swansont

But the CMB photons came from the so-called recombination epoch, where the photons reached thermal equilibrium, and the redshift is a thermal effect from expansion. But there must be some way, in principle, to get experimental confirmation. Not being able to do it yet is not the same as not being able to do it at all.

No, I want evidence - actual evidence - that photons didn’t exist in the early universe. Using your conjecture as evidence is circular reasoning The redshift argument is based on the thermodynamics of expansion, but recombination is not accounted for here - it would be like extrapolating a temperature of H2O across either or both phase transitions.

No. I’m not sure why this isn’t registering: material for discussion must be posted. You can’t just point us to a link or an uploaded file.

But if they’re massless particles they must move at the speed of light. I’m losing patience with the way you continue to ignore our rules regarding relying on links And I asked you what evidence there is to support the notion that photons didn’t exist. Repeating yourself isn’t evidence. And backtracing the CMB to before the so-called recombination era is somewhat misguided.

You didn’t answer my question. Just repeated yourself. Assertion is not evidence. You said it’s matter, but it’s secret matter? Can’t say what it’s made of? What properties does it have - angular momentum, mass, etc.? What happens to it when the field disappears? Where does it come from when a field is created? So fields don’t start or end on charges? Maxwell’s equations are wrong? You’re not the first person to claim this nonsense. Plenty of science can be understood without philosophy, and we can imagine impossible things. There are plenty of crackpots who think perpetual motion can be achieved, as just one example.

Moderator NoteA post was hidden by the board software as possible spam (so, good news: the software is doing something!) and being evaluated I’m not sure of the settings, so I don’t know if it was because of the number of links, because some links were repeated, or because some were embedded in the text (we don’t like it when people do that — we’d rather see where a link is going to take us) or some admixture of the three. Coming from a new member is part of the equation, AFAICT

We’re a discussion board, not your blog. Was there something you wanted to actually discuss?

Yes, this is based on first-semester physics and high-school geometry. As far as trajectories go, we’ve landed a probe on an asteroid. The skills exist. This is a discussion board — was there something you wanted to discuss?

Degrees and radians are not units. They’re more like a convention of how you are dividing a circle — into 360 pieces or 2pi pieces — and are marking which one you’re using.

Same logic applies to 1 being the ratio of the length of one side of a square to another. It’s a property of a square, just like pi is a property of a circle. Pythagoras gives us relationships for a right triangle. It’s a tautology, not magic. If you had varying properties they wouldn’t be these shapes (at least in a Cartesian system) Rules say you need to post material for discussion here. Not via links or uploaded files.

Yes, you’ve made my point. (though your proposal says energy density, so the details might be different) Your scenario can only be realized very, very early in the universe. I didn’t mention photons; you brought that up, but how would you show experimentally that photons didn’t exist? I asked about what happens after spacetime is created? Why aren’t things attracted to these massive particles?

I’m not sure it would be considered heat loss anyway; you’re converting thermal energy into the mass energy of the chortons. It’s more like a phase transition. What about after?

How does the energy and matter interact with the chorton field? Your math isn’t rendering, so it’s not really helpful.

How? Where does the angular momentum come from for these spin-2 particles? Yes. You’re forming these chortons which have energy, so for each one there must be a discrete drop in available energy in the field, so the temperature must decrease.

Crucial as in we require it. Indeed. And you provide no experiment to compare it with, so there’s no way to falsify it.

Presumably one could correlate the energy density with a temperature and see when this could have happened. But if you’re forming chortons with this energy, shouldn’t the temperature rapidly drop, since that energy is no longer available to whatever field is creating the chortons? If they were created right after the Big Bang, there are a finite number of them. How does gravity get rearranged under that scenario? The gravity in some region of space will change as galaxies coalesced and stars formed

Moderator NoteThat’s contrary to how this site operates. This is a discussion forum, and the rules say material for discussion must be posted here. So your focus should be distilling the issue to the point where people can understand the situation and the implications of inaction. Much like with many other issues.

You’ve not answered where these conditions exist. Under what circumstances do we have 10^115 J/m^3?

Then show how your conjecture conserves energy and give us testable predictions that it makes. Evidence that supports it. Last chance.

So the length of travel from earth to the moon, or some distant galaxy, is made of matter? No by any definition matter I’m familiar with. What particles comprise an electric field? Sort of true. (any moving charge gives you a magnetic field) But there is a field in regions where there are no charges. Which means that the other stuff isn’t necessary, and possibly modifies the effect in question. But it doesn’t matter what philosophy you adopt; nature behaves the way it does regardless of that.

These can, and should, be quantified, because otherwise this is just trying to sell us a monorail. Fracking is pressurizing with liquids, which is a different proposition. Especially considering that you are doing the opposite of trying to make a sealed environment.

And what prevents them from being detected? Also, saying nobody has proposed some explanation discounts the likely scenario where it was thought of and almost immediately discarded because it was flawed, so it never got exposure.

There may be a time or post limit on that. The details seem to change whenever the board software gets updated.

Sling and slingshot are distinct weapons. David used a sling in the story (at least the version I read)

Not sure what the alleged connection is.