67+67+67+67+67+67+67 km/s get the picture? its a common misconception thanks to pop media not looking or understanding the math. further details can be found here http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell keep in mind Hubble's constant is constant everywhere not gravitationally bound, at the same point in time only

one of the strongest candidates for what dark matter is is sterile right hand neutrinos, (anti neutrino) here is the technical papers on it "Detection of An Unidentified Emission Line in the Stacked X-ray spectrum of Galaxy Clusters" http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 and "An unidentified line in X-ray spectra of the Andromeda galaxy and Perseus galaxy cluster" http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119 Next decade of sterile neutrino studies http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954 further info can be found in the standard model SO(10) particles,

your still missing a few details, everywhere in the universe the rate of expansion is the same as far as we know, (outside of gravitationally bound system) that rate of expansion is 69 km/s/Mpc.(Hubble constant,-constant everywhere at a point in tike only) the faster than light rate of expansion simply means that to an observer looking past his Hubble horizon the recessive velocity Appears to be faster than light. It is not as it is a math relation of separation distance. There is no mutual horizons, everyone's Hubble horizon or cosmological event horizon or particle horizon all depends on their location. No inertia is imparted to objects receeding from us, so they do not have speed due to expansion the term recessive velocity is a misnomer, (a consequence of Hubble not knowing why objects are moving from us). Were simply stuck with the term. The equations are part of the FLRW metrics, Hubbles law equations are covered in the second article I posted. the other equations can be found in the advanced section tutorial of this calc (in terms of proper distance(distance today)) http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/LightCone7/LightCone.html they are based from this article Fundamental Aspects of the Expansion of the Universe and Cosmic Horizons (technical 154 page article excellent though) http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0402278v1.pdf%5B/url the important part to keep in mind is no object has an inertia greater than c, the greater than c velocity depends on a large separation distance not an actual rate objects are moving (observer dependent, location of observer included)

particles aren't are not moving at c at the Hubble sphere nor the cosmological event horizon. recessive velocity is an apparent velocity that depends on separation distance. Hubble's law states the greater the distance the greater the recessive velocity. [latex]v_{recessive}=H_0d[/latex]. what this means is that if you could magically teleport to the Hubble sphere you measured from Earth, you would find the same expansion rate as you would here on Earth. The Hubble sphere is also not the edge of the observable universe. The cosmological event horizon is. We measure recessive velocities of 3c at the further edges of the observable universe. This is not the same as the event horizon due to a BH as its not based on acceleration. In expansion the recessive velocity imparts no inertia upon objects. The space between galaxies simply increases. There was a paper at one time on Unruh radiation due to observer horizons as one particle will fall out of the ability to be measured, but this isn't the same as the event horizon of the BH's Hawking-Hartle radiation. Though very similar. The balloon analogy will help better understand expansion, the second article will cover recessive velocity confusion. 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

you obviously didn't open the link I provided energy and momentum +Lorentz transformations, ah well, I won't waste my time if your not going to bother looking at the references. All particles have set properties, spin, momentum, rest mass (except the photon), and energy. Nothing unusual by that, all particles not just the photon can gain energy and become relativistic at high enough temperatures. Though a particle with rest mass will never =c. Why should the photon be any different? e=mc2 is a mass equivalency to energy. see the link for the full formula with the momentum term. http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/energy_p_reln.html and no this principle has been tested, numerous times. So I don't find anything unusual about it. If you do then you aren't looking at the research of others. Or the advise of others that have, if you think about it they test this principle every single day in particle accelerators. "is that a particle's effective mass increases as it approaches the speed of light. The relativistic mass is related to the rest mass by see equation 2.33 page 29 of 82." "Principles of Charged Particle Acceleration" http://www.cientificosaficionados.com/libros/aceleradores1.pdf what that section boils down to is that as the particle gains relativistic mass (using the same terminology as the article) it takes more energy to continue to accelerate it. They can measure the energy requirement increase

true I find it a challenge myself, as frustrating as it is

np problem mate our job is to teach the mainstream, though that does get frustrating lol. if they cannot accept the mainstream teachings more often than not that is their loss not ours. As long as we are satisfied that we have provided the most accurate answer then how they accept that answer is up to them and their loss not ours. quite frankly it would be wrong to change our answers to conform to the OPS thinking (deviations from mainstream textbook answers), that being said its often difficult to convince others the main stream is correct. However if I can convince 1 person out of 20 to learn the main stream then I'm happy. I accomplished something as they say fight the battles you can win and don't give a second thought to those you cannot your answer is correct, its up to the OP to understand it

roflmao, by the way your post on the math relations is excellent as well as Janus post. Unfortunately not everyone can relate to math sad but true none the less. After 10+years answering questions on various forums a certain amount of patience is required

to add details to studiot's post chargers are not just voltage and current, they use a type of circuit called pulse width modulation, the amount of load the circuit can support is specifically designed for the load application. A PWM circuit can provide for a higher load however this requires a change in its duty cycle, Ideally the duty cycle is 50% higher current loads than the designed specs require a higher duty cycle which leads to faster component failure. A good example is a PC power supply. Yes a 300 watt power supply can supply higher wattage but its lifetime decreases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-width_modulation the circuit for usb voltage and current levels is also a PWM signal the circuit here is a type of pwm controller http://www.electroschematics.com/4983/usb-mobile-charger/

unless I missed some details I can find no correlation between these papers http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.2933v1.pdf (OP paper) papers I posted as a conjecture "Detection of An Unidentified Emission Line in the Stacked X-ray spectrum of Galaxy Clusters" http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 and "An unidentified line in X-ray spectra of the Andromeda galaxy and Perseus galaxy cluster" http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119 the details between the papers simply do not match up from what I can tell, granted I'm restricted by knowledge and a calculator and scilab (similar to mathlab) so I my have missed something in my home calc's However I doubt that is the case (though it is possible lol) ah well it was a fun try always fun to test your abilities with datasets lol

fair enough you don't know the math involved, however it should still be a consideration when the US courts refuse to reinstate his patent. Doesn't take a mathematician to understand the degree of criteria for that to occur. The US courts essentially confirmed the idea does not conform to physics

you might want to look up the different types of mass photons have no rest mass but they do have a mass equivalence Mass-Energy measures the total amount of energy contained within a body, using E=mc² this formula however isn't complete for total energy, or rather the full detail isn't presented in this form http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/energy_p_reln.html "mass of a photon is really all K.E. mass" e=cp

why not read the review in regards to Hydrinos, instead of watching a video that advertises it. Might as well look at the real science behind it, making decisions based on a video used to advertise Hydrinos is like listening to a used car salesman. I would much prefer to look at the reviews and get another opinion. Any smart buyer would. Orthogonality criterion for banishing hydrino states from standard quantum mechanics http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0631.pdf the title should say it all, "in summary, a very simple and general criterion has been presented to reject hydrino states in the context of the standard quantum mechanics" by the way the patent was rejected and so was the appeal to have it reinstated. http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn090602.html

how can the pie spoil if nothing ever changes, not enough drink is right, (speaking of which I need another hehe) I'll get back to you at some future time.

in the block universe conjecture its meaningless to have a beginning or ending the flow of time is subjective not objective, as such the arrow of time has little meaning to the illusion of time, everyone is eternal. There is no change and there is no flow of time. this is more philosophy than science but there is some science to it in that its consistent with SR, these artices can probably describe it better than I http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_block_universe.asp http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_mysterious_flow.asp here is a comment from a peer review paper "This block view is however an unrealistic picture because it does not take complex physics or biology seriously; and they do indeed exist in the real universe. The irreversible flow of time is one of the dominant features of biology, as well as of the physics of complex interactions and indeed our own human experience" http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0605/0605049.pdf personally I don't find the block universe or the arrow of time of any particular use to understanding cosmology or physics, quite frankly they are both too speculative and conjectural but you go ahead have fun with it. For me time is simply a measure of change or duration any attempt to try to place added meaning to it are just too speculative, and largely based more on philosophy than science, GR and SR can be understood without referring to the block universe

as to the first part its easier to just use an electric motor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_motor the advantage over a permanent magnet system is you have better control over the speed and you don't have to fight the force of permanent magnets to alter their position. in the latter case the rate is controllable with electromagnetic frequencies as to the second magnetic levitation is done often http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation