BS: GUEST: Dave

Subject: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jan 16 - 12:41 PM

with an avatar like Guest Dave you realize you have no address to send a PM. So...

There must be many alternative views on early cosmological inflation which do not agree with the recent South Pole Gravitational polarized wave telescopic data.

Here is one viewpoint in a language you may understand:


inflationary misconceptions


My interpretation shares much of this viewpoint but relies on a yet undiscovered aspect of space that can arrive at a common conclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,#
Date: 26 Jan 16 - 04:53 PM

"GUEST: Dave"

Dave's nothere.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 26 Jan 16 - 06:27 PM

He went for a beer

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,#
Date: 26 Jan 16 - 09:59 PM

Dave's not here.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 16 - 11:13 PM

notice how it was never Dave & Goliath ?
if it was, they'd have probably been good mates and drinking buddies.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 27 Jan 16 - 05:03 AM

Dave's trying to read up on some stuff before replying, that article derives somewhat (as it acknowledges) from a paper by Davis and Lineweaver. Now they are not without their critics, hence I need to do a fair bit of reading. As you may have guessed, I am not a cosmologist, still less a theoretical one, so this stuff isn't at my fingertips.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 27 Jan 16 - 09:13 AM

How was the beer my friend

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 27 Jan 16 - 09:41 AM

Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 27 Jan 16 - 10:09 AM

Don, the assumption of the article is that the universe will expand or contract in a linear manner. However it may be multi dimensional
Expansion of a degree that far exceeds our understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 27 Jan 16 - 11:26 AM

The distance will change but not light speed, like drawing a line to each edge of a flat paper, but if you bend it you are right there instead of transversing the entire length. Worm holes work that way in theory, moving distance not speed

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 27 Jan 16 - 11:30 AM

I don't think there is an outer edge of the universe but multiple universes with multiple dimensional properties each that are light squared

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Jan 16 - 05:13 PM

GUEST,Dave

---

(And best evidence shows Banbury, U.K.) NOT Acme

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 07:29 AM

Well...that's sorted that oot!!

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 08:53 AM

Banbury??? It has a cross,thats all I know about it.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 08:57 AM

the assumption of the article is that the universe will expand or contract in a linear manner.

There is no contraction, and the expansion is accelerating not linear so any such assumption is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,#
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 10:26 AM

Would someone please explain what 'in a linear manner' means?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 11:25 AM

We would my brother but then we would have to shoot you :)

Keith correct but the distance and speed regardless of acceration is assumed linear in this regard it doesn't account for the bending of time and space as we know appears around black holes. The universe is not linear but multiddimensional my assertion, distance speed and even time gets wacky out there

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,#
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 11:31 AM

SN 1604 would be a place to start then. We know when it happened and from that should be able to determine (on a smaller scale) what happens with expansion in space. How 'big' was it then and how big is it now would determine expansion rates, no?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 11:34 AM

When we talk the scale of a universe we cannot assume anything of a fixed nature as we preceive it. I am not talking planets or even galactic events, I am talking full scale universe

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,#
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 12:04 PM

OK then. So let's start with where the universe is right now and go back to when it started. If indeed light is a constant then we should be able to makes really good guesses/estimates about expansion rate, present size, etc. Or maybe light isn't the constant we think it is.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 01:52 PM

Nothing can move faster than light, but space can expand faster than light.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 02:11 PM

Then you are assuming a fixed space which it is not, correct nothing moves faster than light so to assume space expands faster, you have to assume a fixed space.. Ie linear.. It is far more complex

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,#
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 02:18 PM

"Nothing can move faster than light . . ."

Maybe. But that is different than determining just how constant it is. I suggest that light is a variable constant.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 02:26 PM

if you aim a torch at a brick wall, does it stop the light dead in it's tracks,
or do light particles continue on through the wall ?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 02:35 PM

One of the points of Davis and Lineweaver (and I think others before or since) is that many of the galaxies we observe in the distant universe are moving away from us at faster than the speed of light, and always have been.

There is quite a good semi-popular explanation of this here.

That blog links to the preprint of Davis and Lineweaver for those with time on their hands.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 02:39 PM

"if you aim a torch at a brick wall, does it stop the light dead in it's tracks,"

Most photons will be absorbed by the atoms and molecules in the wall and converted to heat. Some will be reflected, allowing you to see the wall. None will continue through the wall unless its a glass wall.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 02:43 PM

Damn.. so are we never going to get those X ray specs that look through bathroom walls.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 03:52 PM

X-ray photons have higher energy than visible photons, so can go through things that visible photons can't, like flesh. But you need a detector on the other side to detect them, such as a photographic emulsion or Charge Coupled Device. I wouldn't think they could easily go through a brick wall though. A plasterboard wall, maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 04:02 PM

Too many assumptions based on three dimensions in this debate when time as a dimension is even visibly apparent, let alone deduced.

The speed of light is not and since Nils Bohr pointed out 100 years ago ever had been a limit. The "luxon wall" had been denounced as irrelevant even before the phrase existed. It isn't at present possible to conceive MATTER having a displacement beyond it, but instantaneous electron spin "sympathy" has been demonstrated. In any event, matter is wave if quantum theory is to stand.

Linear? Logarithmic? Neither will do, too dimensionally limiting. Not my field as it happens. (My field was vibration) but close enough to see the flaw in mixing Newtonian with modern physics where you can't separate.

Does space expand? Semantics but space is by definition accommodating of need so why would you need to put a limit on it? Why would you need yo alter it when it is by definition variable? It only expands "faster than light" if your need becomes greater for whatever you are resolving hence it never altered in the first place...

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 04:14 PM

Exactly, my pet theory involves dimensional shift and I will figure out the math to state it eventually, I hope anyway so I can publish

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 04:21 PM

http://www.space.com/18811-multiple-universes-5-theories.html

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 07:18 AM

Does space expand?

Yes. The universe used to be much smaller, and the expansion can be faster than light.

The expansion is not linear, it is accelerating.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 07:55 AM

So if God is omnipresent and the Universe is expanding, does that mean it's because He is getting older and fatter ?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 08:13 AM

Lol maybe

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 11:29 AM

If there is a God, He is not subject to the confines of space and/or time.
The expansion and ageing of our universe would be an irrelevance to Him.

Do we need another thread discussing religion?
Really?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 11:53 AM

It was a joke, God has a sense of humor, he made me and a giraffe

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 12:13 PM

Keith - I asked the fat god question.. it was me.. [forgot to type name again]

Of course it was a joke.....

but.. in an age where physics and religion attempt to coexist

The "Fat God Theorem" does have a ring to it.... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 12:16 PM

He made Palin, Jones, Cleese, Chapman and Gilliam if he made anything at all. And they made Life of Brian. 😇

Methinks Keith is assuming space must contain matter in order to be space in the first place. If that is the case, then space isn't expanding or otherwise, it just is. It is displacement of matter that is in debate here, and matter of course cannot breach the luxon wall until or unless it is infinite. Good job it has duality wave /particle status then.

Keith is right. You cannot bring fantasy and superstition into a debate about reality.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,#
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 12:50 PM

Too many people just don't seem to comprehend the gravity of the situation ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 03:06 PM

Lol perfect Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 07:06 PM

High energy photons compared to low energy photons will out pace its counterpart by almost 3 seconds after traveling 5 billion years.

significant variability, I think not. The quantum lumpiness of space is more likely the cause.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 05:17 AM

Methinks Keith is assuming space must contain matter in order to be space in the first place.

Methinks you are wrong in assuming my assumption.
Matter occupies only a tiny proportion of space.

If that is the case, then space isn't expanding or otherwise,

Wrong again.
There is really no question that space is expanding. It is.

It is displacement of matter that is in debate here,
What displacement of matter?

matter of course cannot breach the luxon wall until or unless it is infinite.

I think we all know that matter can not be accelerated to light speed.
How can matter be infinite? What are you talking about?

Good job it has duality wave /particle status then.

It just does, and we all knew that too.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 06:53 AM

Donuel, Dr Robert Wagner, of the Max-Planck-Institut für Physik, München, found that there was up to a 5 second gap between low energy and high energy photons coming from an active galactic nucleus (Markarian 501) SEVEN billion light years away. This is not to say that this is definitive proof, as Dr Wagner notes "We cannot exclude, however, the possibility that the delay we find, which is significant beyond the 95% C.L., is due to some energy-dependent effect at the source."

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 09:23 AM

Keith you are correct . The variability of time it takes various photons in that measurement is most likely caused by the quantum effects of quantum "graininess"

A low E photon is like a 1 inch wheel rolling through space compared to a 20 inch wheel that gives a smoother more direct ride.

Old Dude, I agree with most, approaching all of what you say except cosmic green jello.
What annoys me about what you say is that you are saying many of the same things I am saying BUT you say it in an opposite way I would say it.
Its as if you describe the mirror versions of certain ideas I endorse.

It is possible I am the mirror and your choice of words like distance are more straight forward.

What holds space in check is another kind of space force not discussed in today's physics.
What holds matter in check/balance are forces of both mass and force particles.

Both space forces interact with mass and mass interacts with space on a space time basis.

It is my contention that space is reacting to the ever growing acceleration of the number of black hole formations.

We have a measurement of the accumulation of more black holes over the last 7 billion years compared to the early 1st 7 billion years.

Inside black holes is one hell of a lot collapsed space and not just mass. But it is kind of space that is not just the distance kind of space we find it easy to think about. It is a kind of anti space That is adjacent to all points in space and does not have a distance dimension attached to it.

This the kind of space in which atoms can be entangled.

Even Black Holes can be entangled! This is why black holes are for all purposes just an elementary particle.

Some of the above ideas are exactly what is difficult, from my perspective, for other people to understand.
Maybe it may become clear to more people but finding evidence for anti space is what I have a hard time proving. That is my quandary.

I can describe anti space by what it is not but that is not scientific.
It is not an anti de sitter space that serves as a canvas to make certain interactions more clear. Rather it is a space that does spooky things compared to the space normally associated with distance.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 09:46 AM

Don, agree

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 09:47 AM

We are on same page

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 10:45 AM

How spooky is anti space?

It is so spooky it caused inflation which is the event that expanded the early universe from the size of a dime to a finite but gargantuan universe that allowed enough cooling to form atoms and eventually the stage for the next bang of matter and anti matter.

Other theories of inflation create complex ideas of a one time only existence of anti gravity or gravity waves before bosons even existed.

So how did anti space help make the universe?

The early big bang could have had a re-collapse of space and a re- explosion creating enough cooling for matter to form and enough space for the universe to evolve.

Once again a more simple big picture view with the existence of anti space works better than many of the theories that have tried and failed to make the big bang work, even after millions of dollars of grant money.

If a predictive math can prove the existence of anti space and its effect it has on both distance dimension space and matter we would have an advantage to explain many of the conflicts modern physics has had problems unifying.

Contributions are welcomed by many different people each with different disciplines be it history, sci fi, artists, astro physicists and others. Understanding can not only come from the top down. Sometimes a takes a very simple idea.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 11:05 AM

Keith, do you have a reference for that paper? This is all done with MAGIC (name of a telescope) and they write many papers, each with between 140 and 250 authors, listed in alphabetical order. Robert Wagner is on most of them.

I can find a paper by W. Bednerek and R.M. Wagner proposing a synchrotron self-Compton model for explaining the time delay between the arrival of low energy photons and high energy photons.

The thing though Donuel is that its the lower energy photons which arrive first, thats the observation and the theory.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 11:20 AM

You know I suspected I had it backwards the whole time, but time is limited to double check. For this mistake I do not blame dyslexia but instead plain ol sloppiness with a side dish of stupidity.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 11:33 AM

Listening in to discussions among Keith, Dave and others is an enjoyable educational opportunity.

Do you folks agree that current inflationary theories are grossly lacking substantive proof despite Nobel prizes or initial praise?