CMB measurement.

[Butch]

And hopefully now you see why I needed my rules for infinity. Absolute zero or 1 million degrees on any scale still approaches 0 in an infinite universe.

See me in 10 million years, unless you can find me another measuring stick.

[Mordred]

try temperature and the thermodynamic ideal gas laws. The measuring stick being the scale factor

[Butch]

try temperature and the thermodynamic ideal gas laws. The measuring stick being the scale factor

Hmm... I am familiar with that... Not sure you grasp my concept yet, but I will refresh myself on that and see if it applies. Hmmm no you don't get it, please don't be offended by that statement, after all I have been digging this hole since 1983. The laws of thermodynamics apply in our space/time. When we consider the Big Bang we are looking at the very edge of space/time. We are trying to take a measure of the infinite relative to our little corner of existence. Edited November 17, 2016 by Butch

[Strange]

 

 

The laws of thermodynamics apply in our space/time when we consider the Big Bang we are looking at the very edge of space/time.

 

There is no "edge of spacetime".

 

 

 

We are trying to take a measure of the infinite relative to our little corner of existence.

 

If the universe were infinite, then there definitely wouldn't be an "edge of spacetime".

 

But it might not be infinite. (But there is still no edge.)

[Butch]

I can tell you are on the edge of grasping this, don't shy back, take the plunge.

[Mordred]

Start with the cosmological principle Strange is correct there is no edge.

 

Start studying the actual metrics instead of making claims that make no sense.

 

I can honestly state that in that I have a degree in Cosmology.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

The only edge is the one we perceive to be ~13.8 billion years ago, but it is a false edge, it has to be... If we could go back there things would still appear as they do now.

[Mordred]

The only edge is the one we perceive to be ~13.8 billion years ago, but it is a false edge, it has to be... If we could go back there things would still appear as they do now.

100% inaccurate. If you reverse expansion to 10^-43 seconds our Observable portion of the universe is roughly the size of an atom. However that is only our observable portion.

 

Not the entire universe, which can be finite or infinite. We simply don't know.

 

All of which is simply described as a hot dense state who's average density decreases as a result of expansion.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

100% inaccurate.

Ahh, see you shied away... C'mon guy be an explorer!

[Mordred]

I explore when I see mathematical accuracy not random unsupported claims and misconceptions.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

It is scary, after all what will your colleagues think, maybe you could become a commercial fisherman.😂

Edited November 17, 2016 by Butch

[Strange]

Ahh, see you shied away... C'mon guy be an explorer!

 

 

What is the point of exploring something which is (a) a vague description with no detail and (b) obviously wrong.

[Butch]

Because it is there. Not wrong, just really hard to accept. Screws up everything. Kind of like what Einstein did to Euclid.

[Mordred]

It is scary, after all what will your colleagues think, maybe you could become a commercial fisherman.

 

Maybe I rather successfully make a living of physics, which I do. Your formula I already pointed out in your other thread is mathematically incorrect as it doesn't pass dimensional analysis. You have yet to address that issue

Edited November 17, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

You don't have to tell anyone until the community matures, I won't live that long... Kinda want to pass it on.

[Mordred]

You don't have to tell anyone until the community matures, I won't live that long... Kinda want to pass it on.

Whats the point if you can't provide the correct mathematical details? You have no idea how many people we get with grandiose unsupported claims.

[Butch]

What math? Any quantity that is not a factor of infinity approaches 0.

[Mordred]

start with defining a homogeneous and isotropic fluid.

 

In the FLRW metric This fluid distribution is defined by

[latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a{t^2}[d{r^2}+{S,k}{r^2}d\Omega^2][/latex]

[latex]S\kappa,r= \begin{cases} R sin(r/R &(k=+1)\\ r &(k=0)\\ R sin(r/R) &(k=-1) \end {cases}[/latex]

a is the scale factor which correlates expansion

[latex]Proper distance =\frac{\stackrel{.}{a}(t)}{a}[/latex]

[latex]H(t)=\frac{\stackrel{.}{a}(t)}{a(t)}[/latex]

 

acceleration equation is

[latex]\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G\rho}{3c^2}(\rho c^2+3p)[/latex]

 

which leads to

[latex]H^2=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=\frac{8\pi G\rho}{3c^2}-\frac{kc^2p}{R_c^2a^2}[/latex]

 

You can derive the cosmological redshift, temperature pressure etc from these equations

Edited November 17, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

How substantial is the universe, if you plot my function with limits of infinity, you get a right angle. Since the expansion has been going on forever the universal expansion is now accelerating at an infinite rate. It expands into existence as we witness it, after all does the universe exist... 1 nanosecond ago?

Space and time are not coexistant.

There is much, much more... But you have to understand the paradox of an infinite universe.

This is Einsteins fault, don't blame me.

start with defining a homogeneous and isotropic fluid.

 

In the FLRW metric This fluid distribution is defined by

[latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a{t^2}[d{r^2}+{S,k}{r^2}d\Omega^2][/latex]

 

[latex]S\kappa,r= \begin{cases} R sin(r/R &(k=+1)\\ r &(k=0)\\ R sin(r/R) &(k=-1) \end {cases}[/latex]

a is the scale factor which correlates expansion

 

[latex]Proper distance =\frac{\stackrel{.}{a}(t)}{a}[/latex]

[latex]H(t)=\frac{\stackrel{.}{a}(t)}{a(t)}[/latex]

[Strange]

Because it is there. Not wrong, just really hard to accept. Screws up everything. Kind of like what Einstein did to Euclid.

 

 

Except you haven't provided any detail, just a vague reference to an inverse square law. You haven't shown how this can reproduce observations of Hubble's Law, how it affects the CMB, what the cause of the CMB is, etc.

[Butch]

I know that someplace in your mind I have planted a seed, I hope you will nourish it.

[Strange]

How substantial is the universe, if you plot my function with limits of infinity, you get a right angle.

 

Your function is (a) wrong and (b) does not relate to the real world.

I know that someplace in your mind I have planted a seed, I hope you will nourish it.

 

Nope. Weeds get killed instantly.

[Butch]

My function is Einsteins.

[Mordred]

The metrics I posted is 100% compatible with GR nice try

[Butch]

It is all over the universe, the simple inverse square.