MPMin

It probably wasn’t wide spread, apparently the lead poisoning was associated with the ruling class as the syrup, I think was called ‘sapa’ was reserved for the aristocracy.

I read it in a chemistry text book a long time ago. If I remember it correctly, the Romans would reduce old wine in lead vats which created a sweet syrup, this syrup was apparently a highly desirable condiment. It was proposed in the text, that this syrup contained significant amounts of lead acetate which apparently tastes sweet.

I read that lead poisoning may have been a contributing factor to the fall of the Roman Empire.

To determine which way the galaxies were spinning with reference to our galaxy, they’d all have to be on the same plane as our galaxy, im pretty sure that’s not the case. If the galaxy was infinite and the mass was distributed more or less homogeneously, then I think my hypothesis wouldn’t work as net effect of the universe’s gravity would be zero at any given point, but that’s only on the assumption that the gravity of the collective universe is acting directly on the photons. And if the universe was a spherical then for all distant objects to be roughly redshifted equally in all directions from earth then that would suggest we’re at the Center of the universe, but if that were the case then I would have thought that all distant objects would be blue shifted as the photons would pulled to towards the Center of the universe. Perhaps it’s the collective gravity of the distant universe that’s stretching empty space between the masses, as you described I think, that’s causing the redshift?

Perhaps I’m not understanding your analogy properly, but if you had a finite tank of water, and produced ripples in that tank, I dont think there is any extra water that fills in any gaps, because the water in the tank remains the same. I presume that the ripples would create a greater surface area, not by stretching the surface, but rather just exposing water molecules that were previously beneath the surface before the ripples began. Im of the understanding that the CMBR was produced when the electrons discharged their surplus energy as radiation when they stabilised around atoms as the universe was expanding.

Shaking down risen bread (deflation) is usually only a problem when the bread has been over proofed or over hydrated. To anyone who wants to get serious about making bread at home I highly recommend investing in a decent heat sink, which will also double as an excellent pizza stone (steel).

If stars or galaxies are blue shifted because they are moving towards us in an expanding universe are not exceptions, then what are they? My hypothesis doesn't prevent the universe from being fluid, if the universe is not expanding then its more likely you'll see blue shifting of closer objects in a fluid galaxy. Gravitational red shifting would still apply to more distant objects.

If that falsifies my hypothesis then doesn’t that also contradict the bbt as well? Or, if there are exceptions to the bbt, then perhaps the same exceptions could apply in all cases.

Perhaps we are talking at crossed purposes, or I’m simply not understanding the connection, or the difference between the information that we receive as electromagnetic radiation from distant stars, and the electromagnetic radiation that we receive from the CMBR? We receive information about both stars and CMBR in the same form. Perhaps the CMBR is not evenly dispersed through out the universe because matter is not evenly dispersed through out the universe, or perhaps its the uneven distribution of matter that causes the uneven distribution of the CMBR. The confusion from my perspective is why does my hypothesis need to explain anything about the CMBR when my hypothesis only describes that the redshift in all electromagnetic radiation might only be caused by the collective mass of the universe red-shifting all electromagnetic radiation from our perspective on earth?

Perhaps for the same reason that the dispersion of matter throughout the universe is not completely smooth and uniform either.

If you are talking about starting bread in a cold oven then consider two things, one is that the proofing and rising temperatures will be similar to the cold oven, the other is how long the oven takes to reach baking temperature, the longer it take to heat up the greater the adverse effects will be. if you take bread that’s ready to be baked but place it in a cold oven, as the oven begins to heat up, the yeast will continue making gas until the yeast reaches about 30C, as the heat transfer will take longer to reach the centre due to the low initial temperature, you’ll have yeast still making gas on the inside while the outside is beginning to set, this will most likely result in the loaf splitting open. The extended time in the oven will most likely result in a much thicker and dryer crust and a dryer bread over all. Baking bread normally but ending the baking 5 mins earlier will most likely result in a doughy under cooked centre. As for cakes, unlike breads, cakes lack the gluten structure of breads and can not hold bubbles of gas as well as bread does, also, gas production in cakes starts the moment an acid is introduced to the bicarbonate, that means gas production begins to decrease from the commencement of production, hence starting a cake in a cold oven will most likely result in a mud cake like texture as most of the gas would most likely escape before the cake has had a chance to rise and set.

My proposed hypothesis describes the effect on electromagnetic radiation, therefore, my hypothesis would have the same effect on all electromagnetic radiation including the CMBR.

I don’t understand why my hypothesis must include an explanation for the CMBR, considering that it has already been established in this thread, that the cmbr may have alternative explanations, that do not rely on the bbt.

As the CMBR can have other explanations other than the BBT, why then, does my hypothesis need an ad hoc extra explanation of the CMBR? Okhams razor states that the simplest explanation is usually the best one, I’ve kept my hypothesis simple as per Okhams razor.

Are you saying that my hypothesis doesn’t work because my hypothesis didn’t account for the CMBR, even though the CMBR could have alternative explanations?