All Activity

Well once again we come back to how massive distance between galaxies are and how massive the universe is compared to how quickly the effect of gravity reduces to ineffective. I've already shown those calculations. For example the SMBH at the center of our Milky way has next to zero influence on our solar system let alone another galaxy. Here is the thing, one equation is all it takes to show your idea is invalid. Ignoring or avoiding that detail doesn't change anything. There are of course numerous other pieces of evidence that run counter to the idea I could mention such as lack of corresponding temperature anistrophy and resulting plasma mass distribution which can be measured via the mass to luminosity relation but the one equation is sufficient as a counter piece of evidence.

One thing to recall is that point is strictly the portion of our shared causality. We know the universe is larger than our Observable portion. We do not know how large the entire universe is beyond our Observable universe region of shared causality. This is one of thr fundamental reasons not to think of the singularity condition at 10^-43 seconds as being the same as the singularity condition of a BH.

Google it. 😉

What @MigL is referring to is Planck's scale. If you want to probe space-time at scales roughly 10-43 seconds (10-35 m is another way to characterise it), you make black holes. So it doesn't quite make sense to discriminate between points, mesure distances, angles, speeds. There would be no geometry proper. And I agree also with @Genady that the big bang is not a point, of course. A picture that I find particularly attractive is that of conformal symmetry, which is a universe in which there is scale invariance. In a conformally-invariant universe, there's no difference between big and small in a way. AAMOF, we know when temperatures are very high, conformal symmetry is more and more accurate. The universe would look very much like Maxwell's equations with no sources. Perhaps scale invariance is a spontaneously broken symmetry?

Assuming anything is the wrong place to start, if you want the truth. What would be the benefit of a computational model? For instance, would the joke be funnier? The computer say's "the joke is n% funnier, when humans listen to it in a group". What does that tell you about the joke?

It's great that you and your daughter want to explore the microscopic world! A budget of around 150€ is reasonable for a good quality microscope to see cells and bacteria. Here are some tips: Magnification: Look for a microscope with at least 400x magnification, preferably up to 1000x. Optics: Ensure it has good quality lenses, such as achromatic lenses, to correct distortions. Illumination: LED lighting is best for brightness and longevity. Build Quality: A sturdy, stable base with metal construction is ideal. Second-hand Options: Consider reputable brands for used microscopes, ensuring the optics are clean and all parts function well. Brands like AmScope, OMAX, and Swift offer good entry-level options. Whether new or used, focus on optical quality and functionality. Enjoy your microscopic explorations!

I didn't realize that t+10{-43} secs was really as far as the model went. What happens if we plug t-10{-43}secs into the equations? Do we come out the "other side"? Is the "dead end" in the equations because of quantum effects?

When did I say that? https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/spectators-witness-history-manassas?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2mX0QB0RqUupWigL0tXDlexICHoaD66FEusNY4bnyCaPSEvD-hlXBk-lM_aem_AdJUJwgueDkpOj0ewWkvrSsAp8nzczPoxZyFEPydu44kwthVDOBHoLa2xQRyMFpidMvLJLvn8GL7y_iCP72umPje#:~:text=Watching the Federal army advance seemed like the perfect Sunday afternoon diversion.&text=It is a popular%2C almost,battle of a short rebellion The view from that hill was such bc it didn't really affect them. I was listening to a debate a few weeks ago, in which the story of a runaway slave helped a northern general with an overwhelming army, corner and then refused to attack, letting them slip away, which happened time after time; some think it was bc of his trust/distrust of a negro, I wonder how his perspective was different? I'm sorry I can't remember the specifics or the source bc it was a tangent of the debate. Apologies @TheVat But this is well worth a listen and it's beyond me to summarise a summary.

I mean mathematically complicated. I mean that the calculations are more complicated. I said "simplest cause" because it does not require other hypotheses such as quintessence, massive gravity or multiverse.

R.I.P. "the simplest cause."

There were a number of compromises made prior to. Ultimately they only pushed the problem into the future with devastating results. With runaway slaves and attempt to maintain the power balance between the sides, the issue of Slavery ended up crossing State borders.

I think that the things are more complicated. As I explained in my first post, the objects that we observe are only a little part of a colossal galaxy cluster around a colossal black hole. The motion of objects that we observe is influenced not only by the colossal black hole but also by the other objects in the colossal galaxy cluster. In addition, as I said in some of my posts, it is possible that there are other colossal galaxy clusters and colossal black holes that influence the motion of objects that we observe.

I sometimes wonder if there's an issue with zero (maximums/minimums) as a concept. Not sure what we could replace it with though.

In what ways, specifically?

Have you considered asking AI for recommendations?

Let's take 4 unique digits for example: 1234 (1123, 2113, 2311, 1231, 1132, 3112, 3211, 1321) {4) + (1124, 2114, 2411, 1241, 1142, 4112, 4211, 1421) {3) = 16 different combinations. 4^4 unique combinations has derivative of 16^3, 16^3/4^4 = 16

So is trying to teach you the correct application of Physics and Astronomy. Because it seems all of these guys efforts are wasted on you.

Another Canadian to pipe-up in Dim's defense. Up until the 1800s wars and battles, at least for the 'noble' class, involved a certain amount of pageantry, showmanship and 'gallantry, with colourful uniforms and flag bearers. The 1800s saw a change in this; war was no longer glamorous, as new weapons and old tactics fed the common foot soldier into the shredder that saw tens of thousands killed in single battles. The need for the Red Cross was inspired by the carnage and bloodshed at the battles of Solferino and Magenta in the Italian wars of unification in the late 1850s. The American Civil War was no different ; bloody carnage and destruction that pitted brothers against each other in pointless battles of little strategic significance ( watch Sergio Leone's 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly', starring me, of course, for a good depiction ). By the time of WW1, the bloody carnage of hundreds of thousand of soldiers, in pointless battles, had been implemented on an industrial scale.

@Ghideon you are right much processing power is needed. I thought if I could get the size needed to test down to the size of a smaller RSA number that has already been factored, I could crunch it. Three hours no results. I had some help with the programming. A tester pointed out that I get 41351 instead of 41227. That is 124 digits off. But I am hoping is close enough to guess. Does anyone here do number crunching? I could use some tips on brute force crunching. Clear[x, pnp]; pnp = 2211282552952966643528108525502623092761208950247001539441374831912882294140 2001986512729726569746599085900330031400051170742204560859276357953757185954 2988389587092292384910067030341246205457845664136645406842143612930176940208 46391065875914794251435144458199; x = 30000000000000000000000000000000000001; While[x <=pnp,If[Divisible[pnp,x], Print[x]]; x+2]; While[x<=pnp,If[Divisible[pnp,x],Print[x]];x+2]; Clear[x,pnp];pnp=2564855351; eqn=((pnp-(Sqrt[(x^2*pnp^4+2*pnp*x^5)+x^8])/pnp^4-(1-(x^2/(2*pnp)))*(pnp^2/x^2))); Solve[eqn==0&&x>=0,x,Reals]//N (*{{x41350.98025},{x6.387801493*10^11}}*) In[1]:= While[x<=pnp,If[Divisible[pnp,x],Print[x]];x+2]; Clear[x,pnp];pnp=pnp = 2211282552952966643528108525502623092761208950247001539441374831912882294140 2001986512729726569746599085900330031400051170742204560859276357953757185954 2988389587092292384910067030341246205457845664136645406842143612930176940208 46391065875914794251435144458199; eqn=((pnp-(Sqrt[(x^2*pnp^4+2*pnp*x^5)+x^8])/pnp^4-(1-(x^2/(2*pnp)))*(pnp^2/x^2))); Solve[eqn==0&&x>=0,x,Reals]//N (*{{x41350.98025},{x6.387801493*10^11}}*) Out[2]= 2211282552952966643528108525502623092761208950247001539441374831912882294140 Out[3]= 2001986512729726569746599085900330031400051170742204560859276357953757185954 Out[4]= 2988389587092292384910067030341246205457845664136645406842143612930176940208 Computational processing required.

At 10-43 sec. or Planck scale, geometry ceases to have meaning. Since time is part of the geometry of space-time, it also ceases to have meaning. People should stop asking "What happened before 10-43 sec." There was no 'before' as we know it. The compact hot dense universe of that 'time' could have existed forever or for an instant; there would have been no difference.

Which yields accurate changes in depth perception over the z direction. But what about x and y? The objects along the horizontal and vertical plane if lined up at the same point in the z line doesn't matter because those objects are further away too but because they are at the same point in the z line the changes in depth for x and y can't be shown this way even though they are further from the observer looking straight on. It is a dimensional problem. Of course knowing this I'd figured out a wholly different way to get an accurate calculation of all dimension, it having to do with the post above. This is the problem Newton would have had with the motion of more than two gravitational orbits not a physics problem, really it would be a problem for more than one object if it weren't for our ability to find the Lagrangian coordinate between the two. Due to the fact that redshift is based on the doppler effect it couldn't be a culprit for redshift but like I said my actual physics based dataset for the actual mechanics of light doesn't say enough to rule out tired light as a cause. It says there is an increase redshift over greater distances due to some assumptions about what light is and what forces at play. Obviously you'd need a larger dataset to measure against cosmological redshift. It even explains why it takes so long for light to be emitted from inside the sun very nicely and why neutrinos are exempt. It even says something about particle wave duality at close distances. It says a different color has nothing to do with the doppler effect at all. The light's wavelength isn't increasing because it is coming from an object that is moving away, or because it has some negative motion, which doesn't make sense to begin with you can't change the velocity of light, that's what relativity is about.

In so far as any means of measurement via particle accelerators etc correct. We simply cannot produce those temperatures.

which is 15 orders of magnitude higher than our models have been tested so far, right?

As everything is in thermal equilibrium including the four forces you can describe that state as a single photon field. It doesn't mean the other particles didn't exist but you wouldn't be able to tell one particle type from any other. The reason it's oft treated as a photon field is that temperature is part of the EM field and blackbody temperature uses the virtual photon as the mediator. Keep in mind one can arbitrarily describe any state by any arbitrary number of fields the term field is any collection of values under a geometry treatment

How many fields are there supposed to be at 10^{-43}secs. Are the 10^90 particles all from the one field? If all the particles are identicle ,what is exciting the field? (doubtless very naive and wrong headed questions)