Mordred

One idea I was considering suggesting is simply dropping negative rep points but keep the positive side. The negative rep tends to get a members hackles up which rather defeats the intent behind the rep system being a recognition for good post quality.

Hence the usage of supercomputers like Illustrus Millenium simulation which when they zoom in produced each galaxy type. https://wwwmpa.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/virgo/millennium/ Even the NFW profile though requires using a PC as its formula is a power law though in that case one can factor that into a natural log function in the same manner as the scale factor for the FLRW metric.

I was thinking more in lines of bulging occurring during cooling but that would require an early tidal locking prior to completely cooling. However I agree with the rest we have to see if the OP returns or not but still a good topic discussion

Yeah one of the hassles of how to describe something outside of the math lol. Leave that one for the metaphysics arguments give them something useful lol

Sounds like what's being described is the CNN blackbody temperature decrease due to expansion which means the mean average kinetic energy is reduced due to reduction in number density of neutrinos. That makes sense now the current CNB temperature from calculation is 1.97 Kelvin however in the past much higher. Yes even with 3 generations of sterile neutrinos to replace DM you would need more than the baryonic particles. As you recall there is more DM than baryonic matter. That's the essential clincher against a sterile neutrino solution. One can show sterile neutrinos has a good match in mean lifetime and weakly interactive with the non relativistic (cold) characteristics. It's the sheer number required that's the main issue.

Actually redshift applies to all particles but I understand your referring to photons being the meansof how we measure an objects redshift. Yes neutrinos does have a high momentum term however due to its weak interactions any scattering collisions is greatly reduced. Were both trying to get DanP to clarify to which class of observer. Ie applying the four momentum but recognizing observer effects to the particles four momentum term.

The FLRW metric is often described using the symbol \(\chi\). It occurred to me that many of our viewers would not recognize this angle. The metric can be expressed as a 3d hypersphere for its spatial part \[dl^2=R^2(d\chi^2+sin^2\chi d\phi^2\] the 3d hyper sphere is an embedding in 4d space using (x,y,z,w) in the following manner below For some reason trying to insert images messes up latex instructions in the above but in this case its still readable. anyways the above is from the following reference https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/astr3740_14/flrw.pdf see section 10.1 I am considering adding this diagram to the pinned threads above for easy reference. Thoughts ?

Forgot to add the velocity equation \[v(t)=\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}d(t)=H(t)d(t)=H_0d(t)\]

Velocity in cosmology via the FLRW metric is to a commoving observer which in essence is tying that observer to the scale factor a(t) for proper velocity as opposed to peculiar velocity such as from an observer on Earth measuring the cosmological event horizon which is based on Hubbles law v=HD. Hope that helps.

R2D2 8 track cassette player. https://www.ebay.ca/itm/264286734720 Though the one I owned being much earlier

Yes research agrees with this Maria if I recall is due to asteroid collisions evident of its impact characteristics however those impacts could be the result of debris returning home as you put it. If I recall the studies also show that the lunar crust is thinner on one side than the other which if I recall it's thicker on the Maria side. You might want to look into that detail as it's a piece of evidence in regards to which side struck the Earth. Edit forgot to add tidal locking isn't a result of impacts but a result of gravitational influence between the moon and Earth. All orbiting bodies gradually become tidal locked unless they are gaining momentum via other influences such as impacts. This statement is incorrect see above.

I'm not the one giving negative rep points. I never do regardless of what I think of the post quality or of the posters attitude. I found that pointless long ago. I only hand out positive rep points. Never negative. Does nothing to alter my view of a posters mannerism or post quality. So take the advise or not. Matters not to me. However one of the rules you agreed to for membership is civility. Too many uncivil posts will eventually lead to account banning but that's your choice. Makes no difference to me

As expansion allows electroweak symmetry breaking to occur in that manner it's accurate that includes cosmological redshift however one must also recognize that cosmological redshift affects how we measure the kinetic energy in the same manner as it effects how we measure its mass term. However the particle itself has an invariant mass and kinetic energy term (momentum) which defines the particle. (If either changes its no longer the same particle type) One must take into account observer effects as per GR when measuring either quantity. So it's likely Swansont was describing observer effects due to expansion

Your welcome reputation points are always an indication of post quality. Usually one receives positive votes by stating something informative and well mannered.

That's fine I recall the reply GR can be applied to MOND even though MOND modifies f=ma. The change simply needs to carry over when you run calculations using GR. In essence it's own class of GR solution. For the record I would not be surprised if there isn't a paper out on how to use GR with MOND. Rather in this case I would expect there would be.

Yeah I'm sure that's what it is. The manner of your posts couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. Yes that's sarcasm Maybe improving the quality of your posts and less attitude might actually solve the problem?

No expansion doesn't affect a particles momentum terms. The relic neutrinos need to be slow (cold/non relativistic) to begin with. Edit rather slow once they acquire mass from electroweak symmetry breaking.

Could be I was hoping for something more profound or a stronger argument. However that's your choice of course. There's nothing new to relying on how we interpret our senses.

Your opening post describes something every one is aware of to begin with. Everyone knows our senses do not define reality but only how we interpret stimuli. If your goal is to develop a good strong argument why this is the case then it's good advise to include the science behind it as well. The later parts of equating that to sound in the woods however needs improvement. One can simply state both sound and light are simply labels we apply to how we interpret stimuli. Obviously experimental apparatus allow us the ability not to rely strictly on our senses. This is a science forum however so making corrections in regards to science should be expected. That includes encouraging the inclusion of science. For example I could argue that particles do not exist and support that argument under QFT in doing so further argue that every method of describing reality is invariably an interpretation whether it's our senses, experimental apparatus etc. That however boils down to how does one define reality.

The only person that seemed to believe science described photons reaching the brain is yourself. No one else had that misconception. So you should congratulate yourself for finally recognizing that science never described photons reaching the brain to begin with. You haven't taught anyone of any misconception except yourself if you believed science ever described photons reaching to brain.

Whatever made you believe any science claimed photons reached the brain ? Sounds to me you don't know what science actually describes

Then why is everyone able to point out valid arguments against your conjecture which you promptly ignore? Dark for example is nothing more than the absence of light. How your brain interprets light involves the receptors in your eyes which gets converted into electrochemical signals as per the neuron link included by KJW. Plants undergo different processes as they do not visually see light. That does nothing to alter what light is. It merely alters the stimuli responses. It doesn't make one ounce of difference in the nature of light how something interacts with light does nothing to alter what light is itself.

Let me know when and if you wish to include any real science. You obviously choose to ignore any actual science based arguments.

What about MRI studies directly related to how your brain registers signals from your eyes ? Are you telling me that isn't an experiment directly involved ?

Ah so just because I studied the mathematics sufficient to recieve degrees in physics I get accused of parroting physics textbooks ? Is that how that works ? You have no idea how often that accusation occurs for the record. Have you ever considered that understanding physics requires one to look beyond the textbooks themselves? How is knowing those formulas somehow equate to not thinking for myself ? What makes you believe philosophical arguments is the only valid "thinking for oneself " method is erroneous