Modified Raychauduri Equation With Poincare Symmetry And Non-Conservation

[Super Polymath]

It HAS to be decelerating, or accelerating.

 

It's the only way a Friedmann equation will work in terms of expansion and collapse.

Apply series expansions to transform the rate of expansion. It looks like it decreased, it just adjusted to a to push apart a greater volume of less dense material - which would have superluminal rotation/expansion within masses greater than the observable universe with the heat & density of the current observable universe. Whereas during the quark epoch, the rotation/expansion would have been subluminal for the same amount of material that was in a hotter, more condensed state. 

Edited June 21, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Turtle]

Well yes Turtle, you could do that, but tell me, why would you?

 

Are you a troll when you accused me the other week of being one?

Of course I'm a troll. Just ask anyone. :lol: Beyond that, I was just alerting you to the fact that deleting a post won't take any portion of it off the board that was quoted by another member.

[Super Polymath]

The fifth fundamental force is special relativity changing the speed of light & gravity beneath the Planck length, making smaller cosmoses. Every particle is a perfect miniaturized version of our observable universe, that's why they oscillate. They go from quark–gluon plasma into a network of galactic superclusters, & from that they turn into a cold & barren void of black holes that end up evaporating due to heat loss & igniting a tachyon bath with gamma radiation that recombines the tachyons into heavier elements like the quark–gluon plasma of the early universe. This is how atoms are formed. 

 

Atomic nuclei switch places with their electrons, protons, & anti-protons as they expand & change form. I explained all of this in your other thread. Less bizarre than a quantum observer.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Super Polymath

[exchemist]

Your question has been answered.

No it has not.

 

I am asking whether your model is consistent with the lack of evidence for rotation we observe today, as quantified by Hawking's upper limits on what it could be. You have been evading answering this question in spite of several attempts by me to get an answer.

 

If your answer is "I don't know" that's fine. But it is an obvious thing to ask, because tying your model to observation is what any scientist should try to do.

 

If you do not provide some sort of answer to this, we shall all be entitled to conclude you are a charlatan and a crank, who does not know what he is doing.   

[OceanBreeze]

No it has not.

 

I am asking whether your model is consistent with the lack of evidence for rotation we observe today, as quantified by Hawking's upper limits on what it could be. You have been evading answering this question in spite of several attempts by me to get an answer.

 

If your answer is "I don't know" that's fine. But it is an obvious thing to ask, because tying your model to observation is what any scientist should try to do.

 

If you do not provide some sort of answer to this, we shall all be entitled to conclude you are a charlatan and a crank, who does not know what he is doing.   

 

 

I have already come to that conclusion.

[OceanBreeze]

Your question has been answered.

 

 

 

No, you have not answered his question, and it is apparent that you cannot answer it. I asked you a similar question about the rotation speed soon after you started posting, and you could not answer it then either. Maybe it is because your math really doesn’t make any sense?

 

You have the acceleration term as [math]\omega^2R \approx. 10^{-7} cms^{-2}[/math]

 

First of all, angular acceleration is [math] \alpha [/math] and that is not [math]{ \omega  }^{ 2 }R[/math]

where R is the present Hubble Radius (13.7 BLyr).

 

If the Hubble radius is expressed as [math]\frac { 1.3E28\quad cm }{ rad }[/math] then the acceleration in [math]\frac { rad }{ { s }^{ 2 } }[/math] can be calculated this way:

 

[math]\left( \frac { { 10 }^{ -7 }cm }{ { s }^{ 2 } }  \right) \left( \frac { rad }{ 1.3E28\quad cm }  \right) =\frac { 7.69E-36\quad rad }{ { s }^{ 2 } }[/math]

 

And that is an angular acceleration on the RHS but having it be equal to [math]{ \omega  }^{ 2 }[/math] on the LHS makes no sense.

 

But, leaving that aside for the moment, using your value of acceleration and Hawking’s value of 10^-14 rad /yr, it is possible to work back to a value for angular rotation at the time of the CMB 13.3 Billion years ago. That is, [math]{ \omega  }_{ cmb }=\alpha t+{ \omega  }_{ now }[/math]

 

Since 13.3 Billion years is 4.2E17 seconds, that works out to 3.34E-18 rad/sec plus 1E-14 rad/yr and that is not much faster than the limit that Hawking put on the rotation today. (about 1E-10 rad/yr)

 

So, your claim that it was spinning much faster in the past is falsified by using your own math.

 

Now, of course I could be doing this all wrong and all you need to do, to show that, is provide your own numbers, which is what both I and Exchemist have been asking you to do.

Edited June 21, 2017 by OceanBreeze

[OceanBreeze]

This here^^^ is complete and utter rubbish. Time derivative of R is velocity what it is the time derivative of that? Also, can't you work out simple dimensions? It's clearly an acceleration term, [math]\omega[/math] acts like a double time derivative in the equation.

 

But if you knew your physics well enough, all of this would be clear, even to you.

 

 

Ha! Making up your own Fizics as you go? [math] \omega[/math] is a velocity term, rad/sec, not an acceleration term. You are full of sh1t.

 

Go peddle your book somewhere else, nobody here is interested.

[OceanBreeze]

What the f*ck?

 

It's an angular frequency, not a velocity. You see, you're clueless? Like a lamb in the dark.

 

It is an angular velocity term, rad/sec, you moron.

[exchemist]

You're getting a bit mouthy aren't you?

 

A crank doesn't sit here with the patience I have had. I have clearly articulated myself and because something wasn't worded a particular way, you have accused me of being a crank. I did explain a few times, Hawkings model is incomplete. You should not be working from it for a picture of the model I am working with.

 

I am willing to give you more time, but Ocean has danced his last dance. I can see, he doesn't actually know what he talking about. I hope I don't get the same impression with you.

Yes I am getting fed up, that's why. You post numerous times in bits and pieces, making your arguments hard to follow, and you seem - to me and to Oceanbreeze at least - never to address my question.

 

Let me try once more very slowly, in case the problem is that I am missing something along the way here:-

 

A) You claim, unless I have misunderstood you, to have a model of the universe involving rotation.

 

B ) Hawking, unless I have misunderstood him, claims to have determined, from observational data, not theory, an upper limit to the rate of rotation visible in the universe today, 

 

Are these two statements A and B correct, or if not, which one of them is wrong and why?  

 

One you have clarified these points, you and I should both be able to see whether my question was an appropriate one or not. 

Edited June 21, 2017 by exchemist

[OceanBreeze]

Why don't you look up 'angular frequency' you'll find it has dimensions of 1/t, just like any other frequency term.

 

 

You are embarrassing no one, but yourself here. Omega becomes a velocity term with a Hubble Radius attached to it.

 

Good God, you are an idiot.

 

from Wikipedia:

 

In physics, the angular velocity of a rotating body is defined as the rate of change of angular displacement, and is a vector quantity (more precisely, a pseudovector) that specifies the angular speed (rotational speed) of an object and the axis about which the object is rotating. This speed can be measured in the SI unit of angular velocity, radians per second, or in terms of degrees per second, degrees per hour, etc. Angular velocity is usually represented by the symbol omega (ω, rarely Ω).

[OceanBreeze]

Ocean I accuse you of deraling this thread - if it isn't intentionally, I am suspecting you may not be smartest tool in the shed.

 

 

One last time before I report you, look up the difference between

 

 

angular veclocity vs angular frequency.

 

 

You might learn something. If you continue saying what you are saying without looking into it, I will report you for trolling.

 

 

Ha! Apparently you can't even read.

[OceanBreeze]

The irony is, the page you directed me to, actually explains some of the things I have spoke about.

 

It quotes the velocity as

 

\omega times R

 

What did I tell you before?

 

 

omega times R is the linear velocity, not the angular velocity, idiot

[OceanBreeze]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Angular velocity is not an acceleration.

[OceanBreeze]

I have wasted enough time on you. Go peddle your book or at least try and answer Exchemist's question.

[exchemist]

Good God, you are an idiot.

 

from Wikipedia:

 

In physics, the angular velocity of a rotating body is defined as the rate of change of angular displacement, and is a vector quantity (more precisely, a pseudovector) that specifies the angular speed (rotational speed) of an object and the axis about which the object is rotating. This speed can be measured in the SI unit of angular velocity, radians per second, or in terms of degrees per second, degrees per hour, etc. Angular velocity is usually represented by the symbol omega (ω, rarely Ω).

Actually I don't understand the fuss here, as  it seems to me the two terms are synonyms. They have the same dimensions,  T⁻¹, and use the same symbol, ω. (Radians are dimensionless of course, being a ratio of a chord to a radius.)

 

It's true I have more often come across "angular frequency" in relation to the periodic motion of waves (e.g. AC theory), rather than simple rotation, but I don't see a real issue with using it for a simple rotation. Do you?  

[OceanBreeze]

Actually I don't understand the fuss here, as  it seems to me the two terms are synonyms. They have the same dimensions,  T⁻¹, and use the same symbol, ω. (Radians are dimensionless of course, being a ratio of a chord to a radius.)

 

It's true I have more often come across "angular frequency" in relation to the periodic motion of waves (e.g. AC theory), rather than simple rotation, but I don't see a real issue with using it for a simple rotation. Do you?  

 

 

The problem is, he is using omega as an acceleration term. When I pointed out that is wrong because it is a angular velocity term, he deflected to calling it an angular frequency.

 

And, angular velocity is not the same thing as angular frequency.

 

Angular frequency is in cycles per second, Hertz and is 1/t

 

Angular velocity is in rad/sec.

 

Not the same thing.

 

And neither one is an acceleration term.

Edited June 21, 2017 by OceanBreeze

[OceanBreeze]

There is an issue, because he attributed omega to a velocity term which was wrong.

 

 

I gave you a source that says I am right.

 

So, you quote a source that says omega is NOT a velocity term. Should be very simple.