### WMAP Update

Wondrous Kea has suggested comparing predictions of $\Omega_b$ and $\Omega_m$ with the latest WMAP results. Data comes from Spergel et al., Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP1) Observations

Our 4-dimensional spherical Space has a finite volume given by:

V = 2 $\pi$^2 R^3

Where R is radius, with dimensions of length. The very gravity which causes Space/Time to be curved would cause the sphere to collapse, unless it were already expanding. We can express the expanding Universe simply:

R = ct

Again R has dimensions of length and c has dimensions of distance/time. For an expanding Universe, it is axiomatic that R is some multiple of t.

The Universe can't expand at the same rate c forever, for gravity slows it down. We do some math and get:

GM = tc^3

Where GM combines mass of the Universe with its gravitational constant.

Together these simple expressions form a solution to the Einstein-Friedmann equations with stable density:

$\rho$f = (6 $\pi$ G t^2)^{-1}

Here we encounter an interesting difference. If an initial mass M is distributed among this spherical volume V, we get an initial density $\rho$i of:

$\rho$i = M/V where M = (tc^3)/G

$\rho$i = (2 $\pi$G t^2)^{-1}

The difference is made up by the matter we are made of. When the Universe is "underweight," quantum mechanics predicts that matter will appear via pair production. The amount of this matter is the difference between $\rho$i and $\rho$f, or 4.507034%.

Prediction: 4.507034%

$\Omega_b$ 4.49 ± 0.28 (Prediction correct within 0.6 standard deviations)

$\Omega_m$ is the amount of "dark " mass. By Theory, this could be made up of microscopic singularities, Black Holes formed shortly after the Big Bang. We can create models to predict how much this would be:

Prediction: 23.87%

$\Omega_m$ 22.2 ± 2.6 (Prediction correct within 0.6 standard deviations)

This also predicts a changing speed of light, which can be seen in Type Ia supernova redshifts and laser ranging of the Moon. Why does this work not get more attention? New ideas, especially ideas ahead of their time, take time to be accepted. The inefficient neural net of humanity contains many old nodes that refuse to accept change. Thanks to talks and this blog, Theory is now known worldwide. The genie has escaped the bottle!

## 10 Comments:

Great! Didn't we make a bet with someone a few years back that your prediction would be proven correct? I don't remember who it was. Oh, well. Now of course they will just say it is (yet another) coincidence and that there only ten digits and large error bars and bla bla ... as if this is a good argument against a real theory of physics.

So to what value do you fix the variable t in order to get your 'prediction'?

For Kea: Thanks, we can let them enjoy their utter lack of success.

Please show the details of your numerical calculation. Otherwise, you are just engaging in dishonest hand-waving.

I would suggest anonymous retains anonymity-

http://www.galaxyzooforum.org/index.php?topic=272147.msg515473#msg515473

Thank you for the kind mention, Graham. You will find that "Riofrio" requires only two fingers to type.

Dear Graham,

I had a look at your website, and I must say it as sad and pathetic as both Ms. Riofrio and Kea. You guys don't seem to even understand basic concepts of particle physics, yet you seem very proficient at deceiving yourselves that you do. For the record, I am an expert in the subject, and I can state clearly that you guys don't know what you are talking about. The real question is, are you intentionally dishonest or are you simply delusional?

For the record, I am an expert in the subject, and I can state clearly that you guys don't know what you are talking about.Oh, so you are a professional! Gee, we would never have guessed! Wow, please share your oh so great knowledge with us. We haven't seen any proof yet that your physics knowledge goes beyond kindergarten.

I admit I haven't been here in a while so I doubt you will read this but... This post is a nice simple explanation for something that I think needs to be universally understood. Have you ever considered taking the time to write a brief explanation for all of this that could be understood by say a smart 12 year old? The 65 year old professors don't make too many advances in physics (even if they control publishing and grants) They may not like your new ideas but kids would. It makes more physical sense and it is easy to understand with just simple algebra. Please teach the next generation, they will accept what the last generation will not.

That is very good comment you shared.Thank you so much that for you shared those things with us.Im wishing you to carry on with ur achivments.All the be

Post a Comment

## Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home