Mordred

I see, so you have no intention of having any form of testability. In essence not doing what's needed for a physics theory. Pictures and drawings mean nothing for physics. They are nothing more than a visual aid and of zero value beyond that. I would have thought you would have realized when I used math to demonstrate where your idea fails you would have caught on to the value of calculations. For example at what distance from a mass such as a BH would a particle follow an orbit ? Or when will the path remain straight ? Guess or calculate? Which do you think is the better route of determination ? What velocity must the object have to maintain an orbit if it's too slow it will simply fall into the BH. If it's too fast it escapes (function of 1/r^2 ) Newtons gravitational law.

More accurately 10^{-43} seconds and yes it does have a volume but as mentioned the entire observable universe is contained in that volume that expanded. In other words you can't point anywhere and state the BB happened in that direction or in that location as every location was part of the initial volume.

You don't need to be in this case you can use Newton laws and Keplers laws for orbiting bodies. I'm confident that if a high school student in grade 9 can apply those formulas you should be capable of doing so. You only need basic algebra most commonly used in astrophysics. Quite frankly most formulas used by astrophysics are first order Newtonian approximations. When you get right down to it the FLRW metric only requires geometry and Algebra to learn.

Instead of pictures why not simply use the Schwartzchild metric with CoM being the CBH. Then add your vectors for particle motion.

That's always possible but that key piece hasn't been mentioned in this thread from what I've seen. The reason for the different inflationary models is that we cannot see far enough to discern which is most accurate. We can only look for CMB signatures to isolate which is more accurate. Universe birth isn't part of the model no one can accurately answer where the original mass/energy originated. It could be from a previous universe but it's also viable to originate from nothing. Cyclic models never attempt to answer what formed the first universe. If you cannot tie mathematics into known mainstream physics then it's not valid. That is an absolute essential step. No argument will change that. The very purpose of physics is to be able to calculate cause and effect. If an idea cannot do that it's useless for physics.

Love that video I couldn't agree more. Here's another little tidbit with regards to step 3. A very important step is to make considerable effort to prove your idea wrong. Never ignore counter evidence. You must take into consideration (ALL experimental and Observational evidence).

As to the last suggestions perhaps looking over some literature may help http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/inflationary-misconceptions-basics-cosmological-horizons/:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis Start there first look over the balloon analogy. This will describe a homogeneous and isotropic expansion. The last article details the FLRW metric as well as the equations of state for expansion.

It's calculated by a logarithmic function called E-folds. The value will vary depending on which form of inflation your using. The only valid inflationary models must be higher than 60 e-folds. We can only extrapolate the hot dense state at 10^{-43} seconds. The models do not state how the energy/mass came into existence only that our beginning was a hot dense state roughly 10^19 GeV. Which corresponds to Planck temperature for a starting volume 1 planck length. The rate of expansion depends on the kinetic energy to potential energy terms described by the scalar field equation of state. (Will vary depending on inflationary model). This link will help understand e-folds https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant) Here is a listing of still valid inflationary models. https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3787 Personally I feel Higgs inflation is highly likely it has the same equations of state as Chaotic inflation so subsequently the e-folds will be the same.

We can also measure redshift via plasma using spectography for the 21 cm line. Any well understood process can be used as a standard candle reference. You don't require supernova. They are simply one convenient well understood process. The other essential piece of evidence is any blackbody temperature measurements via the ideal gas laws. As the universe expands the blackbody temperature will reduce. The rate of temperature reduction is the inverse of the scale factor.

Your welcome

No the Higgs field does not interact with gluons nor does it interact with photons. Both being massless particles.

Here is a clear example of lack of guess work. This uses only 5 main equations and look at what can be calculated. \[{\scriptsize\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline z&Scale (a)&T (Gyr)&R (Gly)&D_{now} (Gly)&D_{then}(Gly)&D_{hor}(Gly)&D_{par}(Gly)&V_{gen}/c&V_{now}/c&V_{then}/c&H(t)&Temp(K)&rho(kg/m^3)&OmegaM&OmegaL&OmegaR&OmegaT \\ \hline 1.09e+3&9.17e-4&3.71e-4&6.25e-4&4.53e+1&4.15e-2&5.67e-2&8.38e-4&2.12e+1&3.13e+0&6.64e+1&1.56e+6&4.59e-18&2.97e+3&7.56e-1&1.29e-9&2.44e-1&1.00e+0\\ \hline 6.08e+2&1.64e-3&9.75e-4&1.59e-3&4.48e+1&7.36e-2&1.01e-1&2.28e-3&1.49e+1&3.10e+0&4.63e+1&6.16e+5&7.13e-19&1.66e+3&8.48e-1&8.31e-9&1.52e-1&1.00e+0\\ \hline 3.39e+2&2.94e-3&2.49e-3&3.94e-3&4.41e+1&1.30e-1&1.79e-1&6.05e-3&1.08e+1&3.05e+0&3.29e+1&2.48e+5&1.16e-19&9.27e+2&9.09e-1&5.12e-8&9.12e-2&1.00e+0\\ \hline 1.89e+2&5.27e-3&6.20e-3&9.64e-3&4.32e+1&2.28e-1&3.15e-1&1.57e-2&7.90e+0&2.99e+0&2.36e+1&1.01e+5&1.93e-20&5.17e+2&9.47e-1&3.07e-7&5.31e-2&1.00e+0\\ \hline 1.05e+2&9.44e-3&1.52e-2&2.34e-2&4.20e+1&3.96e-1&5.52e-1&3.98e-2&5.83e+0&2.90e+0&1.69e+1&4.18e+4&3.28e-21&2.89e+2&9.70e-1&1.80e-6&3.03e-2&1.00e+0\\ \hline 5.82e+1&1.69e-2&3.71e-2&5.65e-2&4.03e+1&6.81e-1&9.61e-1&9.98e-2&4.33e+0&2.79e+0&1.21e+1&1.73e+4&5.64e-22&1.61e+2&9.83e-1&1.05e-5&1.72e-2&1.00e+0\\ \hline 3.20e+1&3.03e-2&8.98e-2&1.36e-1&3.80e+1&1.15e+0&1.65e+0&2.47e-1&3.22e+0&2.63e+0&8.47e+0&7.20e+3&9.73e-23&9.00e+1&9.90e-1&6.09e-5&9.65e-3&1.00e+0\\ \hline 1.74e+1&5.42e-2&2.17e-1&3.26e-1&3.50e+1&1.90e+0&2.80e+0&6.08e-1&2.40e+0&2.42e+0&5.81e+0&3.00e+3&1.69e-23&5.03e+1&9.94e-1&3.51e-4&5.41e-3&1.00e+0\\ \hline 9.29e+0&9.71e-2&5.21e-1&7.83e-1&3.09e+1&3.00e+0&4.61e+0&1.48e+0&1.79e+0&2.14e+0&3.84e+0&1.25e+3&2.93e-24&2.81e+1&9.95e-1&2.02e-3&3.02e-3&1.00e+0\\ \hline 4.75e+0&1.74e-1&1.25e+0&1.87e+0&2.55e+1&4.43e+0&7.32e+0&3.61e+0&1.35e+0&1.76e+0&2.37e+0&5.23e+2&5.14e-25&1.57e+1&9.87e-1&1.15e-2&1.67e-3&1.00e+0\\ \hline 2.21e+0&3.12e-1&2.97e+0&4.36e+0&1.83e+1&5.69e+0&1.09e+1&8.70e+0&1.03e+0&1.26e+0&1.30e+0&2.24e+2&9.43e-26&8.74e+0&9.36e-1&6.28e-2&8.87e-4&1.00e+0\\ \hline 7.91e-1&5.58e-1&6.80e+0&9.18e+0&9.27e+0&5.18e+0&1.44e+1&2.06e+1&8.79e-1&6.42e-1&5.64e-1&1.06e+2&2.13e-26&4.88e+0&7.22e-1&2.78e-1&3.81e-4&1.00e+0\\ \hline 0.00e+0&1.00e+0&1.38e+1&1.45e+1&0.00e+0&0.00e+0&1.66e+1&4.62e+1&1.00e+0&0.00e+0&0.00e+0&6.77e+1&8.60e-27&2.73e+0&3.11e-1&6.89e-1&9.18e-5&1.00e+0\\ \hline -4.38e-1&1.78e+0&2.29e+1&1.68e+1&6.88e+0&1.22e+1&1.72e+1&9.44e+1&1.53e+0&4.76e-1&7.31e-1&5.84e+1&6.40e-27&1.53e+0&7.43e-2&9.26e-1&1.23e-5&1.00e+0\\ \hline -6.84e-1&3.16e+0&3.27e+1&1.73e+1&1.11e+1&3.51e+1&1.74e+1&1.81e+2&2.64e+0&7.67e-1&2.03e+0&5.66e+1&6.01e-27&8.62e-1&1.41e-2&9.86e-1&1.31e-6&1.00e+0\\ \hline -8.22e-1&5.62e+0&4.27e+1&1.74e+1&1.35e+1&7.58e+1&1.74e+1&3.36e+2&4.67e+0&9.33e-1&4.36e+0&5.62e+1&5.94e-27&4.85e-1&2.53e-3&9.97e-1&1.33e-7&1.00e+0\\ \hline -9.00e-1&1.00e+1&5.27e+1&1.74e+1&1.48e+1&1.48e+2&1.74e+1&6.10e+2&8.30e+0&1.03e+0&8.52e+0&5.62e+1&5.93e-27&2.73e-1&4.51e-4&1.00e+0&1.33e-8&1.00e+0\\ \hline -9.44e-1&1.78e+1&6.28e+1&1.74e+1&1.56e+1&2.77e+2&1.74e+1&1.10e+3&1.48e+1&1.08e+0&1.59e+1&5.62e+1&5.92e-27&1.53e-1&8.03e-5&1.00e+0&1.33e-9&1.00e+0\\ \hline -9.68e-1&3.16e+1&7.28e+1&1.74e+1&1.60e+1&5.07e+2&1.74e+1&1.97e+3&2.62e+1&1.11e+0&2.91e+1&5.62e+1&5.92e-27&8.62e-2&1.43e-5&1.00e+0&1.33e-10&1.00e+0\\ \hline -9.82e-1&5.62e+1&8.28e+1&1.74e+1&1.63e+1&9.15e+2&1.74e+1&3.51e+3&4.67e+1&1.13e+0&5.25e+1&5.62e+1&5.92e-27&4.85e-2&2.54e-6&1.00e+0&1.33e-11&1.00e+0\\ \hline -9.90e-1&1.00e+2&9.28e+1&1.74e+1&1.64e+1&1.64e+3&1.74e+1&6.26e+3&8.30e+1&1.14e+0&9.42e+1&5.62e+1&5.92e-27&2.73e-2&4.51e-7&1.00e+0&1.33e-12&1.00e+0\\ \hline \end{array}}\] No guessing straight application of the FLRW metric.

What does that have to do with physics ? Simply put the reason cosmological redshift exists has nothing to do with probability but is a direct consequence of expansion due to thermodynamics. There is no guess work involved. The further an object is from us the greater the cosmological redshift value will be. That will not change due to some hypothetical probability. Just as there is no guess work behind expansion being homogeneous and isotropic. Physics isn't guess work. Its careful examination of observational evidence combined with mathematics to describe what is observed. Its not random guesses or mere logic games. That has been repeatably mentioned this thread. Any object you measure at the limit of any telescope will have the corresponding redshift to distance relation. That isn't based on any guesswork but is simply put what has been shown through all observational evidence. For example using one equation I was able to show your guesswork incorrect with regards to the SMBH. You could easily have done the same thing. The formula for Newtons gravitational law is extremely easy to use. If you spent more time studying why cosmology states what it does and learn how the thermodynamic laws are involved in expansion you would be far better off. Simply put expansion is easy to understand once you look at those equations of state I posted earlier.

Why would that matter when every object we do observe has redshift? If every object we have ever observed has cosmological redshift it only stands to reason that once we do find a new unobserved object. It too will have redshift. Little side note it's possible to extend the range of a telescope using gravitational lensing. Many of Hubble telescopes deep field detection was done using this technique. Nothing prevents the James Webb Telescope from doing the same.

The entire universe with the exception of gravitationally bound objects is expanding. It also represents the farthest distance we can possibly receive any signals. (Radius of shared causality.) It doesn't matter which object your measuring. You will be able to measure the effect of expansion via the cosmological redshift. Nor does it matter which direction you look.

if you recall this statement I made on page 1. If you perform the same calculation for the radius of Milky way you should get approximately 2.046*10^{-15} N. That is with a little larger than a 1 billion solar mass BH as I rounded up the solar mass. Just for fun I decided to see if Sagittarius A has any measurable influence on our solar system. The answer is the force exerted on a 1 km mass in our solar system is approximately 9.34*10^{-36} N. Easily overpowered by local gravity.

Ok a back of the envelop calculation using a 1 billion solar mass BH at distance 1 Mpc mass 2 I used 1 kg. \[F=\frac{GM_1M_2}{r^2}\] using this at 1 Mpc the force exerted between mass 1 (roughly 2*10^36 kg) I rounded up for simplicity mass 2 1 kg. radius 30856775812799586000 km. you get roughly \(1.402 *10^{-19}\) newtons of force. Not enough to move a grain of sand.....so much for the idea of ultra-massive BH driving expansion...recall the diameter of the Observable universe above. That is why physics uses math, it tests the feasibility of an idea.

Thanks I did. https://www.illustris-project.org/

One of the biggest problems I see with those that try to suggest Galaxy or BHs causing things like expansion etc. Is that they really do not truly understand the sheer volume of our Observable universe. Watch this video at the start it's only showing 42 to 43 Mpc watch as it zooms in. You cannot even discern a galaxy until your less than 1 Mpc. Our Observable universe is 28820 Mpc in diameter. 93 billion light years. Our entire Milky way is 0.01620 Mpc. In radius. There is literally no way no SMBH can possibly affect expansion once you crunch some numbers it's literally impossible. That doesn't even take into consideration that gravity travels at c. You can convert the Mpc into light years to see what I mean by impossible.

Yes I'm positive this is my area of expertise and if you take expansion in reverse one can calculate at what temperature atoms such as hydrogen can form. 6000 degrees Kelvin for 25 % stability 3000 kelvin for 75 percent stability. The equation that one uses is the SAHA equation. Those temperatures come prior to surface of last scattering but after inflation. You will get some hydrogen just prior to reheating due to slow roll on inflation. However the universe must cool down to hit electrweak symmetry breaking so must expand just prior to that as well.

Lol for that matter I ignore anything stated in any form of pop media regardless of who the speaker is.

So ? That only describes the accelerated portion. Matter and radiation also contribute. In your idea you cannot have expansion before a BH can form and neither stars nor a BH can form until you have sufficient expansion to allow atoms to form. To put it bluntly your idea is a literal impossibility. It's like the chicken before the egg scenario. As far as DE is concerned a lot of research and evidence suggest it may be the Higgs field itself.

You know physics isn't a bunch of guesswork from the imagination. Even if you include all the mass of every galaxy you still wouldn't get any expansion from those galaxies. All baryonic matter which forms blackholes only accounts for 3 percent the mass terms. What causes expansion is thermodynamics and their equations of state for all particles of the SM model. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) With that one can accurately calculate everything involving expansion. The calculator in my signature does just that and it can predict up to 80 billion years into the future assuming the evolution of matter, radiation and the cosmological constant stays at the same rate of change.

Sounds like your describing primordial Black holes. As mentioned large Stars collapse to form blackholes

Well the set of imaginary numbers is infinite. We have proof there is no limit on imagination. Mathematics also teaches us that not using whole numbers is improper. It also teaches us that any relation with two variables gets complex.