Einstein was right!

[Mordred]

Well once again we hit that basic problem of the equation you posted not having the correct units to keep the LHS and RHS of the equation balanced.

 

An equation is only valid if the units on the LHS and RHS are equal under dimensional analysis. So quaranteed if you ever try getting your idea professionally peer reviewed it would be instantly rejected based on the equation you just gave. Regardless of any other data you include. Simply having that equation in your paper would cause a rejection.

 

You will need a mathematically correct equation to replace that one.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

Well once again we hit that basic problem of the equation you posted not having the correct units to keep the LHS and RHS of the equation balanced.

An equation is only valid if the units on the LHS and RHS are equal under dimensional analysis. So quaranteed if you ever try getting your idea professionally peer reviewed it would be instantly rejected based on the equation you just gave. Regardless of any other data you include. Simply having that equation in your paper would cause a rejection.

I thought I had corrected that, it demonstrates a relationship between time and rate of expansion... Could you please elaborate?

[swansont]

I thought I had corrected that, it demonstrates a relationship between time and rate of expansion... Could you please elaborate?

 

 

Can you do the unit analysis?

[Butch]

Given time = 1 (the perceived beginning of the Big Bang) expansion would= 1 as for units, we could reference the Big Bang.

[Mordred]

expansion rate is usually in units equivalent to metres/second but you also need a volume value.

 

For example Hubble expansion rate is units km/sec/Mpc. under SI units this would be metres/sec/metres. Time under SI is just seconds.

 

What you have above expansion rate=1/t^2

if you were to take the sum of the SI units on the RHS =the LHS would mean the LHS would also be sec^2

 

In essence you have sec^2=1/sec^2 with no distance unit on either side of the equation. At no point in your equation have you defined a distance.

 

For expansion you require a distance unit on both sides of the =sign.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Mordred

[swansont]

Given time = 1 (the perceived beginning of the Big Bang) expansion would= 1 as for units, we could reference the Big Bang.

 

 

What kind of unit is the Big Bang?

[Butch]

Can you do the unit analysis?

Unity to t0 as the Big Bang is all I have for now, I am working on that however.

[Mordred]

Lets try a basic example I have a 1 metre rod. That rod expands over time. Lets assume the rod starts at 1 metre. And it doubles in length every second.

 

1 metre/sec=1 metre/sec*100%. see how I have the same total units on either side of the equation?

 

Here is an article covering dimensional analysis.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://web.mit.edu/2.25/www/pdf/DA_unified.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjI8Y7DxOLQAhVNzWMKHTyoDgcQFggdMAA&usg=AFQjCNH0Zupq6nh1jxaH-tV5uqG_Syz1Zg

Edited December 7, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

I need to map other relationships between t-1 and t0.

[Mordred]

I need to map other relationships between t-1 and t0.

exactly as your dealing with an expanding volume you need units of time and distance. Those units need to be on both the LHS and RHS of the equal sign

 

As your dealing with volume you can use radius

Edited December 7, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

Lets try a basic example I have a 1 metre rod. That rod expands over time. Lets assume the rod starts at 1 metre. And it doubles in length every second.

1 metre/sec=1 metre/sec*100%. see how I have the same total units on either side of the equation?

I understand you, however that rod and its expansion are in the relative realm... Do you understand my task at hand?

[Mordred]

I understand vaguely what your trying to do but that vagueness is due to factors such as your incorrect equation.

[Butch]

I understand my own hypothesis better the more I spend time on this forum, is it wrong for me to use it in this way?

I do greatly appreciate your assistance.

[Mordred]

try using a time derivitave such as

 

[latex]a(t)=\frac{\dot{R}}{R}[/latex] which is radius now t_1 over radius then t_0 the over dot denotes present time. The one Link I posted earlier the other day will give you procedures on how to go from there.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

Here is some candy for your mind... If you entered a black hole and found another entire universe, how would the event horizon be in evidence?

[Mordred]

you will still have an EH from the observer perspective on either side. Strange as this sounds but GR does work for FTL if your observers are also FTL. Though in both cases the infinity problem still exists for v=c.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

try using a time derivitave such as

[latex]a(t)=\frac{\dot{R}}{R}[/latex] which is radius now t_1 over radius then t_0 the over dot denotes present time. The one Link I posted earlier the other day will give you procedures on how to go from there.

Good stuff, thank you, I intend to do this with photon frequencies.

you will still have an EH from the observer perspective on either side.

I was thinking perhaps CMB... Just a thought.

[Mordred]

Good stuff, thank you, I intend to do this with photon frequencies.

Those earlier links will take that equation and transform it to the redshift equation.

I was thinking perhaps CMB... Just a thought.

So your thinking of using the CMB as a cosmological event horizon. Gotcha however note the CMB is roughly z=1104.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

Those earlier links will take that equation and transform it to the redshift equation.

 

So your thinking of using the CMB as a cosmological event horizon. Gotcha however note the CMB is roughly z=1104.

Fuel for expansion.

[Mordred]

Fuel for expansion.

In a thermodynamic sense yes. The CMB is the turnover point from a radiation dominant universe to the matter dominant universe until the cosmological constant became dominant around the universe age 7 Gly roughly exact value depends on which dataset your using

Edited December 7, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

In a thermodynamic sense yes. The CMB is the turnover point from a radiation dominant universe to the matter dominant universe until the cosmological constant became dominant around the universe age 7 Gly roughly exact value depends on which dataset your using

Does energy leave our universe via a black hole?

I have been checking out the links, awesome tools. Thanks

[Mordred]

Lets be careful here Energy is a property Which is the ability to perform work. However mass via infalling matter is lost. So via mass density vs energy density relations in a sense via e=mc^2. Though that adds mass to the BH itself

Edited December 7, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

We can ignore it completely for now, but how about this a photon created at t-1 would have a wavelength approaching 0 at t0 the wavelength would approach infinity.

[Butch]

I have a unit, it is indeed the Big Bang, t-1 is 3.8billion years ago and if I am correct will remain so. It needs a name and a symbol... Mordred, would you do the honors. Please.

[Mordred]

Without worrying about whether or not your model works. For symbology one can just use subscripts.

 

ie [latex]t_{cmb}, t_{now}, d_{cmb}, t_{bb}.....[/latex] etc

 

keeps the symbology straight forward with less characters used. If you don't know latex yet just type t_{whatever} your identifying the variable to ie time,distance, coordinate, particular event, etc.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Mordred