The biggest fraction of the current composition of the universe, 71%, is a source of anti-gravity
I wonder why electric universe cant explain the cosmic microwave background so well or use it to verify previous predictions..... hmmmm, maybe its time to stop beating that dead horse cantdrive/hannes?
I wonder if they will figure that one out in my lifetime. The idea of negative mass or negative energy is a bit hard to imagine.
Quote from article: "WMAP observations also support an add-on to the big bang framework to account for the earliest moments of the universe. Called "inflation," the theory says that the universe underwent a dramatic early period of expansion, growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies."
Quote from article: "WMAP observations also support an add-on to the big bang framework to account for the earliest moments of the universe. Called "inflation," the theory says that the universe underwent a dramatic early period of expansion, growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies."
Ah,,,,, yeah, that is indeed what it said.
I wonder why electric universe cant explain the cosmic microwave background. hmmmm, maybe its time to stop beating that dead horse cantdrive/hannes?
And that was what I said in this link:
http://phys.org/n...mic.html
Or not...
As author and EU theorist Wal Thornhill points out:
"If Arp and others are right and the Big Bang is dead, what does the Cosmic Microwave Background signify?
And that was what I said in this link:
http://phys.org/n...mic.html
Maybe,,,, maybe not. Your conversation seems rather circular. What point are you trying to make now? That you can snip/glue a quote from the article? Or that the authors of the article plagiarized your work?
I'm sorry, but unfortunately, I'm one of those people who reads only blank spaces between the lines, I don't see what you're getting at.
I stated it had to have expanded the universe to at least the size we see today, 13 plus billion lightyears.
I stated it had to have expanded the universe to at least the size we see today, 13 plus billion lightyears.
It could be as you say, or it may not be. Seeing as how limited our knowledge of the "initial conditions" just prior to inflation, it's a very open question. If you a priori assume a beginning volume then the result will depend only on your assumption. At some point you have to defend your a priori assumptions.
growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies.
The biggest fraction of the current composition of the universe, 71%, is a source of anti-gravity (sometimes called "dark energy") that is driving an acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
WMAP's .. has confirmed .. predictions .. of inflation: the fluctuations follow a bell curve with the same properties across the skyIt's not true, until the Doppler's anisotropy is taken into account. But this anisotropy is usually subtracted from data in the very first stages of results evaluation. It doesn't fit the model, so its simply removed.
..there are equal numbers of hot and cold spots on the map...Such an effect occurs during scattering of ripples the water surface too: at the very end of visibility scope the scattering of ripples follows the Gaussian curve with the same number of positive and negative deviations. But before it we should observe another effects, which would violate the Gaussian character of the scattering.
Negative time doesn't make any observational sense, the process of time is observed by periodic clocks.The negative time processes are just those observed/mediated with quantum processes, i.e. with longitudinal waves, where we are observing the Universe from "outside". Such a processes aren't quite rare - for example large galaxies do condense from gravastars, i.e. inside out, rather than with accretion, i.e. from outside-in.
There was a lengthy discussion on the inflationary period in that link with some claiming the inflationary period only expanded the universe to the size of a grapefruit, I stated it had to have expanded the universe to at least the size we see today, 13 plus billion lightyears.
Negative time doesn't make any observational sense, the process of time is observed by periodic clocks
Quantum theory of the vacuum further stipulates that the pressure of the zero-state vacuum energy is always negative and equal to ρ. Thus, the total of ρ-3p becomes -2ρ: A negative value. This calculation implies a repulsive gravitational field, giving rise to expansion
for protogalaxies at z~12 to be observed, they must reside in a region which was ionized several hundred million years earlier than the cosmic average.
WMAP's .. has confirmed .. predictions .. of inflation: the fluctuations follow a bell curve with the same properties across the skyIt's not true, until the Doppler's anisotropy is taken into account. But this anisotropy is usually subtracted from data in the very first stages of results evaluation. It doesn't fit the model, so its simply removed.
In AWT ..
the Universe is steady-state and the red shift is the consequence of light scattering with density fluctuations of vacuum in similar way, ... This simple model can be falsified experimentally, ..
like the changes of wavelength of ripples during their spreading along water surface
.
Dear PhysOrg!!
I have only one thing to ask for, this Christmas. I wish that all people who sign up for writing here, would be tested. Applicants should have a minimum IQ and age, and be free of Delusional Schizophrenia.
Your's sincerely
One of thousands of frustrated readers!
I am just an average joe, not a scientist, but when i read "non-atomic matter" it blew me away... I never knew such a thing existed. If its 'non' atomic, what is it made of?
but when i read "non-atomic matter" it blew me away... I never knew such a thing existed.
When we decoded it, the universe revealed its history and contents.
WMAP's "baby picture of the universe" maps the afterglow of the hot, young universe at a time when it was only 375,000 years old, when it was a tiny fraction of its current age of 13.77 billion years.
I have only one thing to ask for, this Christmas. I wish that all people who sign up for writing here, would be tested. Applicants should have a minimum IQ and age, and be free of Delusional Schizophrenia.
SNOB
I guess us regular folk should not be allowed to discuss our inferior thoughts ..
A question for anyone who might know. I some articles I have seen the Dark Energy and Dark Matter being described as one. But in this article it is referred to as two separate types of "stuff".
Is there any current professional studies that indicate that they would somehow be one and same? (I am asking because I do not remember where those articles I read had received their information from)
Thanks!
To decode the physically obtained, actual observed data, the scientists have to rely on their own basic/axiomatic assumptions to interpret the results. Without any interpretation, the results are basically meaningless.
Dark Energy and Dark Matter being described as one... Is there any current professional studies that indicate that they would somehow be one and same?Yes it is. This picture illustrates the AWT model of the observable universe with few black holes inside of it. The black holes have the same geometry like the whole Universe, just inverted one. It corresponds the fact, that the Universe geometry is described with FLRW metric, which is inverted version of Schwarzchild metric, which is used for black hole description. Now, the dark matter is observed around massive bodies, because it's a product of polarization of CMBR fluctuations with space-time curvature. So it should appear around event horizon of black holes in the same way, like around event horizon of the observable part of Universe.
Thank you frajo, FleetFoot, & ValeriaT for a reply to my question. Much appreciated
posting here at PhysOrg may result in a message from PhysOrg complaining about unnecessary verbosity on a posted message
Q-Star
Dec 21, 2012