About the cosmological problem (Relativistic binary pulsar B1913+16)

[quantenmaschine]

see:

<h2>Details see (german Paper): <a
 href="http://internet-berater.bplaced.net/About_the_cosmological_Problem.html"
 target="_blank">http://internet-berater.bplaced.net/About_the_cosmological_Problem.html</a></h2>

 

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations. Please read the rules of the forum:

7. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. 

10. Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations). Threads in the ordinary science forums should be answered with ordinary science, not your own personal hypothesis. Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking.

There also specific rules for the Speculations forum. Make sure you have read them.

 

[studiot]

Quote

About the cosmological problem

 

Is there one?

 

Do tell.

[Ghideon]

I'm usually restrictive when op only has a link and no discussion, but I gave this one a chance. Unfortunately I've not yet studied all the formulas used in the paper so I can't comment on the math; "dE" is for instance not defined. (Maybe a reader with more knowledge is supposed to know the definition)
This caught my eye:

Quote

Now we want to calculate a black hole with Cosmic Microwave Radiation inside (T_cmb = 2.725 K) {this gives a maximum possible radius of an universe}

Why does a universe have a maximum possible radius? 

[quantenmaschine]

On 11/23/2018 at 5:59 PM, studiot said:

> Do tell

>> Is there one?

The Mainstream of the world wide cosmologists beleave that the universe is build as follows:

5% baryonic matter + 25% dark matte + 70% dark energy

I showed in my Paper: ´Planck Constants solves Einstein Field Equations with k=+1 and positive Lambda' the following situation:

Omega_lambda = 1 and Geometry factor k = +1 and Omega_matter = +1 (but the Gravitational Constant at Planck Time is: G_pl = G/zeta^4)

With the entropy constant zeta = 2.1432e31 [dimensionless]

zeta^4 = Ru^2/dx^2 (Ru ... Radius of the Universe and dx ... Planck-Length)

Entropy of the Universe for Normal Distribution is: S = -k*ln(exp(-Ru^2/dx^2)) = zeta^4*kb (kb ... Boltzmann Constant)

1.) So I dont need the lambda-term (Omega_lambda = 0)

2.) The Geometry factor k = +1 (spherical universe = the universe is a black hole)

3.) The radii in 4 dimensions are: Rx = Ry = Ry = Rct = R => 1/R^4 ~ rho (no GRT needed !!!)

4.) The gravitational constant is given by the curvature of space: G/R^2 = c^3/h * 1/zeta^4 = 1.9273e-67 = const !!!

 

[quantenmaschine]

Hi dear group ...

With this pulsar I want to test my theory of a variable gravitational constant. The mass of this pulsar is 2.8281*m_sun = 5.628e30 [kg]

The circulating time t = Pb*86400 = 0.323*86400 = 27907

With Keplers law you can calculate the radius:
R^3 = G*M*t^2/(4*pi^2) = 7.4095e27 => R = 1.9495e9 [m]

Additionally we need the average speed: v = G*M/R = 438938 [m/s]

Now we want to test the variable gravitational constant:
G*M/R^3 = v^2/R^2 = 4*pi^2/t^2 => t ~ R

The global expansion of space in 14 years is:
dR/R = 14*31557600*c/Ru = 7.122e-12 [m/m] (Ru = 1.8609e28 [m])

In 28 year the pulsar makes 31663 rounds:
Time-Expansion is: dt = 31663*27907*7.122e-12 = 0.0063 not measurable !!!

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

New post merged with existing thread on this "theory"

 

[studiot]

I know the input editor of this forum is crap but please make sure that quotes from others and your own input are separated.

Thus:-

1 hour ago, quantenmaschine said:

The Mainstream of the world wide cosmologists beleave that the universe is build as follows:

5% baryonic matter + 25% dark matte + 70% dark energy

 

 

So this is the pie, and the % add up to 100, but what is is made of?

 

The above description makes no sense.

Edited November 24, 2018 by studiot

[quantenmaschine]

1.) Dark Energy is not neccessary see/google: Planck Constants solves Einstein Field Equations with k=+1 and positive Lambda

2.) Dark Matter is given by supermassive black holes and a variing gravitational constant G = 1.9273e-67 * Ru^2

3.) G*M/R = c^2 must be because E = m*c^2 !!!

4.) A.Eddington supposed the total number of atoms within Universe ~ 10^80 * 10^-27 ~ 10^53 [kg] - the mass of the Universe is: 2.5059e55 [kg] so the baryonic matter is ~1% of the total mass.

[studiot]

Quote

quantenmaschine

The Mainstream of the world wide cosmologists beleave that the universe is build as follows:

I am an applied mathematician, not a cosmologist so I am looking at the mathematical and logical consistency of what someone in another mathematical discipline is telling me.

So for instance,

8 minutes ago, quantenmaschine said:

1.) Dark Energy is not neccessary see/google: Planck Constants solves Einstein Field Equations with k=+1 and positive Lambda

2.) Dark Matter is given by supermassive black holes and a variing gravitational constant G = 1.9273e-67 * Ru^2

3.) G*M/R = c^2 must be because E = m*c^2 !!!

4.) A.Eddington supposed the total number of atoms within Universe ~ 10^80 * 10^-27 ~ 10^53 [kg] - the mass of the Universe is: 2.5059e55 [kg] so the baryonic matter is ~1% of the total mass.

 

5% (baryonic matter) compared to 25% (dark matter) is 1:20 not 1:100 as seems to be suggested in line 4 of your reply.

You still have not said % of what.

[quantenmaschine]

On 11/24/2018 at 12:55 PM, Ghideon said:

Why does a universe have a maximum possible radius? 

If you assume a Universe which is filled only with CMWBR than you will get a Black Hole of Radius 1967 Gyr

see: http://internet-berater.bplaced.net/About_the_cosmological_Problem.html

[Carrock]

55 minutes ago, quantenmaschine said:

On 11/24/2018 at 12:55 PM, Ghideon said:

Why does a universe have a maximum possible radius? 

If you assume a Universe which is filled only with CMWBR than you will get a Black Hole of Radius 1967 Gyr

see: http://internet-berater.bplaced.net/About_the_cosmological_Problem.html

More consistency questions to complement Studiot's points.

Why ignore the CNBR which at ~1.95K has significant effect along with the CMBR at ~2.72K?

And of course the negative gravitational energy of stars etc.

[Strange]

On 24/11/2018 at 5:43 PM, quantenmaschine said:

1.) Dark Energy is not neccessary see/google: Planck Constants solves Einstein Field Equations with k=+1 and positive Lambda

!

Moderator Note

You need to present your argument here, not tell people to Google something.

 

[quantenmaschine]

On 11/24/2018 at 12:55 PM, Ghideon said:

I'm usually restrictive when op only has a link and no discussion, but I gave this one a chance. Unfortunately I've not yet studied all the formulas used in the paper so I can't comment on the math; "dE" is for instance not defined. (Maybe a reader with more knowledge is supposed to know the definition)
This caught my eye:

Why does a universe have a maximum possible radius? 

A universe filled with CMBR has a maximum Radius of 1967 Gyr.

[Carrock]

2 hours ago, quantenmaschine said:

A universe filled with CMBR has a maximum Radius of 1967 Gyr.

If that is true what is the radius of a universe filled with CNBR and why is that radius different or the same?

BTW the CNBR moves at less than c.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, quantenmaschine said:

A universe filled with CMBR has a maximum Radius of 1967 Gyr.

 Does it? Can you give some reputable reference to support that? 

The only universe with any possible maximum radius is the observable universe, and that is around 47 billion L/years in radius...or is that actually what you meant to say?

The universe as a whole? I did find this......

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/07/14/ask-ethan-how-large-is-the-entire-unobservable-universe/#410c447ddf80

extract:

"This means the unobservable Universe, assuming there's no topological weirdness, must be at least 23 trillion light years in diameter, and contain a volume of space that's over 15 million times as large as the volume we can observe. If we're willing to speculate, however, we can argue quite compellingly that the unobservable Universe should be significantly even bigger than that".

 

[quantenmaschine]

20 hours ago, beecee said:

 Does it? Can you give some reputable reference to support that? 

The only universe with any possible maximum radius is the observable universe, and that is around 47 billion L/years in radius...or is that actually what you meant to say?

The universe as a whole? I did find this......

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/07/14/ask-ethan-how-large-is-the-entire-unobservable-universe/#410c447ddf80

extract:

"This means the unobservable Universe, assuming there's no topological weirdness, must be at least 23 trillion light years in diameter, and contain a volume of space that's over 15 million times as large as the volume we can observe. If we're willing to speculate, however, we can argue quite compellingly that the unobservable Universe should be significantly even bigger than that".

In Planck-Units there are the following Constants:

Speed of Light c = 299792458 [m/s]
Plancks Constant h = 6.6260693e-34 [Js]
Gravitational Constant G = 6.67428 [m^3/(s^2*kg)]
Boltzmann Constant k = 1.3806504e-23 [J/K]
Stefan Boltzmann Constant Sigma_SB = 5.67040161e-8
Radiation Constant atilde = 7.5657695e-16 ( = 4*Sigma_SB/c)

and it follows:

Planck-Time dt = sqrt(h*G/c^5) = 1.3514e-43
Planck-Length dx = sqrt(h*G/c^3) = 4.0513e-35 [m]
Planck-Mass dm = sqrt(h*c/G) = 5.4555e-8 [kg]
Planck-Accelleration da = sqrt(c^7/h*G) =  2.2184e51 [m/s^2]
Planck-Entropy dS = k*h*G/c^3 = 2.26605e-92 [J/K]

Very often is hbar instead of h given but:

E = hbar*omega = h/(2*pi )* (2*pi)/t = h*ny = m*c^2  but with Uncertainty principle is dE * dt = sqrt(h*c^5/G) * sqrt(h*G/c^5)  = sqrt(h^2) = h !!!

In Macrocosmos we have the following 3 relations (equations):

1.) dm/dx = c^2/G  (Black Hole - G*M/R = c^2)
2.) dm/dt = c^3/G  (Diracs gesture G = G(t) = t*c^3/M)
3.) Planck-Force dF = dm*da = c^4/G  (see General Theory of Relativity - Scaling of Tik)

In Microcosmos (Quantummechanics) we have the following 3 relations (equations):

1.) dm*dx = h/c (Momentum Releation)
2.) dm*dt = h/c^2 (Energy Releation)
3.) dm/da = h/c^3 (Quantizing of Gravitation)

Now we want to calculate a black hole with Cosmic Microwave Radiation inside (T_cmb = 2.725 K) {this gives a maximum possible radius of an universe}:

Energydensity Epsilon = atilde*T_cmb^4 = 4.1718e-14 [J/m^3] = 3*c^4/(8*pi*G*Rs^2) see GRT
This is a Schwarzschild-Radius of: Rs  = sqrt(3*c^4/(8*pi*G*atilde*T_cmb^4)) = 1.8609e28 [m]
A Schwarzschild-Time of: ts = Rs/c = 1967 Gyr = 6.2073e19
The Mass of this black hole is: Ms = Rs*c^2/G =  2.5059e55 [kg]
The density of the Photons within CMBR is: n_gamma = 16*pi*zeta(3){k*T_cmb/(h*c)}^3 = 410.5e6 [1/m^3]
The total Photonnumber: N = 4*pi*Rs^3/3 * 410.5e6 = 1.1081e94 = const (primordial photons)!!!
This black hole has a accelleration of: as = G*Ms/Rs^2 = 4.8296e-12 [m/s^2] = c/ts = dF / Ms
The proof gives: Rs*as = c^2 (with is expected)
 

 

[quantenmaschine]

On 12/7/2018 at 2:10 PM, beecee said:

 Does it? Can you give some reputable reference to support that?

The universe as a whole? I did find this......

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/07/14/ask-ethan-how-large-is-the-entire-unobservable-universe/#410c447ddf80

extract:

"This means the unobservable Universe, assuming there's no topological weirdness, must be at least 23 trillion light years in diameter, and contain a volume of space that's over 15 million times as large as the volume we can observe. If we're willing to speculate, however, we can argue quite compellingly that the unobservable Universe should be significantly even bigger than that".

Now we want to calculate a black hole with Cosmic Microwave Radiation inside (T_cmb = 2.725 K) {this gives a maximum possible radius of an universe}:

Energydensity Epsilon = atilde*T_cmb^4 = 4.1718e-14 [J/m^3] = 3*c^4/(8*pi*G*Rs^2) see GRT
This is a Schwarzschild-Radius of: Rs  = sqrt(3*c^4/(8*pi*G*atilde*T_cmb^4)) = 1.8609e28 [m]
A Schwarzschild-Time of: ts = Rs/c = 1967 Gyr = 6.2073e19
The Mass of this black hole is: Ms = Rs*c^2/G =  2.5059e55 [kg]
The density of the Photons within CMBR is: n_gamma = 16*pi*zeta(3){k*T_cmb/(h*c)}^3 = 410.5e6 [1/m^3]
The total Photonnumber: N = 4*pi*Rs^3/3 * 410.5e6 = 1.1081e94 = const (primordial photons)!!!
This black hole has a accelleration of: as = G*Ms/Rs^2 = 4.8296e-12 [m/s^2] = c/ts = dF / Ms
The proof gives: Rs*as = c^2 (with is expected)

 

[beecee]

I'm still not sure what you are attempting to say...As far as I am aware, the universe has been found to be flat to within very small error allowances. Our observable universe is around 47 billion L/years in radius, and that is all we can say with any degree of certainty...the universe as a whole may be infinite or very very big, so much so as to be beyond our ability to measure it. Another point worth noting, the BB model only applies to our observable universe. 

https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/07/18/how-big-is-the-entire-universe

the finality of that article says...."Just because the part of it we can see is indistinguishable from flat doesn't mean it's intrinsically flat in its entirety. But it does mean that the Universe is far larger than we'll ever see. Even taking the minimum allowable estimate for the size of the Universe means that, at most, less than 0.0001% of the volume of the Universe is presently or will ever be observable to us. Once you put our knowledge about dark matter and dark energy in there, you'll realize that we'll never see more of the Universe than we can right now.

So all that we see -- the billions of stars in our galaxy, the hundreds of billions of galaxies lighting up the observable Universe -- is just a teeny-tiny fraction of what's actually out there, beyond what we can see. And yet, we can know that it's there. Isn't science wonderful?"

Edited December 14, 2018 by beecee