Matter/anti-matter asymettry, Dark matter, dark energy and how they relate

[jasondoege]

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

No that isn't the source of the CMBR.

For a long time the universe was filled with a hot, dense plasma. This was so dense that light could not travel any significant distance. After about 380,000 years it cooled enough that the plasma was able to form atoms (mainly hydrogen) and so became transparent. At that point, the light was able to travel vast distance across the universe. And that is what we now perceive as the CMB. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

The Big Bang was not an explosion at some point in space. It was the expansion of the universe. So, the universe is currently full of hydrogen gas, with occasional "clumps" (galaxies and similar structures) but on a large enough scale it is uniformly full of matter. It has always been full of matter. It was just denser in the past.

And there are many people who insist it can't be infinite "because that is not possible". As it is, we have no evidence either way (and I'm not sure we can every know).

That is correct. Whether the universe is finite or infinite, it is "unbounded" has no boundary. Which would imply that it "wraps around" (like a Pacman screen).

The universe was "born from" a hot dense state. We don't know how that came about. Maybe from the collapse of an earlier version of the universe. Maybe it had been in that state for an infinite time. Maybe it was created by a quantum fluctuation. 

Fair enough. I guess no one can argue with you using it as a working assumption to build your model.

Contraction?

What evidence is there for any such thing?

 

Ive seen some descriptions of the big bang as being everywhere not a singular point. if a finite universe expands from a singular point or a very dense non infinite smaller volume then it has a center which as far as im aware it does not.

we are getting a bit sidetracked but i dont mind, if you want to go into how dimensions would somehow wrap around on themselves be my guest but at the moment it sounds like nonsense to me.

the evidence of contraction youre asking for is the crux of my hypothesis. I show that if it is happening dark matters and dark energies chandra effects would be results. if the two directly correlate then i think we can say fairly logically that it indeed is happening.
 

since the cmbr is uniform in age coming from every direction then it means that the the sun is the center of the universe and to such a degree that for some reason the cmbrs age cannot be measured with any differention along our non elliptical orbit of the sun. another check mark in my book for the universe being infinite.

Edited May 12, 2020 by jasondoege

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

Ive seen some descriptions of the big bang as being everywhere not a singular point. if a finite universe expands from a singular point or a very dense non infinite smaller volume then it has a center which as far as im aware it does not.

It isn't expanding "from a point". That would imply it is expanding "into" something - but there is nothing for it to expand into. It is all there is.

11 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

again your description of the big bang is more refined than mine but it sill has the same problem i pointed out. no matter the density the universe had the motion of the cmbr would be faster than the matter we are measuring it from. it had to come from everywhere in all directions in order for us to measure what we have.

Yes, it can be difficult to get your head around that. Start with the fact that the Big Bang "happened everywhere". That means that the CMB radiation was emitted from everywhere. The radiation were are seeing now was released 13.8 billion years ago and is just now reaching us. The radiation we will receive tomorrow was released that little bit further away and hasn't got here yet. We will continue to see radiation coming from further and further away.

11 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

we are getting a bit sidetracked but i dont mind, if you want to go into how dimensions would somehow wrap around on themselves be my guest but at the moment it sounds like nonsense to me.

And that is the problem with trying to evaluate theories on the basis of "logic". It is too easy to say that something doesn't make sense on that basis. But when you build a detailed mathematical model you find it works.

11 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

the evidence of contraction youre asking for is the crux of my hypothesis. I show that if it is happening dark matter would be the effect of it. if the two directly correlate then i think we can say fairly logically that it indeed is happening.

OK. I haven't understood your reasoning there. I'll try and take another go at it. 

[jasondoege]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

It isn't expanding "from a point". That would imply it is expanding "into" something - but there is nothing for it to expand into. It is all there is.

Yes, it can be difficult to get your head around that. Start with the fact that the Big Bang "happened everywhere". That means that the CMB radiation was emitted from everywhere. The radiation were are seeing now was released 13.8 billion years ago and is just now reaching us. The radiation we will receive tomorrow was released that little bit further away and hasn't got here yet. We will continue to see radiation coming from further and further away.

And that is the problem with trying to evaluate theories on the basis of "logic". It is too easy to say that something doesn't make sense on that basis. But when you build a detailed mathematical model you find it works.

OK. I haven't understood your reasoning there. I'll try and take another go at it. 

i clarified and said a smaller non infinite volume. isnt a property of any finite shape to have a center?

you seemed to have missed an edit i made before you posted this. i show why the cmbr we measure had to come from an infinite everywhere

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

i clarified and said a smaller non infinite volume. isnt a property of any finite shape to have a center?

Not if it is unbounded. As a 2D analogy, consider the surface of the Earth (note: the surface - I emphasise that because it is often a stumbling block). It has a finite area, but there is no edge to the surface and no centre of the surface.

28 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

since the cmbr is uniform in age coming from every direction then it means that the the sun is the center of the universe and to such a degree that for some reason the cmbrs age cannot be measured with any differention along our non elliptical orbit of the sun. another check mark in my book for the universe being infinite.

We are in the centre of the observable universe (by definition). But the "whole universe" is many, many times large (or infinitely larger, perhaps).

I don't understand the point about the Sun's orbit.

[jasondoege]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

Not if it is unbounded. As a 2D analogy, consider the surface of the Earth (note: the surface - I emphasise that because it is often a stumbling block). It has a finite area, but there is no edge to the surface and no centre of the surface.

We are in the centre of the observable universe (by definition). But the "whole universe" is many, many times large (or infinitely larger, perhaps).

I don't understand the point about the Sun's orbit.

the surface of the earth is not unbounded. you are binding it by removing a dimension which gives it no depth, or really gives it some sort of depth but only in reference to other parts of itself, it has a huge gap in it. im refering to three dimensional shapes. nothing actually physically exists that isnt three dimensional.

my point about the sun. i could clarify by saying that the cmbr we measure is uniform in age from all directions. If the universe was a 3 dimensional finite object it would have a center. we would either have to be in it and our elliptical orbit coorelated impossibly to the universe moving in synch with it or the sun would have to be that center and we just couldnt measure the difference in the cmbr age as we elliptically moved around it.

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by jasondoege

[Strange]

Just now, jasondoege said:

the surface of the earth is not unbounded. you are binding it by removing a dimension which gives it no depth. im refering to three dimensional shapes.

It is an analogy. The same can be true in three dimensions but it is just harder (impossible) to visualise.

1 minute ago, jasondoege said:

my point about the sun. i could clarify by saying that the cmbr we measure is uniform in age from all directions. If the universe was a 3 dimensional finite object it would have a center. we would either have to be in it and our elliptical orbit coorelated impossibly to the universe moving in synch with it or the sun would have to be that center and we just couldnt measure the difference in the cmbr age as we elliptically moved around it.

Still not quite sure. Are you suggesting that the motion of the Sun would affect our measurement of the CMB? Like Doppler effect, or something? The motion of the Sun is far too slow to have any detectable effect. However, we do see the effect of the motion of the galaxy relative to the CMB.

[jasondoege]

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is an analogy. The same can be true in three dimensions but it is just harder (impossible) to visualise.

Still not quite sure. Are you suggesting that the motion of the Sun would affect our measurement of the CMB? Like Doppler effect, or something? The motion of the Sun is far too slow to have any detectable effect. However, we do see the effect of the motion of the galaxy relative to the CMB.

if its impossible to visualize then i think its fair we can drop it. because thats a huge red flag that its false.

motion is relative. we define our planets motion based on the location of the sun and its location in the milky way. If cmbr is coming at us uniformly in age from all directions then it has traveled the same distance from all directions and this distance does not vary to any measurable degree no matter our position relative to anything. 

If you can agree with me that the universe can be infinite and in fact we have no way of measuring if it is or not(though i think ive shown several reasons why it is) then we can focus on the other merits of the hypothesis because you are claiming this is an indeterminable value and therefore has no knowledgeable connection to if my idea is true or not.

Id also like to point out that as someone showed my detailed account of the big bang that results from this also answers the energy imbalance problem. Thats 4 answers to the 4 largest problems modern physics/astro physics faces.

Edited May 12, 2020 by jasondoege

[Strange]

51 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

if its impossible to visualize then i think its fair we can drop it. because thats a huge red flag that its false.

Sorry, that is not how science is decided. The theory works, and that is all that matters. 

52 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

motion is relative. we define our planets motion based on the location of the sun and its location in the milky way. If cmbr is coming at us uniformly in age from all directions then it has traveled the same distance from all directions and this distance does not vary to any measurable degree no matter our position relative to anything. 

Because the motion of the Sun (or us around the Sun) is way too small to measure. But the movement of the galaxy is much greater and we see that in the measurement of the CMB. 

 

[MigL]

Two very important concepts you don't seem to grasp.

The universe, in the Big Bang model, evolves from a smaller version of itself, where separation between non-gravitationally bound objects decreases, as you go further backwards in time. The logical end result of this backward trip in time, is a singularity, but there are many reasons to discount the singular universal beginning, so we conjecture a hot dense initial state. Once expansion ( and/or inflation ) starts, we have an era that is dominated by radiation, as electrons cannot sick to protons to form atoms. The ambient 'energy' ( temperature ) is like in the Sun, a plasma, and only when the temperature drops below 3000 deg C , will electrons bond to protons without ionizing.
If we consider this temperature, and factor in the approximate expansion of the universe since the end of the radiation era ( slightly more than 1000 times, we get the temperature of the CMB ( I believe G Gamow first did this calculation in the 40s ) of 2.7 deg C.
And sure enough, Penzias and Wilson found the CMB in the 50s, at just that temperature.

You cannot be 'outside' the universe.
Saying that 'if you cannot visualize it it doesn't exist', is a cop-out for that reason.
Where is the center of a doughnut shape, if you are INSIDE ?
And since anytime you are looking into a distance, you are in effect, looking back in time ( finite speed of light ), it makes no sense to consider only 3dimensional volumes. You need to consider 4dimensional space-time.
Can you visualize that ???

Both of these concepts also explain why the CMB has not passed by you.
The CMB is the relic radiation of EVERY POINT in the universe, not a specific location, so it can never pass you by on its way to somewhere else.

One final point...
You ask us to discuss your conjecture based solely on 'logic' ( not mathematically defined logic, but personal subjective 'logic' ), yet you demonstrate that you lack the basic knowledge of even some of the things you are trying to explain, such as Dark Matter.
( I would hate to hear what your take on Dark Energy is )
You are basically asking people to waste their time discussing your conjecture, as all indications are that any mathematical model will be similarly flawed.
You wan't to build a skyscraper, yet you lack the foundations to build it on; why not ask questions where you lack knowledge, and build a foundation. Then you'll have some idea as to what kind of building you can build on those foundations

Edited May 12, 2020 by MigL

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Where is the center of a doughnut shape, if you are INSIDE ?

Nice

[jasondoege]

30 minutes ago, MigL said:

Two very important concepts you don't seem to grasp.

The universe, in the Big Bang model, evolves from a smaller version of itself, where separation between non-gravitationally bound objects decreases, as you go further backwards in time. The logical end result of this backward trip in time, is a singularity, but there are many reasons to discount the singular universal beginning, so we conjecture a hot dense initial state. Once expansion ( and/or inflation ) starts, we have an era that is dominated by radiation, as electrons cannot sick to protons to form atoms. The ambient 'energy' ( temperature ) is like in the Sun, a plasma, and only when the temperature drops below 3000 deg C , will electrons bond to protons without ionizing.
If we consider this temperature, and factor in the approximate expansion of the universe since the end of the radiation era ( slightly more than 1000 times, we get the temperature of the CMB ( I believe G Gamow first did this calculation in the 40s ) of 2.7 deg C.
And sure enough, Penzias and Wilson found the CMB in the 50s, at just that temperature.

You cannot be 'outside' the universe.
Saying that 'if you cannot visualize it it doesn't exist', is a cop-out for that reason.
Where is the center of a doughnut shape, if you are INSIDE ?
And since anytime you are looking into a distance, you are in effect, looking back in time ( finite speed of light ), it makes no sense to consider only 3dimensional volumes. You need to consider 4dimensional space-time.
Can you visualize that ???

Both of these concepts also explain why the CMB has not passed by you.
The CMB is the relic radiation of EVERY POINT in the universe, not a specific location, so it can never pass you by on its way to somewhere else.

One final point...
You ask us to discuss your conjecture based solely on 'logic' ( not mathematically defined logic, but personal subjective 'logic' ), yet you demonstrate that you lack the basic knowledge of even some of the things you are trying to explain, such as Dark Matter.
( I would hate to hear what your take on Dark Energy is )
You are basically asking people to waste their time discussing your conjecture, as all indications are that any mathematical model will be similarly flawed.
You wasn't to build a skyscraper, yet you lack the foundations to build it on; why not ask questions where you lack knowledge, and build a foundation. Then you'll have some idea as to what kind of building you can build on those foundations

Thats a more detailed description of the big bang then i knew. So are you saying matter and antimatter annihilating each other would not produce the cmbr we measure?

if there is no outside of a universe then it cannot be a donut. or any 3 dimensional shape that has a center that we cannot measure. you guys are positing extra dimensions which is what i pointed out currently untestable and impossible to visualize so we cannot use them to determine if the merit of my hypothesis is valid.

your explanation of why the cmb has not passed(more importantly does not vary) is insufficient. in a donut that began as a smaller donut the cmbr would have had to travel in all 3 dimensions and would begin to double back on itself in the wierd way you are claiming the universe can.and our position would vary in a measurable way in one direction because of the expansion of that donut unless we happened to be in the very center of the ring and somehow that ring moved in accordance with our position on earth.

dark energy is the increase in the rate that the universe is expanding. I realize i need to refine my language and i have apologized for this. If you think reading this and helping me refine it based on its merit is a waste of your time then stop doing it. My mind is a pearl but i need to share and thereby refine the gifts it gives me with other people with different sets of pearls so that i can see if it is false and like you said stop wasting everyones time. 

26 minutes ago, Strange said:

Nice

not nice, the center of a donut is in the center of it even if youre inside it. if the universe is shaped like a donut it is somehow is three dimensional without three full dimensions existing and it would still have a center that somehow existed nowhere. it would be an impossible to visualize donut with no center.

cmon you guys this spacial dimensions thing you keep bringing up is a strange attempt to discredit my hypothesis by referring to things that cannot be tested known or even visualized.

Edited May 12, 2020 by jasondoege

[MigL]

The doughnut shape was an example.
It is not viable exactly because it has an 'outside'.
A flat torus would be more appropriate, but you wouldn't have known what it means.
( look it up )

And no, that is not a pearl, because you refuse to acknowledge your limitations.
( and the help actually needed is NOT refinement )

[jasondoege]

51 minutes ago, MigL said:

The doughnut shape was an example.
It is not viable exactly because it has an 'outside'.
A flat torus would be more appropriate, but you wouldn't have known what it means.
( look it up )

And no, that is not a pearl, because you refuse to acknowledge your limitations.
( and the help actually needed is NOT refinement )

well it was a bad example. id google the torus but ive pointed out several times that these are unknowable untestable concepts that do not invalidate my hypothesis
the help i need is refinement which you guys have been giving me a little of. or outright showing its false which im begging you to try to do. What is the purpose for this section of this forum?

ok  i googled the torus. guess what it exists in three dimensional space, has an outside, and is just a freaking donut

i acknowledged my limitations in the same sentence, i said i need help, why would you even suggest i think im infinitely capable of everything?

Edited May 13, 2020 by jasondoege

[Mordred]

28 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

Thats a more detailed description of the big bang then i knew. So are you saying matter and antimatter annihilating each other would not produce the cmbr we measure?

The CMB is produced through Big Bang Nucleosynthesis which involves far more than just matter and antimatter. The topic of nucleosynthesis is extremely lengthy and equates to the numerous stages of electroweak symmetry breaking of the standard model of particles along with inflationary processes.

If you take our entire observable universe which we are part of and reverse expansion you will teach a finite point. Our observable universe portion is finite. However we know this is not the limit of the entire universe.

We do not know if the entire universe is infinite or finite. However we are part of that finite portion that expanded to our current observable universe.  The CMB itself surrounds us and can be heard as static on radio waves.

One cannot point in any direction and state the BB happened in that direction. Everything we see and can measure is part of the BB origin including our current location.

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by Mordred

[jasondoege]

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

The CMB is produced through Big Bang Nucleosynthesis which involves far more than just matter and antimatter. The topic of nucleosynthesis is extremely lengthy and equates to the numerous stages of electroweak symmetry breaking of the standard model of particles along with inflationary processes.

 

Ok does any of your expert knowledge of the subject invalidate any of the specifics i gave in that specific portion of my hypothesis? if so we can say that was an invalid conclusion and ill drop that section.

Edited May 12, 2020 by jasondoege

[Mordred]

We cross posted see above for my edit.

Then I will answer your question in more detail. However your sentence

 

Quote

Ive seen some descriptions of the big bang as being everywhere not a singular point

is accurate.

Take our entire observable universe, reverse expansion to a finite point. At 10^-43 seconds after the BB that finite point will be one Planck length. Our entire observable universe will have originated in that volume.

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by Mordred

[jasondoege]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

We cross posted see above for my edit.

Then I will answer your question in more detail. However your sentence

 

 

is accurate.

Take our entire observable universe, reverse expansion to a finite point.

i dont see any edit.

im not talking about the observable universe. but thanks for at least saying one thing ive said is accurate

[Mordred]

Well we have only conjecture and Speculation beyond our observable universe. The only thing one can conclude is the region of shared causality beyond our observable portion must have similar conditions to our Observable portion which represents the region of our shared causality. 

 Otherwise you would have different rates on expansion near the edges of our observable universe.

Quite frankly there is very little accuracy in your original post. So really all we can do is point you into the proper direction. 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Mordred

[jasondoege]

22 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Well we have only conjecture and Speculation beyond our observable universe. The only thing one can conclude is the region of shared causality beyond our observable portion must have similar conditions to our Observable portion which represents the region of our shared causality. 

 Otherwise you would have different rates on expansion near the edges of our observable universe.

Quite frankly there is very little accuracy in your original post. So really all we can do is point you into the proper direction. 

beyond being more specific about what im calling dark energy and instead dark energy and spatial expansion, using the word volume instead of area, and giving fully written mathematical formulas what else would you add to the list that you call very little accuracy?

why would we have different rates of expansion near the edges? you dont say what this is referring to.

can you not grasp the overall idea and the logic behind it? does it not seem interesting to you?

Edited May 13, 2020 by jasondoege

[Mordred]

Let's take for a random example the statement dark energy rate is increasing. 

This statement is wrong the rate of expansion per Mpc is actually decreasing however expansion is accelerating due to the sheer volume increase.

Lets try to clarify that the  Hubble parameter at say Z=1100 380,000 after BB was 12,300 times greater than it is today at roughly 70 km/Mpc/sec. However our volume is far more immense you have a radius of  14,094 Mpc to the cosmological event horizon. As the radius increases even though expansion per Mpc is slowing down the radius of our observable portion is accelerating.

That is due to how one describes expansion and expansion rate. 

Recessive velocity depends on seperation distance.

[math]v_{resessive}=H_0 D[/math] it is this statement that describes recessive velocity and what us termed accelerating expansion.

However dark energy or more accurately the Cosmological constant has a constant energy density regardless  of volume.  That energy density is roughly [math]7.0×10^{-10}[/math] joules/cubic metre. 

Expansion can also occur without dark energy. Radiation and even ordinary matter also contribute to expansion.

 

[jasondoege]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Let's take for a random example the statement dark energy rate is increasing. 

This statement is wrong the rate of expansion per Mpc is actually decreasing however expansion is accelerating due to the sheer volume increase.

Lets try to clarify that the  Hubble parameter at say Z=1100 380,000 after BB was 12,300 times greater than it is today at roughly 70 km/Mpc/sec. However our volume is far more immense you have a radius of  14,094 Mpc to the cosmological event horizon. As the radius increases even though expansion per Mpc is slowing down the radius of our observable portion is accelerating.

That is due to how one describes expansion and expansion rate. 

Recessive velocity depends on seperation distance.

it is this statement that describes recessive velocity and what us termed accelerating expansion.

However dark energy or more accurately the Cosmological constant has a constant energy density regardless  of volume.  That energy density is roughly joules/cubic metre. 

Expansion can also occur without dark energy. Radiation and even ordinary matter also contribute to expansion.

 

I point out in my hypothesis why these expansion rates have changed in this exact manner. Thats part of the whole crux of the theory. Its increasing now. Its decreased over time. Thats exactly what i said in my hypothesis.
Dark energies rate is increasing now according to results in an article i linked in the theory that takes you to NASA's website. its been confirmed by many professional agencies.

I know expansion can occur without some spooky energy. thats the whole point of my hypothesis

Edited May 13, 2020 by jasondoege

[Mordred]

Ok energy does not exist on it own.

The term dark energy is simply used as a place holder for a process were not clear on the cause.

I suggest you read 

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

In  particular the Brian Powell and Lineweaver Davies article.

You have no mathematics in your conjecture so really you have no testable model. However I apply LCDM to predict how large the observable universe will be in future and how big it was in the past at any Z value.

[jasondoege]

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Ok energy does not exist on it own.

The term dark energy is simply used as a place holder for a process were not clear on the cause.

I suggest you read 

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

In  particular the Brian Powell and Lineweaver Davies article.

You have no mathematics in your conjecture so really you have no testable model. However I apply LCDM to predict how large the observable universe will be in future and how big it was in the past at any Z value.

i know energy does not exist on its own. thats one of the things this hypothesis aims to rectify. The energy imbalance problem is a major problem that needs to be answered. 
I do not have no mathematics in my conjecture. i give general mathematical descriptions. if  you think thats none im not the one with the math problem.
you say my hypothesis has very many inaccuracies. i point out the ones weve already fixed which was 3 and ask you for more. you point out nothing and instead call general math no math.

If this idea does not interest you guys just say so and ill move on to a better forum where i find people that at least want to think about it and see if its true or not.

Edited May 13, 2020 by jasondoege

[Mordred]

This is what our LCDM model is capable of. Do you believe a descriptive compares ?

[latex]{\small\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline T_{Ho} (Gy) & T_{H\infty} (Gy) & S_{eq} & H_{0} & \Omega_\Lambda & \Omega_m\\ \hline 14.4&17.3&3400&67.9&0.693&0.307\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex] [latex]{\small\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline S&T (Gy)&R (Gly)&D_{now} (Gly)&D_{then}(Gly)&D_{hor}(Gly)&V_{gen}/c&H/Ho \\ \hline 1090.000&0.000373&0.000628&45.331596&0.041589&0.056714&21.023&22915.263\\ \hline 339.773&0.002496&0.003956&44.183524&0.130038&0.178562&10.712&3639.803\\ \hline 105.913&0.015309&0.023478&42.012463&0.396668&0.552333&5.791&613.344\\ \hline 33.015&0.090158&0.136321&38.051665&1.152552&1.651928&3.200&105.633\\ \hline 10.291&0.522342&0.785104&30.917756&3.004225&4.606237&1.782&18.342\\ \hline 3.208&2.977691&4.373615&18.247534&5.688090&10.827382&1.026&3.292\\ \hline 1.000&13.787206&14.399932&0.000000&0.000000&16.472274&1.000&1.000\\ \hline 0.312&32.884943&17.184900&11.117770&35.666086&17.224560&2.688&0.838\\ \hline 0.132&47.725063&17.291127&14.219438&107.785602&17.291127&6.313&0.833\\ \hline 0.056&62.598053&17.299307&15.535514&278.255976&17.299307&14.909&0.832\\ \hline 0.024&77.473722&17.299802&16.092610&681.060881&17.299802&35.227&0.832\\ \hline 0.010&92.349407&17.299900&16.328381&1632.838131&17.299900&83.237&0.832\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex]

THE H/H_0 column describes how the Hubble parameter  is decreasing in value since CMB.

Edited May 13, 2020 by Mordred

[jasondoege]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

This is what our LCDM model is capable of. Do you believe a descriptive compares ?

THo(Gy)14.4TH∞(Gy)17.3Seq3400H067.9ΩΛ0.693Ωm0.307 S1090.000339.773105.91333.01510.2913.2081.0000.3120.1320.0560.0240.010T(Gy)0.0003730.0024960.0153090.0901580.5223422.97769113.78720632.88494347.72506362.59805377.47372292.349407R(Gly)0.0006280.0039560.0234780.1363210.7851044.37361514.39993217.18490017.29112717.29930717.29980217.299900Dnow(Gly)45.33159644.18352442.01246338.05166530.91775618.2475340.00000011.11777014.21943815.53551416.09261016.328381Dthen(Gly)0.0415890.1300380.3966681.1525523.0042255.6880900.00000035.666086107.785602278.255976681.0608811632.838131Dhor(Gly)0.0567140.1785620.5523331.6519284.60623710.82738216.47227417.22456017.29112717.29930717.29980217.299900Vgen/c21.02310.7125.7913.2001.7821.0261.0002.6886.31314.90935.22783.237H/Ho22915.2633639.803613.344105.63318.3423.2921.0000.8380.8330.8320.8320.832

i dont know what this is referring to i am not part of the scientific community my life is much more complex and dynamic than being an extreme expert in one field has to offer. If anything you posted in that invalidates any statements ive made then point it out please