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

[Mordred]

The dark energy increasing statement is invalidated by the H/H_0 column for the reasons I explained.

Did you want me to show you how a matter only universe can expand ?

Dark energy isn't the only reason the universe expands. 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Mordred

[jasondoege]

Just now, Mordred said:

The dark energy increasing statement is invalidated by the H/H_0 column for the reasons I explained.

Did you want me to show you how a matter only universe can expand ?

Have those stats been invalidated based on nasas chandra results? are you saying i cant refer to nasa and shouldnt think up new ideas based on their findings?
no you dont need to show me how a matter only universe can expand. a seperate possibility does not invalidate my choice of one in a smaller section of my hypothesis

as far as im aware a matter only universe could expand but the resulting mass formations would just be black holes, which according to my hypothesis counter expansion to a diminishing degree

 

[Mordred]

No your obviously not understanding the layman descriptions presented by the NASA article that tried to dummy down the actual science for the general public.

[jasondoege]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

No your obviously not understanding the layman descriptions presented by the NASA article that tried to dummy down the actual science for the general public.

well thats a bummer, i cant even understand dumbed down descriptions. could you grant me a bit of clarity?

[Mordred]

Ok read the paper that link is describing and ask yourself how much you understand.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.02590

Now this is just one study out of hundreds at different ranges. 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Mordred

[jasondoege]

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Ok read the paper that link is describing and ask yourself how much you understand.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.02590

Ill take my time to do it. If you cant take the time to point out a logical inconsistency it presents to my hypothesis then just drop it. Im looking for like minds that care about knowledge and want to discover it, share it, and help others refine it.
and its just loading forever atm

it loaded. I just had to read the general description to understand it was exactly what i was talking about.
"If an evolution of the dark energy equation of state is allowed, the data suggest a dark energy density increasing with time."

Edited May 13, 2020 by jasondoege

[Mordred]

I did however your not understanding my explanation. I can't exactly give you the math arguments as I doubt you would understand them.

Unless your familiar with the FLRW metric and the fluid equations describing the deceleration equation via each equation of state for Lambda, matter and radiation.

Lets put it this way I am a professional Cosmologist. In order to correctly explain cosmology to you.

I need to find your level of understanding. Otherwise nothing I explain will make sense.

Edited May 13, 2020 by Mordred

[jasondoege]

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I did however your not understanding my explanation. I can't exactly give you the math arguments as I doubt you would understand them.

Unless your familiar with the FLRW metric and the fluid equations describing the deceleration equation via each equation of state for Lambda, matter and radiation.

i edited my comment and added the final conclusion and statement of the description of the paper.
 

"If an evolution of the dark energy equation of state is allowed, the data suggest a dark energy density increasing with time."
 

you are either saying this is not true, and i shouldnt trust nasa. Or you are saying you have more information that you have to present that has nothing to do with this paper but brought it up simultaneously with it for no reason.

This is just another time youve tried to discredit my thoughts by insulting my intellect about stuff you were wrong about.

Edited May 13, 2020 by jasondoege

[Mordred]

I am stating this paper is only one study of many. It only presents a possibility of an evolving equation of state and isn't conclusive in the face of other studies.

 

[jasondoege]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I am stating this paper is only one study of many. It only presents a possibility of an evolving equation of state and isn't conclusive in the face of other studies.

 

Well shoot, i guess because its a possibility with widely confirmed data supporting it i shouldnt think about it and use it to create new a new hypothesis that answers why it COULD be happening and the major questions astro phsyics is facing.

Edited May 13, 2020 by jasondoege

[Mordred]

Roflmao.

Tell me do you expect a 5 year old child who played the game Doctor to be able to tell a real Doctor how to perform surgery ?

Of course not. How do you expect to solve the major Cosmological problems that plaques hundreds of true experts without even knowing the basics of Cosmology ?

For example give me the formula that defines the equation of state for a scalar field such as the Cosmological constant.

[jasondoege]

Just now, Mordred said:

Roflmao.

Tell me do you expect a 5 year old child who played the game Doctor to be able to tell a real Doctor how to perform surgery ?

Of course not. How do you expect to solve the major Cosmological problems that plaques hundreds of true experts without even knowing the basics of Cosmology ?

For example give me the formula that defines the equation of state for a scalar field such as the Cosmological constant.

Thats what i thought. "your idea cant be true because youre dumb"
Brilliant. Thanks man lets let other people talk about it or ill try to find somewhere else that has them.

[Mordred]

No you have too many misconceptions and zero mathematics to make testable predictions.

Physics models requires mathematics actual formulas that can be tested to test a model 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Mordred

[jasondoege]

To be even more clear i have an iq of 150. I have a fresh mind that hasnt been solely instructed what to learn and what absolutely has to be true. I used its creative strength to add fresh new of eyes and ideas to a field that obviously needs help. Ive learned constantly over my life how to think. you want to deal more with people who cant answer these questions that have exhausted their minds only learning what to think.

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No you have too many misconceptions and zero mathematics to make testable predictions.

Physics models requires mathematics 

I asked you to point out any more inconsistencies in this long list you claimed existed. you failed to do so. Ill work on generating those mathematics but it would be nice if people in this forum took a moment and told me if im just wasting my time doing so.

Edited May 13, 2020 by jasondoege

[Mordred]

You think that IQ means anything to me I tested the same range. The difference is I studied Cosmology since 1980. I have degree in Cosmology as well as particle physics.

I am giving you information to properly develop a proper model. However to do so will require considerable study and work on your part. 

 

 

[jasondoege]

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You think that IQ means anything to me I tested the same range. The difference is I studied Cosmology since 1980. I have degree in Cosmology as well as particle physics.

I am giving you information to properly develop a proper model. However to do so will require considerable study and work on your part. 

 

 

It sounds like you have plenty of knowledge that would be beneficial in determining if this hypothesis is conceptually feasable or not. But for some reason you do not have the desire to do so. So please let other people fill that void and ill go play some beat saber while i wait for them to do so and we can stop wasting each others time with one way insults.
Im looking for partners in this because if its true it would be monumental. If you arent interested being one of those then thats that.

Edited May 13, 2020 by jasondoege

[Mordred]

You have very little to work with. You might believe you solved our problems but have zero applicability except errors in your statements. Your not even getting the descriptions correct on expansion.

Others as well as a have been pointing out your errors but you aren't listening to them.

We are page 3 of pointing out errors in your descriptives.

Instead myself and others have been forced to describe basic cosmology to you.

What happens when matter comes into contact with antimatter ? So how can you possibly have an antimatter galaxy in a matter dominant universe without that galaxy getting destroyed ?

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Mordred

[jasondoege]

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You have very little to work with. You might believe you solved our problems but have zero applicability except errors in your statements. Your not even getting the descriptions correct on expansion.

Others as well as a have been pointing out your errors but you aren't listening to them.

We are page 3 of pointing out errors in your descriptives.

 

Whatever man i listened to every single instance of errors that people pointed out and even told you how i did so. you just even referred to the one i brought up about about dark energy and spatial expansion that someone pointed out that  i already corrected and presented to you.
Very little to work with, another vague insult. just drop it man youre not interested in it let it go.

An intelligent person would consider the hypothesis's merit and apply his knowledge on the subject to refine or reject it. youre not doing that at all.

Edited May 13, 2020 by jasondoege

[Mordred]

Ok how can you have an antimatter galaxy in a matter dominant universe without getting the Galaxy destroyed ?

What happens when matter comes into contact with antimatter if you have an equal mix of matter and antimatter you will not have a universe.

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Mordred

[jasondoege]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Ok how can you have an antimatter galaxy in a matter dominant universe without getting the Galaxy destroyed ?

What happens when matter comes into contact with antimatter ?

 

I explain that in my hypothesis. Randomly dominant matter and anti matter areas of the universe were created by infinite or extremely high spatial expansion that was present due to the initial absence of matter.

as far as im aware quantum foam is randomly directed so it would produce this result

Thank you for at least trying at this point

Edited May 13, 2020 by jasondoege

[Mordred]

Matter exists everywhere in space at different mass densities.  You cannot have an antimatter galaxy exist when it's surrounded by matter.

Your idea is falsifiable in the very first paragraph

The first problem is whats known as matter/anti-matter asymmetry. when we look at the visible universe we see no anti-matter and have no idea why, it should be making up its half of its own random galaxies. This is a huge problem to solve, the largest one.

 

[jasondoege]

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Matter exists everywhere in space at different mass densities.  You cannot have an antimatter galaxy exist when it's surrounded by matter.

Your idea is falsifiable in the very first paragraph

 

 

No take your time and think about it. If matter/anti-matter pairs were produced in random directions and separated by spatial expansion you would have randomly defined areas with only matter or anti-matter present in them after the dominant member annihilated its opposite due to their attraction to one another and close proximity. Random means random and that directly correlates to the areas of space dominated by one or the other except by saying that the produced result would be symmetrical

and if somehow this big bang descriptive detail of my hypothesis is wrong it does not invalidate my idea. its only a conclusion from it not the crux of it.

Edited May 13, 2020 by jasondoege

[Mordred]

What is the likely hood of a matter particle not encountering an antimatter particle at a time when the observable universe just prior to the CMB is only roughly 3 Mpc in diameter. This is a time period before the surface  last scattering. Photons could not even reach us without experiencing Compton scattering.

The mean free path of photons was less than [math]10^-32 [/math] meters before they encountered another particle such as a free electron prior to temperature 3000 Kelvin.  When hydrogen atoms can first form with stability.

you are describing an impossibility when you consider the mean average particle number density in the early universe.

 Are you familiar with Leptogenesis and Baryogenesis in regards to the Sackarov condition Ie CPT ?

 

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Mordred

[jasondoege]

14 minutes ago, Mordred said:

What is the likely hood of a matter particle not encountering an antimatter particle at a time when the observable universe just prior to the CMB is only roughly 3 Mpc in diameter. This is a time period before the surface  last scattering. Photons could not even reach us without experiencing Compton scattering.

The mean free path of photons was less than [math]10^-32 [/math] meters before they encountered another particle such as a free electron prior to temperature 3000 Kelvin.  When hydrogen atoms can first form with stability.

you are describing an impossibility when you consider the mean average particle number density in the early universe.

 Are you familiar with Leptogenesis and Baryogenesis in regards to the Sackarov condition Ie CPT ?

 

 

The likelyhood is random and symmetrical based on what ive already presented you.
I have no idea what those things are, like i said i am completely removed from the scientific community and its why im on this forum hoping to talk to people like you that arent.
Instead of pointing them out feel free to point out details of them that invalidate parts of my theory including the crux of it.
Please say in more detail what that impossibility im describing is. And please realize this applies to just one conclusion of my hypothesis and does not invalidate it if its false.

Edited May 13, 2020 by jasondoege

[Mordred]

Man it should be obvious. If photons prior to the surface of last scattering cannot reach us. Then obviously there is no possibility for antimatter to seperation from matter. The average density is too flipping high in the early universe.

Please study Cosmology and learn before thinking you can solve it's problems.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

Here is some useful textbooks 

Training (textbook Style Articles)

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

I especially  recommend chapters 3 to 5 of last link. In those chapters he describes nucleosynthesis which includes leptogenesis and Baryogenesis (Ie when the matter/antimatter assymetry occurs and CPT which is used to describe it. (CPT. Charge,parity and time = Sackarov condition.)