CMB measurement.

[Mordred]

My function is Einsteins.

Einstein knows the importance of dimensional analysis in his equations

[Butch]

Gravity, acceleration... Same difference.

If black holes exist, true black holes... They are only another universe. They are just keeping up with our expansion.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Butch

[Mordred]

This is pointless either show some mathematical rigor or I'm recommending this thread gets locked

[Butch]

I am satisfied. Thank you for your interest, you two have been awesome!

[Mordred]

here you can start by learning the real science behind the equations I posted.

 

Site Articles (Articles written by PF and Site members)

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion
http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry

Misconceptions (Useful articles to answer various Cosmology Misconceptions)

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://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf:"Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies
http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966 "why the prejudice against a constant"
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052 "In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0219 What's in a Name: History and Meanings of the Term "Big Bang" Helge Kragh

 

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

 

there is two free open source textbooks there enjoy, they also detail the CMB in the later chapters

Edited November 17, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

I think you know, you have entered a new era of science. I am not looking for hurrahs, attaboys or Nobel prizes, just looking to pass it on... And I think I have accomplished that,. I hope that some day you do something with it if only just to pass it on.

[Strange]

My function is Einsteins.

 

 

No it isn't.

 

Your function fails dimensional analysis and so it is wrong.

 

It is not a solution to the Einstein Field Equations.

 

It is just something you made up.

[Butch]

You are making this too complex! 1 massive entity 1 curve of space/time and it is a hyperbolic curve. Remember we are measuring the Big Bang, we are measuring everything as a single entity.

You are still on that precipice, but you are losing your shyness😋

Edited November 18, 2016 by Butch

[Mordred]

funny I gave you the light path in the equation above. Which is extremely well tested to match observational evidence. Unlike your equation which has

 

space=1/time^2 which in terms of units state

[latex] m^3=\frac{1}{sec^2}[/latex] which is mathematically wrong even as a function

 

Unless you fix that it will never be accepted by anyone with any skill at math.

 

You wouldn't want your kids and grandkids to make such a fundamental error in school

Edited November 18, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

Fine, and? I am not contesting physics... Except in one regard, the nature of the Big Bang. If I am wrong then the universe does have an edge, and that edge is the beginning of time, can you mathematically explain the beginning of time?

 

I am looking at your function brb.

 

Mass is not a factor, density is! The same quantity of mass is expanding with time, at an accelerating rate.

 

By the way the quantity of that mass is infinite, which indicates that time and space are constituents of this universe, neither can have a beginning or an end if they do, they both approach 0 and we do not exist.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Butch

[Mordred]

The BB model doesn't attempt to explain the beginning of time or even the beginning of the universe. The model doesn't start till after [latex]10^{-43}[/latex] seconds.

 

Secondly there is no reason to believe time starts at the moment of this universe starting. After all it is likely there is multiverses that can also be infinite in extent. One can slice an infinite universe an infinite number of times and each portion will still be infinite.

 

Too often people make the assumption that time started with the BB. This is a mistaken assumption.

 

Time is nothing more than a measure of rate of change or duration. The very instant you have something you can measure that object is in a moment of time. It's rate of change simply depends on a change nothing more.

 

By the way here is a math article on dimensional analysis.

 

http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://web.mit.edu/2.25/www/pdf/DA_unified.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiikoDajbHQAhVOz2MKHR6rAD8QFggqMAg&usg=AFQjCNF6qxlpVz2srSeTzKy0Om8I3EEgLg

Edited November 18, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

If the universe is infinite, it's mass is also infinite, time would curve in on itself and would only exist as a constituent of this universe, not a frame upon which this universe is built.

If the mass of the universe is not infinite then it is not a factor of infinity it approaches zero and poof, we're gone.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Butch

[AbstractDreamer]

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.

 

 

How can expansion have been going on forever, if it never existed even 1 moment ago?

If its always been right now, what makes things change?

[Mordred]

once again that is incorrect. Curvature does not determine if a universe is bounded or unbounded. This was a mistaken belief before the discovery of the cosmological constant. However only the positive curvature universe by older definitions could be infinite in extent.

[Butch]

It did exist one moment ago, however now it doesn't exist one moment ago.

[Mordred]

It did exist one moment ago, however now it doesn't exist one moment ago.

That has nothing to do with whether the universe is finite or infinite. That just means it has a beginning

Edited November 18, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

If you will look at my graph of Time/Space if you extend the axis to infinity you get a right angle at t0, t0 is now and the universe has expanded into existence. At t- or t+ it does not exist.

[Mordred]

like I said your graph is a mathematical error as it doesn't meet dimensional analysis.

[Butch]

The perceived beginning of the Big Bang is at t= -1.

If we could go back to t-1 the universe would seem pretty much the same as it does now, ta-da, steady state and the Big Bang coexist.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Butch

[AbstractDreamer]

It did exist one moment ago, however now it doesn't exist one moment ago.

 

If it did exist one moment ago, and if one moment ago doesn't exist right now, what does forever mean right now?

Edited November 18, 2016 by AbstractDreamer

[Mordred]

The perceived beginning of the Big Bang is at t= -1.

If we could go back to t-1 the universe would seem pretty much the same as it does now, ta-da, steady state and the Big Bang coexist.

roflmao that isn't a steady state. Steady state means an eternal universe.

 

Which also means no CMB.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

That has nothing to do with whether the universe is finite or infinite. That just means it has a beginning

No, it doesn't have a beginning, that is just our perception.

roflmao that isn't a steady state. Steady state means an eternal universe.

 

Which also means no CMB.

Cmb is a perception that is following us through time, everything is! We cannot detect the present only the past, but that is our reality, physics is fine, but our observations relating to the Big Bang are flawed because we assumed that matter is in space, it is Space. Everything is Space and time, the earth is expanding at the same rate that space is, everything is.

[Mordred]

fine mathematically prove the existence of a universe that expands whose thermodynamic process accordingly due to that volume change causes the CMB.

 

Then on top of it solve the horizon and flatness problem that inflation solves.

 

While your at it solve the distribution of the first generation stars, the early large scale structure formation using Jeans equation. The distribution of quasars which is due to the higher density past. As well as the measurements of the integrated Sache wolfe effect. The baryon accoustic oscillations of the CMB.

 

However most importantly solve why we see cosmological redshift in the first place.

 

If you believe your little equation solves those problems your dillusional

Edited November 18, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

I can explain the presence of cmb, but there is more that needs to be considered first. Example if everything is expanding at an infinitely accelerating rate, why aren't we being crushed? You will probably figure this out before I need to explain it, but I tire now, I will speak to you on the flip side😉

[Mordred]

why would we be crushed. read the link I posted. "In an expanding universe what doesn't expand"