beecee

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    3401
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

beecee last won the day on June 3

beecee had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

503 Glorious Leader

2 Followers

About beecee

  • Rank
    Scientist
  • Birthday 07/18/1944

Profile Information

  • Location
    Maroubra Sydney
  • Interests
    cosmology, Astronomy, general science
  • Favorite Area of Science
    cosmology
  • Occupation
    retired maintenance Fitter and Machinist

Recent Profile Visitors

11413 profile views
  1. Hmmm, The aspect of the "superforce" was taught to me by a young relativist on a now defunct forum. Also in a book I once read entitled "Superforce"many moons ago, the author from memory Paul Davies? I would say without too much doubt, that you would know more of the gory details then I. I did find the following useful anyway https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html and this.... https://web.njit.edu/~gary/202/Lecture26.html Eras of the Big Bang
  2. And as things get hotter the further we go back, the nature of matter changes....eg: 380,000 years after the BB, matter only existed as Plasma, until temperatures had sufficiently dropped to allow electrons to couple with atomic nuclei to form our first elements of Hydrogen and Helium....3 minutes after the BB, temperatures and pressures were such that quarks started to combine to form protons and neutrons which eventually coupled to form atomic nuclei...at t+10-43 seconds the four known forces existed as one superforce, until conditions were such at t+10-35 seconds, that the superforce started to decouple resulting in false vacuums and phase transitions, with the excesses of energy going into creating our first fundamental particles of electrons and quarks.
  3. The BB is a theory of how our "observable" universe evolved from a hotter, denser state, to the conditions we see today. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html "The Universe was not concentrated into a point at the time of the Big Bang. But the observable Universe was concentrated into a point. The distinction between the whole Universe and the part of it that we can see is important" more at link.....
  4. Change [of distance] occurs in time. Time is not specifically a result of change. imho.
  5. Your beliefs are neither here nor there. Science tells us that at this time, we simply cannot say with any certainty, whether the universe/spacetime is finite or infinite. You should also note that at one time, space and time were seen as "absolute" and it was counter intuitive [anti logic] to claim otherwise. We know better now.
  6. All potential theoretical models will be challenged. That's part and parcel of the scientific method. If you did what you claim [completed it] it would be accepted by mainstream. Unless of course you are one of the hundreds of claims by "would be's if they could be's" that mainstream scientists are just simply too stagnated and recalcitrant in their thinking. I don't accept that and simply apply the scientific method in that all potential theories must run the gauntlet, to gain acceptance as an incumbent model. Not sure about that description. I see the ever increasing expansion rate over large scales, with spidery web like structures forming under gravitational attraction, increasing the voids in between the spider web like structures. Not really, but it appears you have answered it in your claim you are trying to complete GR. Albert also spent the greater part of his life looking for a "unified field theory"
  7. If the expansion is overcome by mass/energy densities and gravity, then it cannot occur.
  8. No, it is right and for the reasons stated in the post just above yours. Gravity due to heavy matter/energy densities regions, literally overcome the expansion, including BH's.eg: again as per Andromeda and our local group and even far beyond.
  9. Yep, along with many other alternative hypotheticals that all will simply fade into oblivion. You had the last word??? So this is simply a game to you? Yep, you have done OK, but what was your objective? Overthrowing GR? Sorry, many try, and many fail, thus far. All the best. When I wake up in the morning and find you have overthrown GR, I'll give you my own Nobel!
  10. Space and time in many aspects are interchangeable. The faster you move through space, the slower you move through time. And of course as from Einstein and relativity, his teacher modified as follows....."The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."— Hermann Minkowski Another point you touched on with some truth in it, is that the expansion of spacetime and the universe, is only apparent over large scales: Over smaller galactic and galactic group scales, the ensuing gravity, sees those regions decoupled from the overall expansion. eg: M31 [Andromeda] and galaxies in our local group and beyond, are gravitationally bound to the Milky Way and will, one day in the future, merge with us.
  11. Simple; Place holders for what exactly we are not sure of or ignorant of. The majority of cosmologists today reject the singularity as defined by infinite spacetime curvature and density, rather just the acceptance of a singularity as defined by where our theories break down or are not applicable. Obviously wrong...we have some answers, and no answers as yet to other scenarios like DE and DM, with regards to the true nature of. ??? Who ever said GR was complete? It is a theory that reigns supreme within its known zones of applicability, and being a classical theory, is non applicable at the quantum/Planck level. Not as far as I can see. But I'll check the scientific outlets in the morning, and review whether your claims have been accepted or not again. No, we are looking at one hypothetical interpretation, among many many interpretations and models, and that will in time be lost in cyber space, never to be heard of again. Plus of course if all that you claim was valid, you would not just be pushing it here: You would be out making a name for yourself and preparing for possible Nobel prize nominations.
  12. Or perhaps you are simply fooling yourself? You know, every Mother, believes her baby to be the cutest. And of course most theories accepted by mainstream, all at one time were simply hypothetical and speculative....It took weight of observational and experimental evidence to prompt mainstream into accepting such models.
  13. I repeat..... Of course all possibilities need to be considered, but just as obviously the overwhelmingly likelyhood that measurement methodologies, and aging processes methods and entailed precisions, appear to be the problem, and that is shown by the fact that the so called "discrepancy" is continually being diminished as already shown. As shown in earlier posts, what seems to be amiss, is most probably simply a result of inaccuracies, error bars, and lack of precision...all of which are continued to be refined, resulting in what seems to be amiss, to be ever increasingly less and less amiss.
  14. Of course all possibilities need to be considered, but just as obviously the overwhelmingly likelyhood that measurement methodologies, and aging processes methods and entailed precisions, appear to be the problem, shown of course by the fact that the so called "discrepancy" is continually being diminished as already shown. Great stuff! And coupled with the SKA, LISA, and the JWST, the future would appear to be quite exciting.