Mordred

The FLRW metric is often described using the symbol \(\chi\). It occurred to me that many of our viewers would not recognize this angle. The metric can be expressed as a 3d hypersphere for its spatial part \[dl^2=R^2(d\chi^2+sin^2\chi d\phi^2\] the 3d hyper sphere is an embedding in 4d space using (x,y,z,w) in the following manner below For some reason trying to insert images messes up latex instructions in the above but in this case its still readable. anyways the above is from the following reference https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/astr3740_14/flrw.pdf see section 10.1 I am considering adding this diagram to the pinned threads above for easy reference. Thoughts ?

Forgot to add the velocity equation \[v(t)=\frac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}d(t)=H(t)d(t)=H_0d(t)\]

Velocity in cosmology via the FLRW metric is to a commoving observer which in essence is tying that observer to the scale factor a(t) for proper velocity as opposed to peculiar velocity such as from an observer on Earth measuring the cosmological event horizon which is based on Hubbles law v=HD. Hope that helps.

R2D2 8 track cassette player. https://www.ebay.ca/itm/264286734720 Though the one I owned being much earlier

Yes research agrees with this Maria if I recall is due to asteroid collisions evident of its impact characteristics however those impacts could be the result of debris returning home as you put it. If I recall the studies also show that the lunar crust is thinner on one side than the other which if I recall it's thicker on the Maria side. You might want to look into that detail as it's a piece of evidence in regards to which side struck the Earth. Edit forgot to add tidal locking isn't a result of impacts but a result of gravitational influence between the moon and Earth. All orbiting bodies gradually become tidal locked unless they are gaining momentum via other influences such as impacts. This statement is incorrect see above.

I'm not the one giving negative rep points. I never do regardless of what I think of the post quality or of the posters attitude. I found that pointless long ago. I only hand out positive rep points. Never negative. Does nothing to alter my view of a posters mannerism or post quality. So take the advise or not. Matters not to me. However one of the rules you agreed to for membership is civility. Too many uncivil posts will eventually lead to account banning but that's your choice. Makes no difference to me

As expansion allows electroweak symmetry breaking to occur in that manner it's accurate that includes cosmological redshift however one must also recognize that cosmological redshift affects how we measure the kinetic energy in the same manner as it effects how we measure its mass term. However the particle itself has an invariant mass and kinetic energy term (momentum) which defines the particle. (If either changes its no longer the same particle type) One must take into account observer effects as per GR when measuring either quantity. So it's likely Swansont was describing observer effects due to expansion

Your welcome reputation points are always an indication of post quality. Usually one receives positive votes by stating something informative and well mannered.

That's fine I recall the reply GR can be applied to MOND even though MOND modifies f=ma. The change simply needs to carry over when you run calculations using GR. In essence it's own class of GR solution. For the record I would not be surprised if there isn't a paper out on how to use GR with MOND. Rather in this case I would expect there would be.

Yeah I'm sure that's what it is. The manner of your posts couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. Yes that's sarcasm Maybe improving the quality of your posts and less attitude might actually solve the problem?

No expansion doesn't affect a particles momentum terms. The relic neutrinos need to be slow (cold/non relativistic) to begin with. Edit rather slow once they acquire mass from electroweak symmetry breaking.

Could be I was hoping for something more profound or a stronger argument. However that's your choice of course. There's nothing new to relying on how we interpret our senses.

Your opening post describes something every one is aware of to begin with. Everyone knows our senses do not define reality but only how we interpret stimuli. If your goal is to develop a good strong argument why this is the case then it's good advise to include the science behind it as well. The later parts of equating that to sound in the woods however needs improvement. One can simply state both sound and light are simply labels we apply to how we interpret stimuli. Obviously experimental apparatus allow us the ability not to rely strictly on our senses. This is a science forum however so making corrections in regards to science should be expected. That includes encouraging the inclusion of science. For example I could argue that particles do not exist and support that argument under QFT in doing so further argue that every method of describing reality is invariably an interpretation whether it's our senses, experimental apparatus etc. That however boils down to how does one define reality.

The only person that seemed to believe science described photons reaching the brain is yourself. No one else had that misconception. So you should congratulate yourself for finally recognizing that science never described photons reaching the brain to begin with. You haven't taught anyone of any misconception except yourself if you believed science ever described photons reaching to brain.

Whatever made you believe any science claimed photons reached the brain ? Sounds to me you don't know what science actually describes

Then why is everyone able to point out valid arguments against your conjecture which you promptly ignore? Dark for example is nothing more than the absence of light. How your brain interprets light involves the receptors in your eyes which gets converted into electrochemical signals as per the neuron link included by KJW. Plants undergo different processes as they do not visually see light. That does nothing to alter what light is. It merely alters the stimuli responses. It doesn't make one ounce of difference in the nature of light how something interacts with light does nothing to alter what light is itself.

Let me know when and if you wish to include any real science. You obviously choose to ignore any actual science based arguments.

What about MRI studies directly related to how your brain registers signals from your eyes ? Are you telling me that isn't an experiment directly involved ?

Ah so just because I studied the mathematics sufficient to recieve degrees in physics I get accused of parroting physics textbooks ? Is that how that works ? You have no idea how often that accusation occurs for the record. Have you ever considered that understanding physics requires one to look beyond the textbooks themselves? How is knowing those formulas somehow equate to not thinking for myself ? What makes you believe philosophical arguments is the only valid "thinking for oneself " method is erroneous

No the textbooks discuss actual physics which none of your posts actually do. Real physics requires the mathematics to make predictions of cause and effect. Interpretations involve how to interpret those formulas and research studies. However one can arbitrarily ignore Any interpretation and stick to the hard complicated physics. No interpretation I am aware of ever changes the results of any experiment.

So nothing more profound than how signals are interpreted as opposed to any real science got it. Why not incorporate both ? Why is nearly every metaphysics argument I ever come across so diligent in avoiding the actual physics beats me.

No one telling you photons is light. Light is composed of a large multiparticle collection of photons. Light nor energy of any form exists on its own. As per QED. If you believe light does not include photons your incorrect

Those are some rather lousy articles with regards to CPT which the time symmetry is well known. They are rather misleading. Typical pop media coverage but the articles aren't much better in my opinion. Really all that's happening is photons have two polarizations left and right polarizations.

Oh I have been following the thread just haven't anything to contribute at the moment lol.

Please keep in mind the experiment has also been performed by quantum dot detectors/emitter.