geordief

Is this another way of looking at it? Anything that we try to describe as a reality is always in motion. So by the time we examine the situation it is in the past. That is anthropocentric but if we acknowledge that we are part of the system being interrogated then it applies to the apparently exterior world.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c99zn92g2qgo "Scientists sampling DNA in the air to monitor the spread of deadly diseases say their work could help make food prices cheaper " I can think of potato blight as a candidate but there must be much more. I wonder what they might test for.

Well done you.You dodged an almighty bullet. I think I read that the laser treatment to the back of the eye can be quite severe (a bit like a punch in the face) Anything like that?

Thanks. I passed by the ophthamologist this afternoon to book a checkup but they were closed on the Saturday. I will try again next week. Did you have any pain at the time? I have been rubbing the eye for the past 4 days.It feels like grit got in or one of those mini styes. It is just on the eyelid ,anyway but I think I read that pain could be an indication of something serious (blurry vision would be another indication ,I saw)

Does anyone else have these? I have just got myself a new "companion" in my right hand vision who twists around like a falling leaf or one of those arty mobiles. I also have "floaters" that come every 6 months and only last for 10-20 minutes perhaps. This new visual defect (the Weiss ring) seems here to stay. It goes away when I concentrate my vision or thoughts on one thing but reappears as soon as I relax. I am learning from the internet that the brain will likely filter it out in a few months although there are some people with lots of floaters who find that their life has deteriorated a lot ( eg no reading , telly or going in the sun),probably because they have very many of the floaters. So ,is anyone else in the same boat as me with a Weiss Ring? Any advice as to how to make the (hopefully short ) habituation period as unannoying as possible?

Was spacetime curved even before the Higgs field formed? There were sources of gravitation then separate from mass? I was confused in the OP and imagined that spacetime came into being around the same time as the Higgs field. I now think that spacetime existed as far back as the BB(T+ 10^-43 seconds ) and that it was curved ,although I have no idea how curved it would have been-possibly indistinguishable from flat spacetime or possibly extremely curved.I don't know.

No I meant objects (interactions?) .The points ,to my mind are (relative) attributes of the objects. I understand what you said (avoiding using the word "point" ,as in "your point") about differential geometry breaking down but did I read somewhere something about some attempt at building a maths based on a "discontinuous number system?) Maybe the "objects" I had in mind would be fields. Better not ask any more questions here and get even further out of my depth..

Do you mean there could be no quantifiable relationships between distinct objects ?

Is Washington State a winner takes all of the electoral college votes? They would likely do Trump a favour by taking him off the ballot so that he could whine about being a victim and concentrate his resources elsewhere where he had an actual chance of getting electoral votes. That said ,if that is the law in the State ...

Ah yes, I must have a blind spot.I thought I understood that spacetime was just a mathematical construct but my question showed that I didn't. I think I was also probably equating in my head curved spacetime with spacetime itself -as if flat spacetime wasn't "proper" spacetime.

So spacetime existed before the Higgs field came to become a dominant force? Does spacetime work the same way if there are no sources of curvature? Or do the other fields provide sources of curvature even if there is no mass present ?(I understand ,probably naively that the Higgs field is reponsible at least in part for gravity)

Oh ,I didn't realize Cruz may have been suggesting anything like that.(or that anyone could imagine such turpitude) Can see why even Trump despised him if that is really the case.(of course despisal for Trump is merely transactional)

Well(Trump's advocate here) that is permitted ,surely.If a juror honestly disagrees with the other 11 is he or she not duty bound to vote accordingly? I don't see how that is "taking one for the team" Of course they can also be persuaded but if only 11 out of 12 is required then that should be the law. The unanimity impressed me ,whatever was said in the jury room that the verdict was strong. Any appeal might lean on the judge's instructions. I like the fact that he gave them a choice of 3 crimes but perhaps they might say it was too innovative?

I understand that the model we have goes back to T+10^-43secs. Did spacetime form then ,at that (those?) moment or did it happen when the Higgs field was created? (or emerged?) Since the time it did form ,has it evolved into what we now measure in a continuous fashion?

My feelings too.This trial was really all downside and no upside(for Trump's opponents) Did this trial delay the others at all because it was the one that the Dems would gladly have sacrificed for the others? I would not be surprised if the Trump voters paid zero heed to the outcome of this trial as far as their voting intentions are concerned. I did ,in my own mind discount the chances of an acquittal but was very taken aback by the unanimity of the guilty verdict. But then I didn't pay as much attention to the trial as those 12 jurors or the judge. Was Trump's error to think he could or should just subsume this trial into his electioneering? It was probably within reach to get a hung jury if he had taken it more seriously and respectfully(and let his lawyers do their job) He could have spun a hung jury as (a) a finding of innocence ,(b) even in New York they couldn't find him guilty and (c) they had to invent a new type of crime to try and fail to take him down("they think I am Al Capone -must have been listening to DeNiro"-insert new nickname for him and try out his Italian mobster accent) .

The sunk cost fallacy?

When I was in Paris ,aged 15 my host family took me out for the day to look at the Arc de Triomphe. As we looked at Napoleon's different victorious battles and dates that were inscribed on the monument I asked out loud and in complete naiveté "Where is Waterloo?" To complete silence . I was completely unembarassed .I think I was put right when we got home. Later I amused my friends by describing bad things as "terrible" when that actually means "really good"( a mistake categorised as a "false friend") Ps "espèce de con " or "espèce de conard" is a fine insult and "Le Canard enchainé" was the main satirical weekly magazine back then.

1s it considered at all plausible that two ( more?) universes could be created from a shared event? Or is that just "intellectual incontinence"

I wonder ,does the Planck unit of time also dilate along with spacetime curvature(under extreme conditions, of course)?

I didn't know there was absolute time at any scale. For a t=0 in the context of the earliest part of the universe what reference frame is chosen for t to apply to? Any frame that is not actually specified as "the beginning"?(and as close as possible to it for "simplicity's" sake?)

Would that be into multiverse theories? I think there are ideas(or one that I have heard of) about looking for physical evidence for them. As for behaving differently might it increase the himan self satisfaction quotient if we developed a model that went back to the origin and out the other side?

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?

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)

Do we have any idea of what was in that volume? Was whatever it was differentiated in some sense or was it simply composed of densities of the same thing? Is it believed it was a closed system? Does the small volume as compared to the volume that we see now mean it was "actually" small-or does it just indicate that it was highly ordered and the volume is only of any consideration in relation to what we see now? Are the indications that the volume at T+10^-43secs was bigger that the volume as one tties to model further back in time?

Is it plausible to view the BB (if we are all talking about the same thing**) as an "implosion"? Intuitively (to me) that MIGHT better help me visualize a process where all subsequent points pointed everywhere and anywhere when looking for the "source"? Like someone at the centre of a bicycle wheel looking towards the perimeter(that perimeter having been at one point -or as good as -initially).. **Maybe I am thinking of an event before the BIg Bang?...