geordief

I thought I saw a rock formation in there somehow (with contours). Also thought I saw the pattern of a fly's eye(or a wasp's honeycombed nest. It is a really nice photo.

If those are the historical precedents,why should this time be much different? Consensus seems to be a dirty word these days and everyone seems to play the game for their own reward and at others' expense. Who,I wonder loses out if this drags on?Do they all think they are winners?

Because "they" may be turn out to be very simple .The approach** may be very confusing but there may be the possibility that the fog will clear ,the solutions will be relatively simple and we will have to go back to wondering about questions that affect us at the macro (and all other) levels -for the rest of our times. **as in the roads leading up to them.

Do any of the photons have a "direction" or is the direction only revealed when they impact another object such as gib65's eye? Suppose at any particular instant there was a finite (N) number of photons emitted from the star and all of those N photons improbably impacted objects that were NOT gib65's eye,would the star be invisible to gib65 for that brief period (taking into account the time for the photons to travel as far as gib65)?

I had more or less the exact same (mis) understanding as @gib65 If you are right I feel even less smart now😕

Does your "stream bed" work as well as an analogy if there is no top and bottom no rocks to cause perturbations ,no gravity and if the various independent flows through the "stream" simply interact with each other? Would "particles"/perturbations be formed the same way? And would one perturbation lead to a cascade of other perturbations? I am imagining an infinite number of very small streams,interacting with each other .

I have a vague memory of them being skinned first and then parboiled to remove the membrane. In aid of what? Probably they were pureed but I can't remember now. I bought some chestnuts a few years back (and I have an open fire) They sat unused for a whole year before I got around to throwing them out. Didn't even plant any in the ground to replace the chestnut tree that died 20 years ago.

Thanks

I think I have heard it said( a few times) that fhor an object entering (the EH?) of a black hole that space and time are reversed. Is that correct? If that is indeed what is said then (here we go again?) is this just saying that this is what the model does and the actual body notices no change?

We have millennia ahead of us to occupy our minds.We would be pretty stupid if we didn't attempt to answer questions like that (and others) At the present time though the priority must be to ensure we don't trash our planetary home for our future, and present generations

Louie Louie as performed by the Kingsmen https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/jan/23/louie-louie-ultimate-rock-rebel-anthem

Did the results of the tests justify his prior interpretation?(if that is a sensible question)

Would I be right to guess that most instances of the former lead to a QM development because the tests results run counter to what the interpretation suggested?

Is there a good book for the layman that describes the historical steps that came in the development of QM Did any of the researchers rely on their interpretation of what was "actually " happening or was it just a case of accumulating observations and finding models to predict behaviour as a result?

Just a throwaway observation that the line in the (very great) song can be interpreted to be saying that apparent knowledge of a situation is a mirage and that the meaning lies further down the road One of my favourite songs and I used this thread to shoehorn it into the public arena since I do see a parallel of sorts(not scientific admittedly)😉

"To understand you know too soon" "It's all right Ma" B.D. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_Alright,_Ma_(I'm_Only_Bleeding)

The upgrade to our local road was held up by objections to it on the grounds that these were populations in danger of extinction. I am not sure what the outcome was .Perhaps the route was diverted or abandoned.I am trying to find out . At the time these objections were held up to ridicule. I can't say how important an issue this is as we are in the middle of a mass extinction . Is the fate of the freshwater mussel especially important in that context?

Thanks @Mordred and @Genady Time for my bed😀

I thought that as we went back in time that particles like protons were torn apart and only existed as their constituent parts and at enormously high energies

Seems to me like @Mordred is saying that no matter is created either in the inflationary or in the expansionary period.(so I assume that as we "roll back" to a smaller and denser universe the particles just get smaller and more energetic. Anyway ,if it is the case that the creation of matter **is not what distinguishes the expansionary/inflationary models from "my " scenario where the protons repel each other,what is /are the differences? Is my scenario (just) an explosion? ,Would it still be an explosion if done with particles that were of a comparable size to those in the ecpandionary-/inflationary period?(ie not with protons but with more primitive particles) **it doesn't happen in any scenario

Are you referring to the ongoing expansion of the universe?(at first I understood you to be referring to the expansion of my system of protons-in the event that their configuration does not lead to a gravitational collapse which I had not thought about in the OP) If that is indeed what you are saying ,does this also apply to the inflationary period? I was under the impression that the universe may have begun with a quantum fluctuation where the amount of matter was initially very small If so ,wouldn't the inflationary period have created matter so long as the inflation continued (I hope that that is something like the model but I have not studied this at all and am just repeating / (mis?)interpreting things I think I have heard in passing)

Well how would you tell the difference between the two situations? Aren't distances between objects increasing in the same way? Is "my"scenario that of an explosion rather than isotropic expansion? Does matter have to be continuously created for an isotropic expansion (or inflation?) to occur?

I am familiar with the idea that as the universe expands ,then space expands (as per that the distance between non gravitationally bound objects such as galaxies) in an isotropic(if that is the correct term) way. I wondered if there might be any parallel between that behaviour and the kind of scenario I was presenting. Would these "ionized hydrogen atoms" create space in the same way as in the expansion of the universe model?

A group of protons that have been corralled together to the exclusion of other particles? Would they repel each other and would the group fly apart so that the volume of space they were in expanded? If that didn't happen with protons could it work with other quantum objects(I suppose I was thinking of quantum particles,with only one kind such as a proton for example ) As for why they might repel each other I don't know if they would** but don't like charges repel and don't protons carry a charge?) **my scientific education level is pretty low

Suppose we find a region in space without (or practically without) fields and we introduce a system of quantum objects which subsequently fly apart due to their mutual repulsion ( would protons behave like that?) Would the space between the objects that made up the system be "new space" and would there be a new gravitational field extending throughout it?