Mordred

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.

I have no doubt I made numerous mistakes when I attempted it lol, quite likely the combination of mistakes also bogged things down. The networking and assignments of individuals tasks, to the network processors was likely another major bottleneck, not to mention the 3d rendering algorithm I tried using I didn't know about the floating point fast instead of precise thanks for that tidbit. this is a good book on N-Body algorithms but it left a lot out when it came to program implementation. Particularly since its few code examples were in fortran, where I used C++ (they only give one sample of actual code implementation, which is a sample Hermite integration) Gravitational N-Body Simulations: tools and algorithms. by Sverre J Arseth.

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.

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)

ah thanks.

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

good series I like that one

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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)

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.

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

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html there this one works

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