geordief

Can I deduce from (my bolded in your quote) that the maximum speed (of information transfer et al) during the proposed inflationary period would have been c?

https://youtu.be/IobNcpiwpSc

Agreed,but I have probably gone well off topic now.

When I said I was nitpicking I didn't say you could nitpick my nit

Yes ,I meant any speed (but the fastest speeds occur in a vacuum and with massless objects) I have also seen it described as the cosmic speed limit and again it seemed to me helpful to also say "in a vacuum" since any other medium would only permit lower speeds. So I was just asking whether the maximum possible speed (neglecting the speed of expansion) also implies a maximum "speed of causality" since causality depends on the transmission of a signal or the transit of a particle or radiation. Hope I am clear?

Am I nitpicking to ask what is the difference between the maximum speed of causality and the maximum speed in a vacuum? Does the latter not imply the former?

To be fair ,I would never consume anything in any of Donald Trump's kitchens.

If you are successful in exposing this gap in our scientific knowledge you will become famous and also be in high demand as a TV cookery guru. I suggest approaching Nigella Lawson or Heston Blumenthal for a spot on one of their shows to begin with. Have you tried humming to dishes with honey in them?The bees are God's imps.

Can I be nosey and ask for an example or two?

I don't know (a bit out of my depth) So is the speed of em radiation a vacuum just a function of the ratio of space to time ? (could it be the other way round?)

Is the configuration of the gravitational field dependent on anything comparable to the electric and magnetic permittivity of the vacuum? Changes in gravitational fields propagate at c ,which is a function of those values so is there any connection there? Does the second of those two phenomena explain the first? Ie does the simple requirement that the field be continuous mean that the field can be modeled as acting on itself?

If we have an object like a black hole standing in more or less isolation how does it work that the spacetime is curved by it at a distance? I understand that it curves spacetime in its immediate vicinity but the effect continues at a distance from the object. Is this perhaps an example of gravitation being itself a source of gravity?

That was quick

Yes I should have written "retrospectively explains" I am in no position to either question or accept the validity of Inflation,of course

To gain the general acceptance which I assumed it had, the Inflation model must have made some (or an) experimentally confirmed prediction(s). Was it the observed homogeneity of today that has made it the leading theory?

So btw the "singularity" and the supposed beginning of Inflation there is a gap of T^-43 seconds that we know nothing of? And we have no idea what might have been going in during Inflation apart from the extreme stretching of distances in a very short time? (viewed from another frame of reference?)

What does the oft repeated T^-43 seconds refer to ? From when Inflation started?(I always thought it was the start of BB) Was ,perhaps the duration of Inflation too short for any processes to occur?

Were there any processes occurring in the Inflation epoque ? If there were ,was there a maximum speed limit different to c? I am guessing that there were no processes we know of and ,if there were the speed limit would have been c. btw ,did the Inflationary period precede the BB or (as I think ) come after it?

I just meant that more time had passed/was passing and that the total amount of time "accrued" had increased and was still increasing. As I suggested ,even if the universe was contracting spatially there is a sense that time would be increasing -or can one not separate the spatial from the temporal even under those hypothetical conditions(the boomerang universe)? I don't know what the Robinson-Walker metric is.

In the sense that the question has often been asked or implied..in this thread actually if I am not mistaken No,in my own mind I was thinking about an "edge" rather than any demarcation btw the "inside" and the "outside". The universe is expanding (even if it was spatially contracting it would be expanding in time wouldn't it?) So I just had the thought that each moment was the end product of a line of preceding events and could be seen as the "tip"of the universe's expansion at that point in time and space. If we join all the dots we get a "surface "( not synchronistic) representing the leading "edge" of the universe as a whole. Totally impractical to join those dots .... except as a thought.

What about my question then?If we are looking for something kind of a "boundary" for the universe can we define it as any point of time and space that is evolving? ie me here typing this post and/or DT shitting on his gold toilet bowl or whatever his up-till-then final action happens to be. Could that be called a boundary (that is everywhere)?

You haven't heard this said? Along the lines of (eg in a tv documentary)"Where did the Big Bang take place?It happened everywhere It took place where you are sitting. It took place on the Moon It took place everywhere .There is no one place where it occurred" I have heard this said many times.Perhaps "explanation" is the wrong description.How else to describe it? It is not wrong is it?

Can I think of the place and time where I happen to be now as the boundary of the universe in the same way as I heard it explained that the Big Bang took place at every point?

What about staleness?Does that kick in just the same as with filtered coffee? You just make as much as you need at the time?

I read that you had to remove the membrane from the shell and so I gave up on that No need? Any good warmed up?