Really? No me without the big bang. Come on people. This is fantasy and you delete me!

The plasma ignoramuses and all of their pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo are crumbling before their eyes and not even their ad hoc a posteri efforts can save the day. Laughable!

"Hence the "no-boundary proposal" does not imply a large universe like the one we live in, but rather tiny curved universes that would collapse immediately"

But why would that be a problem? These tiny universes only appear for an infinitesmal time, while their less probable cousins would last longer, until eventually you get ours which is flat enough, and stable enough to balloon out into infinite expansion.

Why does there need to be only one bang?

As a probability question, which universe would you be most likely to find yourself in? Well of course one of the long lasting ones, regardless of how many tiny crumpled universes there have been, because those didn't last long enough to form anything living.

It sounds like a black hole that blew up. These splitting hair in two article are annoying. I just read another article recently that says there has to be at least 250 times more matter out there in the surrounding area for our universe to even exist. It does not matter how old it is or how large it. What is Space and what is its beginning? If there was nothing in the beginning why the nothing is not there anymore?

i have trouble understanding why, if the universe began as a point source, does it look the same in all directions as we look back in time with hubble ?

i have trouble understanding why, if the universe began as a point source, does it look the same in all directions as we look back in time with hubble ?

The universe appears the same in all directions, or flat. That is why the inflationary period was added to fool themselves (and us) into thinking it expanded beyond our field of observation in the first microsecond after the BB.

The universe appears the same in all directions, or flat.

If it appears the "same in all directions", how does that describe "flat"? That sounds like terminology in contradiction to one another. There can be no discernment of SHAPE when you see no boundaries.

markski it is the other way: "Nothingness" can not exist. You can not have nothingness coming from "something". If something can appear from nothing it will, but the other way is not possible. You can not destroy energy. But quantum mechanics permit energy to appear if it is in balance (positive / negative ), at least for a very brief moment. Given infinite time, even the most improbable events will happen. For example, after universe dies in full entropy state, all the particles could tunnel to a very small space at the same time and produce a big bang. Extremely improbable, yes, but anything not infinitely improbable will happen 100% sure, if it is given enough time

The universe appears the same in all directions, or flat.

If it appears the "same in all directions", how does that describe "flat"? That sounds like terminology in contradiction to one another. There can be no discernment of SHAPE when you see no boundaries.

No discernable SHAPE, exactly. that is why it is described as being flat!

In another example, virtual particle pairs pop up in empty space all the time. Total charge is 0, total energy is preserved, positive energy (kinetic energy ) is compensated with negative energy (gravity). This is happening everywhere because probability is high, so you can not create even a small point of truly empty space. Less probable events like big bang's can also happen, but they need time. Question then is what is time and were it comes from. But to me spacetime is just a secondary property of energy, because as soon as you have energy (even two particles interacting in a single point ) then you will also have time and space as a consequence. I believe the misconception is to think that first we have time and then energy appeared someway , when it is the opposite

so far no one has answered my question , if you can look back in time with a telescope and see early galaxies [and i believe they would like to see as far as the edge of the first stars ,say ] , why is there no preferred direction ? ie point source

Nothing in the true sense, cannot exist. Since "somthing" cannot come into existence out of "nothing", therefore there has always been "somthing". There properties of which are in constant change. And in all our persuit to understand our existence, constant change is about the only absolute truth we can state about our universe, let alone trying to understand what came before it or how it came to be.

snoosebaum; imagine that we shrink the earth down to the size of your country (only the planet, keep people in normal size ) , what you would see around you? Obviously there is no preferred direction, just shorter distances, high population density. and more curvature. Now scale it back to current size . From your point of view it will look exactly the same, with no preferred direction, just longer distances and less curvature. That is because it is inflating with you "inside". That is what happens to the universe , except that it is (curiously) flat.

so far no one has answered my question , if you can look back in time with a telescope and see early galaxies [and i believe they would like to see as far as the edge of the first stars ,say ] , why is there no preferred direction ? ie point source

Tell you what, if I get to the edge before you do, I'll give you a phone call & let you know.

so far no one has answered my question , if you can look back in time with a telescope and see early galaxies [and i believe they would like to see as far as the edge of the first stars ,say ] , why is there no preferred direction ? ie point source

There is no discernable point source, that is why the inflationary period was added to the BB theory. The latest twist to the inflationary period is that it also has no discernable point of origin and that it occurred everywhere at the same time.

Trying to look at the existing universe will only confuse you.
To answer the question why there is SOMETHING rather than NOTHING leads to the answer that there is actually NOTHING

Except that Mathematics still exists 1 + 1 will still = 2
The universe is simply a set of rules under which a calculation is performed. It does not exist but the concept of the universe ( under that set of rules) does exist.

We are just one of the results of this calculation after it has been calculated to a point equating to about 14 Billion years. (N.B. Time does not really exist but is one of the rules of the calculation).
There is no difference from our point of view to living in a REAL PHYSICAL UNIVERSE and to living in the mathematical concept of a universe, We can not tell the difference.
Obviously a universe can be defined by many rules and a starting condition. Therefore there are an infinite number of universes but only a small percentage will evolve to the point
that we experiene

javjav doesn't answer my question , why is there no point source looking back in time?. So if we look in any direction we see some of the early universe which puts us in the center. In other words a point origin implies a sphere.

bill , i like that theory better , more like Penroses 'conformal universe'

How can something be infinitely curved? It's like saying something is infinitely cold there's a limit that cannot be breached. You cannot get colder than no temperature and it seems the same way with curvature. Not that I understand 4 dimensional non Euclidean geometry.

Even the most insanely huge black hole represents only a vanishingly tiny tiny fraction of all the mass in the universe. If nothing (including light) can escape a black hole, then how did all the mass of the entire universe flow out of one infinitely small and infinitely dense point? Can a black hole explode? Or could our universe be inside a black hole in a larger universe, and the big bang being the instant that the black hole was created in that larger universe? Personally though, I like the idea of a Big Crunch leading to the next Big Bang. Universes following, one after the other.

javjav doesn't answer my question , why is there no point source looking back in time?. So if we look in any direction we see some of the early universe which puts us in the center. In other words a point origin implies a sphere.

It does answer your question. The simplest proposed shape of the universe is either infinite or such that if you go long enough in one direction you return roughly where you came from (basically a higher dimensional sphere). Either way, there is no preferred direction or point at all.

Seeing early universe is merely a consequence of a finite speed of light, it has nothing to do with us being in the center. Observers at ANY point see the early universe when they look far enough.

This research was criticized on Lubos Motls blog:

http://motls.blog...tle.html

So take it with a big grain of salt.

There is no discernable point source, that is why the inflationary period was added to the BB theory. The latest twist to the inflationary period is that it also has no discernable point of origin and that it occurred everywhere at the same time.

You have no idea what you are talking about at all. Inflationary theory occurring everywhere at the same time was the original, simplest idea of inflation, back in the early 80s. It is the oldest, not the latest idea. The fact that you think it is a new twist only shows your complete ignorance. It was also long ago superseded by a dynamic theory of inflation called eternal inflation, where some parts of the universe are inflating and some are not, leading to a "bubbly" universe, with us living in one of the inflated bubbles.

https://en.wikipe...nflation

Lehners and his colleagues are now trying to figure out what mechanism could have kept those large quantum fluctuations in check under the most extreme circumstances, allowing our large universe to unfold.

Maybe Planck's constant h was way smaller in the beginning, giving way smaller fluctuations. Maybe the fluctuations' signatures are everywhere, but we fail to see them as such because they are to small. And maybe h jumped up during the inflationary period, giving an increase to the dark energy (due probably to its quantum nature), which actually made inflation happen.
But this is all speculation. One would have to see light in the very early stages of the universe to check this, beyond the plasma existing before the recombination period, which is probably going to be possible in 1000 years or so.

'Big Bang' deserves a better term; Any proposals?

btw

..scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute/AEI) in Potsdam and at the Perimeter Institute in Canada..

...

If nothing (including light) can escape a black hole, then how did all the mass of the entire universe flow out of one infinitely small and infinitely dense point?

Because it was equally dense everywhere. Imagine you are somewhere in a very dense volume, but density is the same in all directions. You would be floating weightless, not feeling any gravity because all directions cancel each other. To form black holes you need a lump of mass energy that can collapse. Then inflation happened and created differences, but also a much bigger universe preventing the big crunch

Or could our universe be inside a black hole in a larger universe

Yes that is trending theory, but speculative. Oversimplifying: we are in a white hole, and expansion / dark energy are caused by incoming pressure from the other side. But it requires a higher dimensional black hole, and it does not explain what created the other universe, so this theory can solve not solve the "Origin" problem.

ShotmanMasio, originally the theory of inflation had it start from a very small point.

https://wmap.gsfc...nfl.html

"The Inflation Theory, developed by Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Paul Steinhardt, and Andy Albrecht, offers solutions to these problems and several other open questions in cosmology. It proposes a period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe prior to the more gradual Big Bang expansion,

Inflation was both rapid, and strong. It increased the linear size of the universe by more than 60 "e-folds", or a factor of ~10^26 in only a small fraction of a second! Inflation is now considered an extension of the Big Bang theory since it explains the above puzzles so well, while retaining the basic paradigm of a homogeneous expanding universe. Moreover, Inflation Theory links important ideas in modern physics, such as symmetry breaking and phase transitions, to cosmology

How can something be infinitely curved?

It can't. That is why General Relativity equations do not work for t=0 (or t < plank time ).

From wikipedia: "the Big Bang cosmological model of the universe contains a causal singularity at the start of time (t=0), where all time-like geodesics have no extensions into the past. Extrapolating backward to this hypothetical time 0 results in a universe with all spatial dimensions of size zero, infinite density, infinite temperature, and infinite space-time curvature."

'Big Bang' deserves a better term; Any proposals?

So far this is the best definition I have seen:

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
(Terry Pratchett)

ShotmanMasio, originally the theory of inflation had it start from a very small point.
https://wmap.gsfc...nfl.html

No, please read with comprehension, from your own source:

Imagine living on the surface of a soccer ball (a 2-dimensional world). It might be obvious to you that this surface was curved and that you were living in a closed universe. However, if that ball expanded to the size of the Earth, it would appear flat to you, even though it is still a sphere on larger scales.

Inflation as originally proposed simply meant a very small universe that expanded into a very big universe we live in. There was never a point, nor was there any special direction or origin. It was the entire universe expanding at once in all places equally, like a surface (and only the surface) of an inflating sphere.

More advanced models of inflation (eternal inflation) generalize this into an universe where some areas continue inflating and other areas are done inflating (which is where we live). Such universe would indeed no longer be homogenous (however only on very large scales beyond our observable part).

'Big Bang' deserves a better term; Any proposals?

So far this is the best definition I have seen:

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
(Terry Pratchett)

Yes, a "modern day fairy tale", having only slightly more merit than the old fairy tales about the origin.

SM, the surface of a sphere is not an accurate description of our universe. My only point was that originally the inflationary period became necessary because of the observed flatness of universe. There has since been several different (and) changing views used to explain the observed flatness.

@snoosebaum

i have trouble understanding why, if the universe began as a point source, does it look the same in all directions as we look back in time with hubble ?

It was NOT a point source it WAS a point. The double talk of physics on this topic is confusing.

So the Universe did not start as a point like a super small period. It started as a point source mathematically, but it was a really big point. So if all the matter in the universe started off in a sphere the size of the milky way, that would be a point source, ( haven't done the math but I think that volume is not hot enough ). But Lets say all the mass/matter/energy in the universe is put into a sphere the size of the solar system. That is definitely a point source small enough to be hot enough for big bang.

Point in this case is a matter of scale that creates the correct conditions.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This is without scientific logic. 1st. we have not observed the universes correctly. The velocity of light may be from -infinity to +infinity, i.e. original wavelength divided by measured period; therefore we may see things as moving from behind us and moving in front of us. This will define acceleration. One cannot predict anything using measures that are no true, juz say'n

@Hyperfuzzy: The velocity of light may be from -infinity to +infinity, i.e. original wavelength divided by measured period...

That is totally speculative stuff, and even if it were true you could not use it in such a way. c is not a fundamental constant on itself, as it can be derived from the vacuum permeability, which ultimately defines the speed of interaction between electrical and magnetic fields. That is what defines the speed of "causality" at the very end, then the speed of light follows. Light propagates as an electrical field which produce a magnetic field which produce an electrical field and so on, and the speed of each of those interaction (speed of causality) is the real fundamental value and it is constant, not -infinity to +infinity. Ultimately, it is the only one that can provide true measurements. Of course using c is more practical and it is valid in general, but you can not forget that is just a simplification and it can not be used in the way you do

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

@Hyperfuzzy: The velocity of light may be from -infinity to +infinity, i.e. original wavelength divided by measured period...

That is totally speculative stuff, ...

and your universal constants are wrong

@Hyperfuzzy: The velocity of light may be from -infinity to +infinity, i.e. original wavelength divided by measured period...

That is totally speculative stuff, ...

and your universal constants are wrong

Maybe I am wrong, but you do not even elaborate this argument. So you are not even wrong.

Point in this case is a matter of scale that creates the correct conditions.

A point is an exact position or location on a plane surface. It is important to understand that a point is not a thing, but a place. We indicate the position of a point by making a visible dot with a pencil. This dot may have a diameter of, say, 0.2mm, but a point has no size. No matter how far you zoomed in, it would still have no width. Since a point is a place, not a thing, it has no dimensions.

It is important to persevere in pushing the theory for which there is irrefutable evidence that it is incorrect.

Where_is_the_truth_about_Big_Bang_theory
https://www.acade...eory.doc

How can something be infinitely curved?

A point is infinitely curved because it has radius = 0. Every time you touch something the point where they touch is infinitely curved.

"the Big Bang cosmological model of the universe contains a causal singularity at the start of time (t=0), where all time-like geodesics have no extensions into the past. Extrapolating backward to this hypothetical time 0 results in a universe with all spatial dimensions of size zero, infinite density, infinite temperature, and infinite space-time curvature."

Infinite space-time curvature perhaps if you take the spacetime singularity as a point. The point at which two existing objects touch. The physical characterstics of a point with infinite curvature or a singularity don't have any meaning that I can see. It's only a mathematical abstraction.

So much theory hinges on our universe expanding. But, what if the universe isn't expanding? Our evidence is based on supernova being similar brightness and that the further away an object is the greater the red shift indicating it is moving away faster. This bought us to the conclusion that our universe is expanding. However, anyone consider that this is just a coincidence or illusion? Wouldn't it be natural for further away objects to be moving away faster? That is how they got further away in the first place.

However, anyone consider that this is just a coincidence or illusion?

Good point..........everything we observe in the universe is observed as orbiting something else, no exceptions. It's the reason some galaxies are blueshifted towards the Milky Way & others are redshifted away.

Eventually there comes a point where distances are so great that blueshift is undetectable due to photon scattering effect, therefore everything beyond that point appears as redshift because infrared is less susceptible to the effects of photon scattering.

This research was criticized on Lubos Motls blog:

http://motls.blog...tle.html

So take it with a big grain of salt.

Yeah, and it's a pretty good piece of criticism, too. I'm not even sure I agree that Hartle-Hawking and Vilentkin are the same in the first place, and it's a well-made point that Turok et al. are not paying attention to the point when they only allow one possible solution.

The other thing that occurred to me is they've ignored the possibility that there can be more than one universe, as both @Eikka and @Shotman have already pointed out.

El nose , thanks, i see it now . got my brain to visualize a grid of inflating points, so light of the past would come from all directions . And relative to infinity everything is a point.

@Benni galaxies don't have to orbit anything. You are right that everything below that orbits something. Galaxies don't have to be gravitationally bound to anything. Galaxies would only be blue shifted if they happen to be moving towards us. The vast majority are red shifted.

@Benni galaxies don't have to orbit anything.

......How do you know that? The observational evidence is that all of them do.

Galaxies don't have to be gravitationally bound to anything.

......but the observational evidence is that all galaxies are gravitationally bound orbiting one another within clusters, on top of that it appears a cluster can be orbiting another cluster.

Galaxies would only be blue shifted if they happen to be moving towards us.

....yeah, I stated that.

The vast majority are red shifted.

......and I stated this & explained it as well. What you fail to understand is the point I made that a galaxy moving towards us can be redshifted simply due to photon scattering effects.

Do you know what "Photon Scattering Effect" is? It's caused by interstellar dust which filters shorter wave bluelight more readlly than the dust filters longer wave infrared. Don't confuse this with zany Zwicky's Tired Light Theory.

Please, define your premise, logic, and conclusion, this is getting to be unbelieveable. Convince an EE.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

With all respect for Turok, who is an excellent cosmologist, his is a tunnel vision proposal to support his oscillating big bang universes that is a) currently heeded off by inflation of standard cosmology and b) "argues" on grounds of technicalities instead of scientific result that a non-standard mathematical device should be used instead of the customary, or in fact all of the earlier more or less promising alternatives.

Seems they argue that conditional convergence, based on summation order as in regularization of new physics at latest Planck scales, should be accepted instead of absolute convergence [ https://arxiv.org...2076.pdf ]. That would work, but is an appeal for new physics instead of current observed inflation physics. But extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. This is not that.

So, EE and BH (dual) universes.

EE universes does not work, since the universe is neutral on large scales.

BH (dual) universes does not work, since the universe has no boundary [ http://www.prepos...ck-hole/ ].

I give up. PhDs in Theoretical Physics are really stupid people.

@Hyperfuzzy if you think a PhD in physics makes one stupid you are obviously admitting you are a #physicscrank.

Eight to ten years of physics education makes them smarter than you will ever be.

Get over it.

@Hyperfuzzy if you think a PhD in physics makes one stupid you are obviously admitting you are a #physicscrank.

Eight to ten years of physics education makes them smarter than you will ever be.

Get over it.

There is no truth pass an MS degree, or do you agree with the nonsense! The math department knows as much, juz math, not scientific or logical. You only need an MSEE and you know more truth than this nonsense.

There is no truth pass an MS degree

What does that even mean?

The math department knows as much, juz math, not scientific or logical.

We're talking physics, here.

As for mathematicians: People in math departments know more than just math (there's a number of courses outside of math you have to take when you go to uni to get a degree in maths and a lot of specializations you can take into applied math areas).

And most definitely math guys know how to do logic. That's the sine qua non of studying math.

You're just one of the "I-could-have-done-but-am-too-lazy-to-actually-prove-it-hot-air-machines so prevalent on these comment sections. But in your heart of hearts you just know: No, you couldn't. You're dumb as rocks.

No, you couldn't. You're dumb as rocks.

.........so from your experience, tell us, how does it feel to be a rock?

@antialias, Da Schneib etc.

See how your 'rose colored glasses' trust in person/source/degree etc can backfire so badly?

It backfired in the case of your 'belief' in Bicep2 source/crap because you are 'unduly, subjectively, impressed' by PhD/Maths qualifications instead of scrutinizing exercises/claims for proper application of logic, science method and just plain common sense.

It backfired on the whole cosmology 'peer review community/process' (for decades!) in BB/INFLATION cases which now Penrose/Steinhardt blew the whistle on.

So, isn't it about time you took off your 'rose colored glasses'?

Drop your subjective/unwarranted 'self-assurance' re scientists'/theorists' behavior/motives IN PRACTICE.

The REAL state of affairs is again amply demonstrated by this latest stoush between TWO 'sets' of 'mathematical cosmology theorists' who BOTH start from improper assumptions/motives to produce GIGO re claims to 'physical' relevance/reality!

Get real, guys. Cheers. :)

@BouncedRealityCheck, I can't imagine after you've been proven a liar four documented times and many more that there's anyone here who will believe your constant carping, belligerent behavior, and ludicrous lying for a moment.

Why don't you go post on your unbelievably ancient and virus ridden web site?

Just as a reminder about this lying, insidious, impolite troll, here are three of the four threads where it got pwnt and caught lying over and over:

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @RC makes conflicting claims within ten posts and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ome.html
Thread where @RC claims there is "REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL 'infinity'" and gets caught: https://phys.org/...rgy.html

It backfired in the case of your 'belief' in Bicep2

You don't get it, do you?

When the BICEP2 paper came out I, for one, liked the science they did. It was a big effort and they published - and they took great pains to show what they did and the potential sources of error they looked at.

Then another group came out with a valid criticism and that, too, was awesome. because that is exactly how science should work.

There is nothing wrong with the behavior of either group. Science is at the edge of the unknown. Sometimes you get it wrong. That's why you publish so others can have a go at it.

So here's how science should *not* work: Someone making claims they cannot back up. This means specifically you RC. Several thousand posts of weaseling out of people asking you what your claimed 8 criticism were. That's not scientific. That's a Trump-calibre hot air machine working full time.

You're the biggest loser I've ever seen on the internet.

@antialias, Da Schneib.

You lie.

You accepted Bicep2 claims as 'fact'; and IMMEDIATELY set about 'bashing cranks' with that flawed work/claims!

All because you trusted/believed they were doing proper science/claims.

You didn't even stop to consider the flaws as I suggested.

Instead, you attacked ME rather than just checking it all out for yourselves!

Why attack me while waiting for OTHERS to tell you what to think/check?

Face it: you were wrong all along and I was correct.

They were NOT doing science; they were NOT 'peer reviewed' as they should have been IMMEDIATELY.

You/others trusted that they were doing the correct thing/claims.

But it was patently OBVIOUS they were NOT doing the correct thing scientifically or ethically.

It needn't have taken almost a year to check and see the flaws.

You were DUPED! You 'believed' it all and started to 'bash cranks' with FLAWED work/claims!

Stop pretending your abject failure 'never happened'! Get real. :)

@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, non complaints, thanks for asking.

They keep you extra long this time, eh? I was going to send some flowers or a Get-Better-Soon-Skippy card but I did not know which place they took you to this time. I see the treatments did not take very good, you are still saying the exact same goofy stuffs you were saying before they took you up.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. About this part,,,,

You didn't even stop to consider the flaws as I suggested.

Everybody tried to stop and consider the flaws you suggested. But they could not get very far because you would not tell anybody what the flaws you were suggesting were. I know a dozen peoples asked you thousands of times what the flaws were but you never had any suggestions.

Like I tell my kids, " We can give you knowledge; but, we can't make you think!"

@Uncle Ira.

You didn't even stop to consider the flaws as I suggested.

Everybody tried to stop and consider the flaws you suggested. But they could not get very far because you would not tell anybody what the flaws you were suggesting were. I know a dozen peoples asked you thousands of times what the flaws were but you never had any suggestions.

I categorized them. If they were even half as good/objective they would have also seen them immediately, as I and others did who were not in thrall to person/source/PhD etc 'reputation' rather than scientific objectivity. Anyhow, I was correct and you/they were wrong. You/they have yet to learn the lesson from it apparently, because you/they still prefer to troll/lie instead of admitting to your/their errors.

The fact 'reputation' and 'PhD' may not guarantee correctness or validity, is again amply demonstrated by above 'stoush' between equally GIGO assumptive/interpretative 'maths' guys 'pushing their own barrows'. :)

@BouncedRealityCheck,

in thrall to person/source/PhD etc 'reputation' rather than scientific objectivity

You're lying again. It has nothing to do with being "in thrall to person/source/PhD etc 'reputation'" and you cannot understand what "scientific objectivity" is because you do not understand consilience. Consilience is the quality of scientific results that transcends individual scientific disciplines. It means that one comes to the same conclusions from, for example, astrophysics as quantum mechanics, or for another example the same conclusions from biology as from thermodynamics. This concurrence of results between widely separate scientific disciplines informs both research and discourse, and you are completely incapable of comprehending it because you cannot speak or understand the common language of science which is mathematics and logic.

No one should pay the slightest attention to you but to mock you.

@Da Schneib.

It has nothing to do with being "in thrall to person/source/PhD etc 'reputation'" and you cannot understand what "scientific objectivity" is because you do not understand consilience. Consilience is the quality of scientific results that transcends individual scientific disciplines. It means that one comes to the same conclusions from, for example, astrophysics as quantum mechanics, or for another example the same conclusions from biology as from thermodynamics. This concurrence of results between widely separate scientific disciplines informs both research and discourse, and you are completely incapable of comprehending it because you cannot speak or understand the common language of science which is mathematics and logic.

As the Bicep2, BB/INFLATION 'claims' and 'peer review' fiascos have demonstrated all too painfully, we can 'define' an objective scientific methodology but apparently you/others will ignore its objectivity principle when 'convenient'. :)

@BouncedRealityCheck is lying about Bicep2 again.

You didn't "discover" anything, you were right like a stopped clock is right twice a day and you're lying again. We're still waiting for your "eight criticisms" that you were caught lying about long ago and still cannot to this date enumerate.

Fourth link to @BouncedRealityCheck's lies:
Thread where @RC claims Rubin said galaxies will implode with out DM and confuses Zwicky with Rubin: https://phys.org/...zzy.html

Cred to @antialias for making sure @BouncedRealityCheck's claims are held feet to the fire.

To Casual Readers:

Ever notice how quickly discussion of science ceases & the foul mouthed name calling & profanity commences as soon as Pope Schneibo & his Court of Cardinals start showing up?

@Da Schneib.

@BouncedRealityCheck is lying about Bicep2 again.

You didn't "discover" anything, you were right like a stopped clock is right twice a day and you're lying again. We're still waiting for your "eight criticisms" that you were caught lying about long ago and still cannot to this date enumerate.

Cred to @antialias for making sure @BouncedRealityCheck's claims are held feet to the fire.

Stop 'manufacturing' your own 'reality', DS. The real reality is recorded for posterity. Don't waste time/effort in blandishments to your co-incorrect 'gang' who were as wrong as you have been on many matters/behaviors/posters. The messenger posted a message and 'gang' attacked instead of checking for themselves. That has also been the way in which BB/INFLATION fiasco has been allowed to infect the science literature/teachings/paradigms for decades (only recently Penrose/Steinhardt came clean and admitted they were wrong). You are part of that fiasco, DS. Stop it. :)

@BouncedRealityCheck, still waiting for the famous "eight criticisms" you lied about.

Bring it #dudebro. Nobody with a brain is watching your reality show, but your site statistics for your decrepit ugly Theory of Nothing website already told you that along with how many ancient browsers you managed to infect this week.

@Lenni, everyone noticed you claimed to be able to solve "differential equations" and have failed miserably when presented with them.

@LenniTheLiar, have you got anything to say or are you just licking @BouncedRealityCheck's azzhole? Just askin'.

@Da Schneib.

still waiting for the famous "eight criticisms" you lied about.

Bring it #dudebro. Nobody with a brain is watching your reality show, but your site statistics for your decrepit ugly Theory of Nothing website already told you that along with how many ancient browsers you managed to infect this week.

Are you totally insensible to how inane and dishonest you are being, DS? Is this what your 'intellect' has been reduced to? How can you look at yourself in the mirror after posting such unconscionable lies and insulting drivel, DS? You are exhibiting the very same disrespect for scientific objectivity and discourse fairness that the protagonists of the above article have been exhibiting by pushing their own 'mathematical theories' barrows at the expense of objective physical reality and common sense. I already posted on the flaws, as have others since. You just ignored. Not going to repeat same to satisfy your time-wasting/trolling tactics.

Get real, DS. :)

@BouncedRealityCheck I am not interested in your lies. It doesn't matter how many times you try to tell them, anyone can see you lie for themselves. I am using your own tactics against you. Your only way out is to stop using them. This is my intent and my goal: that you will realize that lying will never work and abandon it. I think that it is an honorable goal.

We're still waiting for those "nine criticisms" you keep referring to but never enumerating.

I am pretty sure some AI or machine learning algorithm is what will solve dark matter, energy etc. There are just too many variables and we have made too many assumptions to ever hope to get it right. They are countless factors that could be distorting are theories and while one individually may not be enough, the combination of them all certainly could. We have ample data. An AI algorithm could look at every piece of information we have and work through every possible interpretation to determine what is really going on. Our AI software is starting to become powerful enough that something like this could happen in just a few years time.

I am pretty sure some AI or machine learning algorithm is what will solve dark matter, energy etc. There are just too many variables and we have made too many assumptions to ever hope to get it right. They are countless factors that could be distorting are theories and while one individually may not be enough, the combination of them all certainly could. We have ample data. An AI algorithm could look at every piece of information we have and work through every possible interpretation to determine what is really going on. Our AI software is starting to become powerful enough that something like this could happen in just a few years time.

@Da Schneib.

You are in denial and lying to yourself, DS. Just as the mathematical cosmology theorists have been doing as per the above article, DS. Just as they have been doing for decades re BB/INFLATION (re which Penrose/Steinhardt have blown the whistle on recently). Your trust and admiration for sources'/claimants' PHD/reputation etc over-rides your duty to objective science scrutiny/discourse.,,,as demonstrated most recently by you/gangs' atrocious anti-science behavior during your Bicep2 fiasco. The above article clearly demonstrates that scientists are susceptible to personal/professional temptations to NOT BE OBJECTIVE. Your/gangs' behavior is also demonstrating same susceptibility. Why not admit that the scientists and peer review system has failed terribly in some instances? Why keep pretending everything is rosy like that, DS? Learn from your/their mistakes, DS. Then maybe you can contribute something original/worthwhile to science/discourse. Go on, try. :)

" tiny curved universes that would collapse immediately"

Maybe not if these tiny curved universes are touch points between two inspiraling black holes. Especially if these black holes are different matter types - antimatter and normal matter.

" tiny curved universes that would collapse immediately"

Maybe not if these tiny curved universes are touch points between two inspiraling black holes. Especially if these black holes are different matter types - antimatter and normal matter.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Da Schneib4.2 / 5 (5) 9 hours ago
@BouncedRealityCheck I am not interested in your lies

Yes you are. You never fail to dignify his dotty drool with a comment.

Would you rather read in a library or a kindergarten play room? Apparently the latter, since you're here. No one serious uses this site anymore. I'm here to get an example I needed for a paper I'm doing on the reciprocal dependency between trolls and those that claim to be setting the record straight, how it's a case of co-dependency, just like any dysfunctional relationship born of dependency.

Studies show that when you debate them, as opposed to ignoring them, those you're trying to save from misinformation conclude that there are two sides to the issue, whereas when you ignore the trolls the neutrals conclude that the troll content was worthless.

They can't exist without you. Question is, can you exist without them? It's pretty obvious that there are quite a few on here that can't.

They can't exist without you.

I don't think this is correct. On a larger scale you can see what happens when you don't oppose people who put out lies (or 'alternative facts' as these 'news' outlets like to call them):

Many people are not well educated. They believe any source of 'information' that they see (why do you think advertising works?). Things like fact checks and keeping people accountable for what they are saying is important

If you fail to do this then you get...Trump.

Like I tell my kids, " We can give you knowledge; but, we can't make you think!"

You might give them some tips on how to think. Logically for example. And how their minds can be manipulated. Especially tricky when it comes to things like cause and effect.

If you fail to do this then you get...Trump.

.........and we get you, a sad tradeoff.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Like I tell my kids, " We can give you knowledge; but, we can't make you think!"

You might give them some tips on how to think. Logically for example. And how their minds can be manipulated. Especially tricky when it comes to things like cause and effect.

Like I said, knowledge without thinking, Premise then Conclusion with logic math, common sense, dignity, and well thought theory. Can't make anyone think! Space is not expanding, it is only conceptual. A single charge occupies all space from 0 to infinity. There is no empty space. juz say'n

I allow your errors; but, don't try to convince me without sound logic. One must define axioms,known truths, acceptable or provable that such exist, first!

Each lema must be based on this truth.

The entire theory is based on a set of axioms.

This, no, I'm sorry, this paper is nonsense as well as all the comments.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Can't make anyone think!

Apparently.

...this paper is nonsense as well as all the comments.

The categorical denial. Absolutly essential tool in learning how to shut down the thinking process and push your agenda. For example would all the comments include yours? Think before you tweet, they say.

"Hence one cannot circumvent the big bang so easily"

I beg to differ. Just think, the only thing that we know is that energy was released that heated up plasma during the first 380,000 (time when plasma was cold enough for hydrogen to form).

Any process that could release energy during that time, would circumvent the Hot Big Bang...:)
I created a theory where matter is made up of spinning (in a 4D spatial manifold) deformed space coherences. This means that in my theory, matter is made up from space. There is no need to conjured up mechanisms for Quantum Fluctuations that will yield energy, that with the help of Higgs Bosons be converted into matter. That is what I would call a Rube Goldberg Machine.

Simple theory, defensible hypotheses, not offensive to Physics, that is what distinguish my theory from the rest.

Theory is here in issuu

Search hypergeometricaluniverse in quora

The space within galaxies is NOT expanding. The expansion refers to the galaxies moving/expanding away from one another. IMO this fact should invalidate the entire expansion theory.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

The space within galaxies is NOT expanding. The expansion refers to the galaxies moving/expanding away from one another. IMO this fact should invalidate the entire expansion theory.

So how can it be shown that galaxies are expanding away from one another? It's true that all of them are "moving", some moving closer together, others moving further apart. Those who go for the doppler effect REDSHIFT argument are being confronted with Photon Scattering Effect is going on all over the Universe at the same time, and it's causes are attributed to the presence of newly discovered interstellar dust that we previously didn't know existed between galaxies.

Now the argument astrophysicists are confronting is what percent of redshift is doppler effect & what percent is photon scattering effects.

Wouldn't you think that after 13 billion years worth of EXPANSION that all the galaxies would already be so far apart from one another that we wouldn't be able to see them?

Not knowing does not define a theory. My conjecture, given the light we see from far off galaxies, we must ignore gravitational lensing as nonsense, do the math. Given that light may travel at any velocity, those galaxies defined as lensing is probably due to interference from passing through our local galaxy system long ago and we are just catching up. With enough proper measurements, we will probably define this as a local universe and all galaxies are racing to some gigantic conglomerate. Note it only has to be a fluctuation of a constant density function that is not constant on our mega scale, relative to us. So define the galaxy stream we are a part. This will allow calculation with truth. juz say'n

Wouldn't you think that after 13 billion years worth of EXPANSION that all the galaxies would already be so far apart from one another that we wouldn't be able to see them?

Right now light travels towards us faster than galaxies move away from us. But it won't last forever. Eventually all the galaxies except ours will disappear from sight.

...we must ignore gravitational lensing as nonsense, ...

I believe light is affected by gravity the same as all other particles. Except that higher frequencies are affected more instead of higher masses.

Those who go for the doppler effect REDSHIFT argument are being confronted with Photon Scattering Effect is going on all over the Universe at the same time, and it's causes are attributed to the presence of newly discovered interstellar dust that we previously didn't know existed between galaxies.

Interstellar dust would slow down and eventually stop the expansion. Instead the expansion is accelerating.

Interstellar dust would slow down and eventually stop the expansion.

........how so?

The space within galaxies is NOT expanding. The expansion refers to the galaxies moving/expanding away from one another. IMO this fact should invalidate the entire expansion theory.

I understand the space within galaxies is being sucked up by black holes and spit out into white holes elsewhere in the universe through wormholes. Anyway the expansion is accelerating meaning there must be some kind of force between galaxies to do the acceleration. Also this same force acting within galaxies would be what drives matter into black holes. Or so it seems.

Interstellar dust would slow down and eventually stop the expansion.

........how so?

Friction. Or heat dissipation if you prefer.

@Seeker there isn't enough dust in intergalactic space to matter.

@Seeker there isn't enough dust in intergalactic space to matter.

Pun intended, I'm sure...:-)

So... if space is expanding, shouldn't everything else (within it) be expanding along with it? That should be within our capabilities to check...

...a galaxy moving towards us can be redshifted simply due to photon scattering effects.

... there isn't enough dust in intergalactic space to matter.

So no photon scattering effect?

So... if space is expanding, shouldn't everything else (within it) be expanding along with it? That should be within our capabilities to check...

Everything that's not quantized like matter. Hence there's a lot more expansion going on over your head than under your feet.

@HenryE

...Can a black hole explode? Or could our universe be inside a black hole in a larger universe, and the big bang being the instant that the black hole was created in that larger universe? Personally though, I like the idea of a Big Crunch leading to the next Big Bang. Universes following, one after the other.

In a way, anytime you have pair creation. Anyway black holes within galaxies merge and radiate gravitational waves. Their ultimate source is the particles generated in pair creation. Since matter and anti-matter are created in pairs, I should think there are also anti-matter black holes out there in roughly equal numbers. Now when matter and antimatter black holes touch as they spiral in, you certainly would get an explosion. A big one. All starting from that point where they touch (call it a singularity if you wish).

So... if space is expanding, shouldn't everything else (within it) be expanding along with it? That should be within our capabilities to check...

Not really. Because e.g. atomic orbitals are quantized. So even if space expands the distance between atoms in a molecule stay the same.

We do have a check that space is expanding, as we see galaxies in *all* directions from us receeding (there are notable exceptions, but close in gravity can overcome expansion - as in the case of the Andromeda galaxy). If it had been an explosion we'd see a different pattern.

we must ignore gravitational lensing as nonsense

It's hard to ignore something as nonsense that is observed. How do you manage that? Put your fingers in your ears and go 'lalala'?

Given that light may travel at any velocity

Which is not a given. This has been tested to hell and back. Just making stuff up that is at odds with reality leads to GIGO.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

...a galaxy moving towards us can be redshifted simply due to photon scattering effects.

... there isn't enough dust in intergalactic space to matter.

So no photon scattering effect?

Where?

So... if space is expanding, shouldn't everything else (within it) be expanding along with it? That should be within our capabilities to check...

Matter is held together by gravity at medium range, and other forces close by. These forces are enough to keep the matter from expanding, but not to keep space from expanding. The universe is filled with filaments of matter, held together by gravity; between the filaments are open voids with not much in them. It's the filaments that are moving away from one another, because they are too far from one another for their gravity to resist the expansion.

You can't imagine the universe as filled with galaxies uniformly everywhere. It's just not like that.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Why not?

'Cause we looked and it's not.

If you're ignoring million-galaxy surveys I don't know what to say.

...a galaxy moving towards us can be redshifted simply due to photon scattering effects.

... there isn't enough dust in intergalactic space to matter.

So no photon scattering effect?

Where?

Like where there are no galaxies or nebulae?

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

inflation hypothesis has been proposed just for to explain this isotropy of Universe

You misunderstand what is meant by isotropy and homogeneity in the cosmological principle. Maybe this helps:
(from https://en.wikipe...inciple)

The two testable structural consequences of the cosmological principle are homogeneity and isotropy. Homogeneity means that the same observational evidence is available to observers at different locations in the universe ("the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample"). Isotropy means that the same observational evidence is available by looking in any direction in the universe

It does *not* mean that matter is distributed fully isotropic/homogeneous within the universe (if it did then there would be no planets and galaxies but just a uniform matter nebula). The cosmological principle only applies if you go to a large enough scale.

...a galaxy moving towards us can be redshifted simply due to photon scattering effects.

... there isn't enough dust in intergalactic space to matter.

So no photon scattering effect?

Where?

Like where there are no galaxies or nebulae?

Are you talking about late-time integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect? If you are it has nothing to do with dust, and if you're not then it doesn't exist except inside galaxies which are very small.

Are you talking about late-time integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect? If you are it has nothing to do with dust, and if you're not then it doesn't exist except inside galaxies which are very small.

Talking about intergalactic dust which I would presume exists inside nebulae. Unless you classify nebulae as being galaxies.

You can't imagine the universe as filled with galaxies uniformly everywhere. It's just not like that.

.......dead wrong, random uniform distribution is exactly what we do observe, it's called ENTROPY.

Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole, General Relativity
Albert Einstein 97

"If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it."

...random uniform distribution

Sounds conflicted.

Entropy is bullsh t, stabilization beats destabilization; hence, entropy is will always decrease within a closed system. Now with air and weather it looks a lot different, duh!

At what scale do we define our density function, using one shape, a sphere? Per microliter, per quart, per kilo-gallons, per gazillion gallons, how does density typically measure as a function of scale per volume, is there a volume where it measures the same everywhere?

Anyway, since most of you like imaginative ideas, visualize! Now also see the possible flow. This thought beats your measurements because there are no limits!

Wow...slow down. Take your meds. You make even less sense than usual.

Entropy is bullsh t

.......well then you be the one who can explain why you're smarter than Einstein? How about yyz, you want to try as well?

...random uniform distribution

Sounds conflicted.

Oh, you mean the use of the word "random" alongside "uniform"? If you'd have ever studied the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics you would understand the two words are perfectly compatible alongside one another & are in fact complementary to one another. Entropy is all about the distribution of energy, this is what Einstein was describing in that section of GR I copied & pasted above.

Come on people! The universe is not random!
There are no particles!
We have not fixed our measuring system.

I learned that physics was the science of measurement.
So first what are we basing all these assumptions upon?

Gravity is a summation over the potential fields, every field present at that point at that instant of time! All mass is created by atoms. All atoms are created by + and - charges.
For me, enough said! Everything, including all of space ...Charge does not have mass, the neutron is a combo of the + and - charge

Light is only a wrinkle in the field due to repetitive motion of a charge's cente, charge also possess relative potential and a derivative magnetic field! Think of charge as a virtual object with real consequences. The field as a virtual-solid with a measure of E at every point, and H with relative motion.

So CERN may create field events doing anything with charges. Great job, an infinite source of new misnomers! Simple measurement of speed? looking in a mirror, "no diff", therefore, Constant everywhere! WTF?

Not genius, idiot!

Are you talking about late-time integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect? If you are it has nothing to do with dust, and if you're not then it doesn't exist except inside galaxies which are very small.

Talking about intergalactic dust which I would presume exists inside nebulae. Unless you classify nebulae as being galaxies.

No, nebulae are inside galaxies. The concentration of dust and gas is insufficient in intergalactic space fo form them, mostly. You might find a few outside galaxies, but I'm sure there aren't many.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Speaking of CMB and Sachs-Wolfe effect: http://nautil.us/...ll-wrong

Interpretation, space is composed of nothing but charge! So? CMB? Obvious! Background, this is space's signature! Not from any BB.

so far no one has answered my question , if you can look back in time with a telescope and see early galaxies [and i believe they would like to see as far as the edge of the first stars ,say ] , why is there no preferred direction ? ie point source

Because it was the point source itself that expanded, it is everywhere.

You can't imagine the universe as filled with galaxies uniformly everywhere. It's just not like that.

.......dead wrong, random uniform distribution is exactly what we do observe, it's called ENTROPY.

Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole, General Relativity
Albert Einstein 97

"If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. ... the theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it."

The value of "average" depends on the scale you're viewing from...

Speaking of CMB and Sachs-Wolfe effect: http://nautil.us/...ll-wrong

What's so radical about that? It does make much simpler sense....

My own hypothesis is -
The Universe we actually exist in, is WAY bigger than the Universe we can see. The Big Bang offal we see (and attempt to interpret as a beginning) is more a matter of our technological limit. (Don't let me down JWT...)
Analogously similar to early man and the horizon interpreted as the end of the Earth - and later, the conceptual notion of a flat Earth with an edge you can literally fall off.
It's not a Big Bang. It's just the point where we can't see beyond - until we get there and realize we're just a small part of a much bigger system...
The CMB temp homogeneity? Not a prob, if you consider a lot more space contributing to the effect.
(Mic drop)
And HF - AAP is right, just take yer meds and go relax on the nice couch over there....

Please stop making up stuff. This is just wrong. WTF? Those that do no understand seek to change the world to what they do not know! Can you see the amount of nonsense plus insults. These people are poorly evolved and had a sheltered childhood, do not know how to logically define proof. I usually ignore fools.

But this is bigger than all of you. If one defines "mass" incorrectly ... then we will require a global consortium to fix modern physics. Our universal constants are bogus and ...

I mean this in a human rights sort of way, the earth is not flat, see how we got here? juz say'n

Speaking of CMB and Sachs-Wolfe effect: http://nautil.us/...ll-wrong

I tried the following post at this site but it didn't make the cut:

It appears from here that the story of the cosmic microwave background is essentially annihilation after baryogenesis. The temperature of the plasma is kept essentially constant during this time by a feedback mechanism and here's how it works: When the plasma cools and its density drops to below that of antimatter antimatter begins to gravitate. When that happens it interacts with matter causing more heating and inflation. This then raises the temperature of the plasma and so inhibits antimatter from gravitating. This contest between gravitation and heating goes on until the supply of matter/antimatter is insufficient to maintain the balance between annihilation and plasma temperature. Inflation then ends and expansion begins as the universe expands and cools.

cont
So, unfortunately (or maybe not) I was unable to post the following comment:

Note annihilation still continues as the universe cools. The end effect is essentially galaxies rising out the the ashes and the ashes being essentially regions dominated by matter or antimatter which don't annihilate nearly as much.

so far no one has answered my question , if you can look back in time with a telescope and see early galaxies [and i believe they would like to see as far as the edge of the first stars ,say ] , why is there no preferred direction ? ie point source

Because it was the point source itself that expanded, it is everywhere.

Basically everywhere is the center. You can rightfully claim that you are the 'center of the universe' (as can everyone else). It wasn't an explosion (as the term 'Bang' suggests to some). It's an expansion.

Think of it like a squished up sponge expanding: Every part is moving away from every other part, but there is no center from which everything is expanding.

A-P,, see my post above , thanks

so far no one has answered my question , if you can look back in time with a telescope and see early galaxies [and i believe they would like to see as far as the edge of the first stars ,say ] , why is there no preferred direction ? ie point source

Because it was the point source itself that expanded, it is everywhere.

Basically everywhere is the center. You can rightfully claim that you are the 'center of the universe' (as can everyone else). It wasn't an explosion (as the term 'Bang' suggests to some). It's an expansion.

Think of it like a squished up sponge expanding: Every part is moving away from every other part, but there is no center from which everything is expanding.

Look into any direction. Some wavelets do not change relative to us. The wavelength may vary from zero to infinity and the velocity may be +/-. So define what you are doing without the question. It's stupid!

With knowledge and logic, there are no questions, everything is known or can be defined. So what are you missing?

Be careful to understand that there is argument over the exact times of inflation and the Big Bang.

Traditional cosmologies place the Big Bang first and inflation second; however, multiple other theories (all still compatible with the Standard Model of Cosmology, BTW) place inflation before the Big Bang.

In particular, one pretty well-known model says that the universe originated as a quantum fluctuation in a pre-existing spacetime that supports many quantum fluctuations, and this particular one happened to have a high positive cosmological constant; this resulted in inflation after the formation of our universe, but before it had any matter or energy (except the cosmological constant) in it. The cosmological constant caused inflation, and then through vacuum decay dumped all of its energy into the cosmos; this was the beginning of the "Hot Big Bang," and the origin of the mass-energy in our universe.
[contd]

[contd]
This model has several advantages over the traditional view that the Big Bang occurred first and was followed by inflation:
1. It explains the origin of the energy that led to the Hot Big Bang, without violating mass-energy conservation.
2. It keeps all the advantages of inflation without requiring a fine-tuned initial state.
3. It provides the driver behind the matter-antimatter asymmetry by showing interactions before the Big Bang that provided interactions out of thermal equilibrium, that led to a non-equilibrium Big Bang.

Worth studying, IMNVHO.

It provides the driver behind the matter-antimatter asymmetry by showing interactions before the Big Bang that provided interactions out of thermal equilibrium, that led to a non-equilibrium Big Bang.

Rest assured that there is no thermal equilibrium, or if there was it would be impossible to determine because of the uncertainty principle. The asymmetry would be due to say one quantum fluctuation at the time of baryogenesis. Which, by the way, would have had to occur before inflation because matter/antimatter annihilation is the driving force (along with gravity) behind inflation. In fire-fighting they call it a flash-fire. Or so it seems.

cont
Could be a clever technique used by nature to create real particle-antiparticle pairs: After the big bang touch-go start the energy provided by the inspiraling black holes begins to cool until it reaches the average energy density necessary to create the particle-antiparticle pairs. One quantum fluctuation is then transferred from one energy density region to a neighboring density region giving both regions the the exact energy density required to form the real particle and anti-particle.

... this was the beginning of the "Hot Big Bang," and the origin of the mass-energy in our universe.
[contd]

Really, really, stupid. If your science is wrong, give it up!

Initial conditions, nothing affects the field except particles, i.e. they will move, generate harmony or disharmony, you can add them up; but, the field we see:

1. Consider it unaltered as it travels
2. Any object serves a an obstacle, only another charge will respond to the field
3 Please, the speed of light can be c, can be anything. As far as our measures are the speed of light is the speed from the center of the charge; however, you do know the repetitive motion creates the radiation. So the charge thinks the field is constant but it now has wrinkles. Anyway, don't let a PhD measure the speed ask a junior high school student.

If the student says try the original wavelets length divided by the measured period, don't say conjecture, say correct!

Trying to find nonsense with nonsense requires a PhD!

Particles are only the + and - charges and field events and they have no mass.

Now with valid measurements, infer anything in the path; just don't think gravitational lensing. We know this as nonsense, sense to change the field requires a lens-like media made of charge. The field is transparent to the field, juz say'n

No bending of space and time; in fact, empty space does not exist!

Because it was the point source itself that expanded, it is everywhere.

At what point does a point become not a point anymore?

Because unless you can adequately define this very point of transition, it is pointless to expand on this point any further. Except maybe if producing fairy-tales was the primary point of your interrest.

Points are discrete mathematical entities which have no real resemblance in physics, and no amount of mathematical "voodoo" (zero multiplied by infinity, zero divided by zero, etc.) will change anything about that. A zero, multiplied by anything, will always be just a zero.

So much for "point source".

A very smart man once said:

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

which might not be straight to the point at hand, but very relevant nonetheless.

Howgh.

Points are discrete mathematical entities which have no real resemblance in physics, and no amount of mathematical "voodoo" (zero multiplied by infinity, zero divided by zero, etc.) will change anything about that. A zero, multiplied by anything, will always be just a zero.

So much for "point source".

A very smart man once said:
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." which might not be straight to the point at hand, but very relevant nonetheless.

Howgh.

Wow! Never yield to sanity, only imagination? Excuse me, Einstein was wrong about imagination, without logic, it's nonsense.

Note annihilation still continues as the universe cools. The end effect is essentially galaxies rising out the the ashes and the ashes being essentially regions dominated by matter or antimatter which don't annihilate nearly as much.

I think I noted that matter gravitates more strongly during inflation than anti-matter. Because the energy density of matter is higher than that of anti-matter. Anti-matter gravitates just enough to annihilate matter and maintain the plasma density. However the more matter gravitates into bodies the more localized it becomes and the more difficult it becomes for antimatter to find a body to annihilate. And the more thinly the antimatter distribution becomes until it can no longer fuel the necessary annihilation to maintain the plasma density. So when inflation ends the universe is populated with large hot bodies of matter staged to form black holes and galaxies, while antimatter is largely left scattered in intergalactic space. Or so it seems.

Note that after the plasma cools the difference in gravity experienced by matter and antimatter would be very small. So in the end times we can expect antimatter galaxies and black holes while matter galaxies have largely been collected in black holes. And eventually even antimatter galaxies would be collected in black holes, setting up conditions for serious conflagrations when matter and antimatter black holes start to inspiral and annihilate, possibly more big bangs.

Points are discrete mathematical entities which have no real resemblance in physics, and no amount of mathematical "voodoo" (zero multiplied by infinity, zero divided by zero, etc.) will change anything about that. A zero, multiplied by anything, will always be just a zero.

So much for "point source".

A very smart man once said:
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." which might not be straight to the point at hand, but very relevant nonetheless.

Howgh.

Wow! Never yield to sanity, only imagination? Excuse me, Einstein was wrong about imagination, without logic, it's nonsense.

Wrong? How? He just said imagination was most important. He didn't specify how to use it...

Because it was the point source itself that expanded, it is everywhere.

At what point does a point become not a point anymore?

Depends on scale.

It provides the driver behind the matter-antimatter asymmetry by showing interactions before the Big Bang that provided interactions out of thermal equilibrium, that led to a non-equilibrium Big Bang.

Rest assured that there is no thermal equilibrium, or if there was it would be impossible to determine because of the uncertainty principle.

No, actually that's not right, though you are correct in that there can be no thermal equlibrium; you're wrong about the cause. Inflation is inherently adiabatic, which means that during inflation there can be no thermal equlibrium; the uncertainty principle has nothing to do with it.

Inflation is inherently adiabatic, which means that during inflation there can be no thermal equlibrium; the uncertainty principle has nothing to do with it.

Could be. I'm describing how matter-antimatter asymmetry maintains the intensity of the CMB to within 0.1% I believe it is.

The matter-antimatter asymmetry has nothing to do with the uniformity of the CMB. And the CMB is uniform to a much greater degree than a mere tenth of a percent.

The matter-antimatter asymmetry has nothing to do with the uniformity of the CMB. And the CMB is uniform to a much greater degree than a mere tenth of a percent.

Sorry to hear that. Just what degree of uniformity should the intensity of the CMB be?

We measured the isotropy over the whole sky. It's three orders of magnitude smaller than 0.1%.

https://arxiv.org.../0305591

We measured the isotropy over the whole sky. It's three orders of magnitude smaller than 0.1%.

https://arxiv.org.../0305591

Wow. Wikipedia says the radiation is isotropic to roughly one part in 100,000 which is better than what I've seen. Sure doesn't sound like three orders of magnitude smaller than 0.1% though. Perhaps you did some curve fitting?

@Seeker2

Wow. Wikipedia says the radiation is isotropic to roughly one part in 100,000 which is better than what I've seen. Sure doesn't sound like three orders of magnitude smaller than 0.1% though. Perhaps you did some curve fitting?

That darn math is tough 1 / 100000 = 0.00001 X 100% = .0.001% no curve fitting needed. Didn't mean to jump in there DaSchneib.

Sure is. Let's start with one order of magnitude less than 0.1%. What would that be? Then we'll work or way to the next order of magnitude.

Points are discrete mathematical entities which have no real resemblance in physics, and no amount of mathematical "voodoo" (zero multiplied by infinity, zero divided by zero, etc.) will change anything about that. A zero, multiplied by anything, will always be just a zero.

So much for "point source".

A very smart man once said:
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." which might not be straight to the point at hand, but very relevant nonetheless.

Howgh.

Wow! Never yield to sanity, only imagination? Excuse me, Einstein was wrong about imagination, without logic, it's nonsense.

Wrong? How? He just said imagination was most important. He didn't specify how to use it...

DR. E is an idiot!

ok , a ? from the village idiot , watching a utoob vid showing the scale of things , sun a pea, earth 6 ft out pluto 20 all tiny grains. Nearest star 125 miles ! and another pea. Is it just me or is that not how we usually imagine things,, ie earth and sun enormous gravity forces, etc.
so how to imagine a force [in a '' vacuum '' ] that could act on such tiny things over such disproportionate distances ??? !

Meh, the calculator in my head malfunctioned. It's two orders of magnitude... which is still a lot less than what you were talking about, @Seeker.

Meh, the calculator in my head malfunctioned. It's two orders of magnitude... which is still a lot less than what you were talking about, @Seeker.

Sounds great! Keep up the good work!

@QM

Points are discrete mathematical entities which have no real resemblance in physics,...

I should think two objects could touch each other at some point which would have real resemblance in physics. Or so it would seem. Or, for example, the center of mass of an object is at some point. I don't think it could be at 2 points?

@WG

At what point does a point become not a point anymore?

Depends on scale.

Points are zero-dimensional, and scale invariant. Ergo, points do not scale.

Or can you come up with a scale factor that would turn a ZERO into something else? If yes, then please do share! Ball-park figure will suffice :-)

@Seeker

Or, for example, the center of mass of an object is at some point.

And that's exactly the point where your logic fails.

The energy/matter which constitutes the mass, is not frozen in time. It is in constant motion, and also subject to various degrees of uncertainty (when looked at from the QM perspective).

Therefor, any center of mass can be defined by a point only in the extent of a single instant of time. While no problem to do in math, it is a major hurdle when trying to translate it to physical reality, as for a centre of mass to be represented by a point would require space/time to be fully discrete - contrary to almost all curr. available evidence.

Or, for example, the center of mass of an object is at some point.

And that's exactly the point where your logic fails.

The energy/matter which constitutes the mass, is not frozen in time. It is in constant motion, and also subject to various degrees of uncertainty (when looked at from the QM perspective).

Perhaps we should put it this way: Just because it's position is uncertain doesn't mean it's not there somewhere at some point. Any problem with that logic?

Perhaps we should put it this way: Just because it's position is uncertain doesn't mean it's not there somewhere at some point. Any problem with that logic?

That's just paraphrasing the same idea, so why to expect a different result?

The "problem" remains exactly the same, as already described (although crudely, but sufficiently) in my previous post.

If you don't like the QM take (uncertainty), then you still have the classical version (issue with "an instant of time").

And if for some reason you don't like either, then nothing is stopping you from comming up with your own theory (of everything), and teaching the rest of the world a lesson.

A nice day to everyone :-)

Perhaps we should put it this way: Just because it's position is uncertain doesn't mean it's not there somewhere at some point. Any problem with that logic?

That's just paraphrasing the same idea, so why to expect a different result?

Just trying to understand the problem in the logic. But you're right. It didn't seem to help much.

The "problem" remains exactly the same, as already described (although crudely, but sufficiently) in my previous post.

If you don't like the QM take (uncertainty), then you still have the classical version (issue with "an instant of time").

Hey uncertainty isn't a bad word. So I'm stuck with the time problem. In the time problem nobody knows what an instant of time is. Perhaps some tick of the cosmic clock? One tick of the cosmic clock could be anything but you'd never know it because your time standard would also experience the same tick. More problems with logic?

Come to think of it if it wasn't for uncertainty there would be no free will. No life actually. Problem with that logic?

While we're on a roll - why is there something rather than nothing? - answer: if there was nothing there would be nobody to ask the question. Right? Actually nothing is a state of certainty and violates the uncertainty principle. But I think we covered that one already.

While we're on a roll - why is there something rather than nothing? - answer: if there was nothing there would be nobody to ask the question. Right? Actually nothing is a state of certainty and violates the uncertainty principle. But I think we covered that one already.

Try Maxwell, for written empiricism, need a paper? First rid yourself of all others!

Remember, nothing is only conceptual, find it! One charge occupies all space, Coulomb. juz say'n

Remember, nothing is only conceptual, find it!

So I looked around and found nothing. Ok?

Remember, nothing is only conceptual, find it!

So I looked around and found nothing. Ok?

Someone asked the teacher for a Theory. OK. My theory: Axiom: There exist only charges.
Each charge exist from it's center to infinity. All charges and fields follow the mathematics of Maxwell. Charge does not have mass. Therefore this measuring system is better as isomorphic computational space is: Distance and time are measured as wavelength then c = 1. The constants, epsilon X mu = 1 for space without other charges; thus epsilon and mu may be discerned directly from atomic structure, using tensors for epsilon and mu. Charges do not occupy space, thus more than one charge may occupy a point. Study Maxwell.

Observation of distant objects in space must account for each velocity vector relative to us. Speed is simply the emitted_wavelength/measured_period. Therefore, much work must be done, i.e. when we say expanding with a singular view your error does not define truth. Given these charges are never created or destroyed then depending upon the flow of galaxies about us that are visible are either, moving with us within a stream, behind us or ahead of us. We should be able to calculate the acceleration of the stream. That is time to intercept, multiple sources. But space is infinite, you cannot see it all. The wave has to be in our measuring space, some may never reach us!

Remember, nothing is only conceptual, find it!

So I looked around and found nothing. Ok?

You didn't try a spectrometer. When you get to zero! Ah! You calibrated to ambient. Well, OK concept. Did I say Einstein was an idiot!

You didn't try a spectrometer. When you get to zero! Ah! You calibrated to ambient. Well, OK concept. Did I say Einstein was an idiot!

No you said DR E was an idiot. Same difference I guess. Did he have a spectrometer?

You didn't try a spectrometer. When you get to zero! Ah! You calibrated to ambient. Well, OK concept. Did I say Einstein was an idiot!

No you said DR E was an idiot. Same difference I guess. Did he have a spectrometer?

I'm making stuff up, ha, ha. Gotcha! No a first wife's idea, he had.

Anyway, this is Dr. E
http://www.csun.e...diss.pdf
no magic here, so ...

Anyway, this is Dr. E
http://www.csun.e...diss.pdf
no magic here, so ...

So don't get mad get even. Right?