Mordred

Lol then they complain when it comes to the math. Which is a primary factor. It takes considerable skill to dummy down any physics to the average layman. Particularly when the average layman doesn't know the rudimentary definitions. Good examples being mass, energy, dimension, degree of freedom, symmetry etc.

No one can give you a formula with the detail you have provided. Gamma ray bursts rely on the system that generates the burst.

I would recommend you start with the standard hardness tests. At a glance it looks like quartz which has a hardness of seven (Sufficient to scratch aluminum). Secondly a diamond isn't magnetic neither is quartz so you must have ferrous metal impurities in order to be magnetic and none of the minerals I mentioned float. However if your hardness is 9 then you could have a chunk of corundum which can often have ferrous metals. They also vary greatly in color due to its impurities.

You might want to include a link to the paper. Here is the Arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.00146

! Moderator Note I can readily handle this request for the move. Make sure you review the Speculation forum requirements

The uncertainty principle will always remain one can only minimize the measurement interaction to reduce but never eliminate this. As to the second part, some people are wrong. They are not applying the term dimension in accordance to physics definition.

This statement needs addressing as it gives one of the most common misconceptions in GR. The fabric is a term that was used merely as a descriptive for the average person to visualize curvature. It doesn't describe some hidden or mysterious matter like substance. When one describes spacetime curvature one is describing the geodesic path between two positions. The geodesic is affected by the mass term (resistance to acceleration) of all other matter and force fields in a given region. The coupling constants of each field contribute to mass. However a field is a geometric descriptive of values or other mathematical objects. This is described via the Principle of least action (Langrangian). So do not think of spacetime fabric as some medium. That would be incorrect.

Somehow I don't want to know. 😖

One of the earliest treatments of false vacuum I recall was by Sydney Coleman back in 1977. Here is his paper read how he describes false vacuum in his opening paragraph. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/ph564/Coleman.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjOq4TO9-boAhUKpp4KHTpVBf0QFjADegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2C_EEYqv4zbu9jrXvoXGk1 Note he specifies that false vaccum is the higher energy density of the two stable vacuum states. Secondly note he also refers to the word decay. False vacuum has been applied throughput cosmology with regards to symmetry breaking such as the electroweak symmetry break. It's also used with Higgs field seesaw mechanism. These events have occurred in the early universe and we are still here.

You have no idea what it means I am a professional Cosmologist telling you what it means.

Allen Guth false vacuum was the original inflation model. That occurred when the universe first entered inflation. False vacuum simply describes a higher energy density state.

No that is not what false vacuum means in cosmology. You are 100 percent wrong on that. No prob I calculated z= 10 above for light travel time using Planck dataset values

You should really learn how to use the Z distance scale in these papers. Take Z=10 which is one of the papers low values. How long ago does that describe ? Answer 13.243 Billion years ago.

Do you have comprehension of the time scale difference between the entire human history and cosmological timescales ? The entire human history is nothing compared to the timescales in cosmological time. This happened a few billion years before our planet even existed.

Of course false vacuum simply describes a higher density state than that measured today. Ie a higher pressure. One day you will actually take the time to study a paper and learn what the terms mean. The origin of the term false vacuum was Allen Guths false vacuum inflation

Unfortunately you really don't understand what's involved in the term vacuum... Any change in pressure is a change in vacuum. That happens without resulting in the universes end etc.

You really do not understand cosmological time. You could have a million lifetimes and it will be recent in cosmological time. Lol more recent than what this paper describes.

Pretend isn't applicable. I never assume anyone understands basic physics until they show otherwise.

He is trying to get you to apply the mathematics involved in Newtons three laws. In other words start applying calculations.

It's random locations from what I could gather from the article. Keep in mind they are examining old images from the 50's. They do mention the possibility of scratches being one cause. Ie some of the supposed stars may not have existed. Ideally I hope they get other image samples from the same Era and run comparisons.

I have studied string and M theory and I do not recall any DE or DM explanation specific to the two theories. Though I would not doubt one can find papers that attempt to do so in those theories. As above a dimension is an independent mathematical object such as a variable/group/tensor etc. DM and DE do not require extra dimensions to model them.

The code is meaningless unless you post the mathematical code that regulates it. The last code link didn't provide that detail.

With this comment I agree with. At the OP. Cosmology does take a learning curve. This forum will offer direction regardless of how foolish the question. Provided your goal is to learn rather than assert. The work naturally will depend on your dedication. Glad to see you haven't asserted anything in this thread thus far. Let's me know how you make out in each link I provided. (Lol it is a substantial amount of detail to properly grasp)

Really then why would you assume redshift affects the speed of light ? Redshift directly affects the wavelength which also affects the frequency. You cannot state redshift causes light to propogate at less than c while stating all frequencies of light propogate at c. If you agree with what you stated in your quote which is correct then you cannot claim redshift or blueshift affects the speed of light.

Yes I attended University of Caribou. Though I also attended UBC. The university of Caribou provided the preliminaries I needed. Lol the telescope at Caribou was roughly the same size used by Hubble lol. Couldn't get all the courses I needed at one university so had to attend several.