MigL

I guess that's a good thing. Reduces hydraulic systems fires.

How about... A map is a two dimensional representation of the three dimensional spherical world. So, just as you might see the Eastern part of Siberia west of Alaska at the far left hand side of the map, while the rest of western Siberia is on the far right side of the map, the implication is that the surface is unbounded. IOW, travelling in the outward direction off one side of the map, brings you to the other side of the map, just as on the real spherical world. Local curvature is caused by the local accumulation of mass-energy ( momentum ), and give rise to 'dimples' on the two dimensional representation of space-time. Global curvature is caused by the total mass-energy of the universe ( including dark matter and dark energy ); if above a threshold value, then there is enough gravity to curve the universe back on itself ( positive curvature ), and parallel lines will converge and meet at some point. At the threshold value the universe is flat, and below the threshold value curvature is negative, and in neither case do parallel lines converge, so the universe is open and infinite

Better insulation ?

Ha ! I've met some magicians; I wasn't that that impressed .

Time is carried by the electromagnetic force ?? Time is an electromagnetic force ???? Makes one wonder how nuclear events can happen as thy are not governed by electromagnetism. And neither is falling off your chair due to gravity. I guess those things simply don't happen in your reality; they do in ours This is not the rigor Phi asked for.

The graphics INow posted on Jul26 are 2D reductions of 4D space-time. ( in 4D those three graphics would be expanding in size also as time passes ) The 'observable' universe for a 'flatlander' living in one of those three universes, would be a circle, NOT a sphere. The curvature depicted by those graphics is 'global' curvature, NOT 'local' as you would have in the neighbourhood of planets, stars, galaxies or even clusters. Homogeneity/isotropy means the same and in all directions; if it changes outside the observable universe then it can't be homogeneous and isotropic. But as Stringy says, why would it ?

The only inflationary models that make sense to me ( as there are quite a few ), are the ones that happen at about 10^-35 sec, long ( relatively ) after the Planck era. Previous to this the universe was precariously balanced on a false zero vacuum energy. This unstable state resulted in a symmetry break ( electroweak ) and subsequent slow ( again relatively ) roll down to an actual ( ? ) zero vacuum energy. This energy difference provided for the exponential inflation of the universe until 10^-32 sec and gave mass to fermions through the Higgs mechanism. Prior to this inflationary period the Universe was radiation dominated, IOW all particles were massless, but not just virtual, there were real particles also. So you call it the inflaton field, I call it a vacuum energy step ( Mordred used to call it Mexican hat potential ), and so I have no problem with the vacuum potential being quantized ( as it is in the present era ). We may actually still be in a very, very slow roll, and that would explain Dark Energy that drives accelerated expansion.

You might not like it, but if you are comfortable with GR, and consider space-time geometry, the 'field', which we call the gravitational field, then, quantizing gravity implies quantizing that field to get a quantum field theory. IOW, quantizing the space-time geometry by making it discrete. What did you think would be quantized in a quantum field theory of gravity ?

I am going to assume that by 0th dimension, he actually means a 1 dimensional manifold ( or universe ). Then,first, 2nd and 3rd, would be 2, 3 and four dimensional manifolds ( or universes ) People who don't understand the mathematical ( or physical ) meaning of dimension usually incorrectly associate the term with alternate realities. but according to his chart, the 0th dimension ( he has also called it first ) is time. Maybe we should ask him what time is, as it a question that has perplexed us for some time !

I think we had better first define a common meaning of "nothing'. One example has already suggested by joigus, Studiot and Eise. Classically, an absence of particles could be considered 'nothing', as a field is just a value at each point in space. But quantization tells us that that field will have excitations which are virtual if less than a quantum of action, and real if more. IOW, with QM, a field is more than just values at different points, but gives rise to virtual or real particles; and is definitely not 'nothing'. Now, I like the idea that there is no background stage ( absolute frame ? ) on which events unfold, and lean towards the concepts espoused by GR and LQG; there is no 'background stage', it is all fields on fields ( even space-time is a geometric field ). So the concept of 'absolute nothingness' becomes meaningless once QM is accounted for, as it can never exist.

Makes you wonder how bees and ants evolved, to both co-operate and compete. And they've been around far longer than we have. ( is co-operation just another way to compete ? ) I'm also wondering where you get your definition for 'best', Airbrush. Your definition seems to involve a lot of 'reading between the lines' and personal perception. I do agree with Ten oz, Melania, or whoever wrote her speech, didn't give it as much thought as you seem to think. It's just a fittingly vapid, but catchy, phrase, like many other pre-election slogans. ( and it seems to be working; keeping people from discussing important issues )

What layer ? The surface of the sphere is space-time, albeit reduced to only two dimensions. The positive curvature is intrinsic, so you CANNOT end up in 'other layers' as there is no inside or outside of that surface. Feel free to ask questions if still not understood.

For simple to understand and easy to read sources, you can't beat the original. The Inflationary Universe, Alan Guth, 1997

They close a lot of your threads for a reason. Fusion reactors, if we had a working one, which we don't, need pressure to operate. The only energy producing fusion reactions we have, are uncontrolled ( bombs ), and containment to generate pressure is impossibly hard. You are trying to use a large amount of localized energy to 'bend' light. The first time this was observed, as verification of GR, was by A Eddington in 1919. GR predicts an approximate angular deflection dA = 4G*M/R*c^2 where R is the Sun's radius and M is the Sun's mass ( for the 1919 eclipse observations ) and, sure enough, the observations confirmed this ( twice that predicted by Newtonian gravity ) So, to find how much energy you need to localize in a given radius,R, to get a specific angular deviation in the path of tangential light, simply make the substitution for M = E/c^2 and make sure to mind your units.

Are you asking people to check your math, or your idea ? E=mc^2 is the equivalent energy of an amount of mass, m, as measured in its rest frame. What does this non-sensical calculation of ionization energies have to do with mass-energy equivalence ??? At best it is a measure of the binding energy of electrons to their nucleus. That is, assuming the math is correct.

No, not really "The Shadows believed that strength and growth came through conflict, and so they would start wars throughout the galaxy with the notion that those who survived would be stronger and better." ( from the Babylon Project ) The only 'conflict' I believe in, is a good argument to pass the time. Phi, and some others, often oblige me. ( I hope I do the same for them ) There are also the occasional 'bad' arguments, usually provided by 'cranks'.

OK, not all competition can be arguably compared to bullying. ( … putting aside my wide brush ... ) Getting back to the OP, when M Trump says "Be best", it implies be the best YOU can be. It says nothing about dominating or belittling others or their accomplishments. It was at this point that Airbrush said, yesterday at 1:14 pm "By calling it "Be Best" it sounds like you should try to be the best ONE in your pond, which implies one should be competitive. How does that stop bullying?" Seems to me he's the one using the 'wide brush' and calling ALL competition = bullying, and you posted some examples where it does. My posts have been simply pointing out that NOT ALL competition = bullying, and I posted some examples where competition actually works best. I'll be glad to explain again, if you're still confused.

Division by zero is definitely undefined, and although you might think that faster than ight tachyonic motion might have some possibilities, it does create more problems than solutions. Even re-interpreting causalty breaking, FtL, time reversed motion from source to target as forward time motion from target to source has itsproblems. The Lorentz invariant energy solution does however, lead to a negative root, and imaginary mass quantum fields. Tachyonic filds have become important in modern theoretical physics. The negative mass is interpreted as instability to condensation of the field,and excitations of the field ( particles ) are not tachyonic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon_condensation It is also used in the standard model, with associated symmetry breaks, and have read the Higgs boson field has an imaginary mass in its uncondensed phase

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say, Phi. but i'm not ready to view competition as the great evil you want to make it out to be. As John and Endy have said, there are no absolutes; this is simply a matter of viewing a glass as half full or half empty. Yes, competition, if driven by the wrong goal, can lead to conflict ( and bullying ), but the right goal will lead to making all of us better. The competition with the USSR ( cold war ) spurred all sciences and technologies in the US to co-operate towards a common goal. That of putting a man on the moon before the end of the decade ( 60s ). As of late, the US and Russia have co-operated on a number of space related missions, from using a common launcher, to space stations. But nothing very ambitious has been accomplished ( remember the promised Mars missions before the turn of the century ? ). The will, and the funding, are much reduced, since the middle 70s, without competition pushing technological advancement. edit : The upcoming US Presidential election is a competition to see who can gain the most votes. ( not actually, because of your electoral college system ) Do you think political parties should propose to the electorate "We have to destroy those Republican/Democrat rat-bastards and make them second-class citizens" Or do you think they should propose to the electorate "We have to show our Republican/Democrat fellow citizens, that ours is the better way" Both of those sentiments aim to win the election competition, but only the second option will benefit all Americans and make them ( and the country ) better, if not ( the ) best, again.

To be fair, John did mention that ... And speaking of absolutes, while I may have argued against some of the points Phi made, I can also agree with hem to a certain extent.

Competition means making yourself better. Bullying means making others worse. They are not equivalent. I'd rather play a competitive sport than run for office; but thanks anyway. Less life-long obesity for kids that way. And how would you know who's actually learned anything ? critical thinking does seem to be on the decline in the US. ( did you happen to see the RNC ??? ) It was competition with the Russians that spurred mankind to its greatest achievement; putting men on the moon. That can't be done today as there is no one to compete with ( yet ? ) Tesla brought out EVs in competition with gasoline powered vehicles. We already had GM and Ford; was EV research and secrets a waste ? Some of the greatest technological advances by mankind were achieved during the ultimate competition; war.

I really don't see how competition equates to bullying. Should we cancel international competitions like the Olympic Games and FIFA World Cup because those that don't get gold are bullying the rest? Those competitions bring billions of people together with a common passion ( although their parent organizations are a little corrupt ). As a matter of fact lets take all kids out of competitive sports, as losers are being bullied. And stop giving grades in schools, wouldn't want to 'bully' kids with low marks; give everyone a 100% pass. That has to be the worst definition of 'bullying' ever. On the other hand, competition has built a better mousetrap ! ( didn't wanna say 'best', and get Airbrush upset, he reads way too much into the simplest things )

Really ? You guys are arguing about her use of the English language ? Aside from the fact that she is not a native English speaker, the word best is singular. There is only one 'best', and there is no differentiation between 'the best' and 'best'. In both cases it is the one that is better than all the rest. This 'tempest in a teapot' is not worth discussing, in comparison to the fact that she 'supports' her husband, which is worth discussing.

Correct. But it looks like it may take a veeerrry long time, as curvature is exceedingly small. A positively curved universe ( no matter how small the curvature ) is necessarily finite, but unbounded, and, since curvature is so small, it may be many orders of magnitude larger than the observable universe. If the universe is actually flat, or negatively curved ( saddle shape ), it is necessarily infinite. So, again correct, any infinite universe is unbounded, and larger than the observable universe.

Disclaimer : This is just a JOKE. If inbreeding was legal in the US, then all states would vote like southern states currently do, and we'd always have Presidents like D Trump. ( who incidentally, has made comments about how sexy his daughter is; creeeepy ! ) That alone should make it illegal as it is detrimental to society. This is serious. Laws are not based on whether they do harm or not. they are based on what society deems acceptable. You can get fined for spitting on a sidewalk, even if there is no one around, and every bar once had a 'spitoon'. You can get fined for smoking in a public place ( sidewalk café ) with traffic ( car exhausts ) going by 2m away. It is against the law to speed on highways which are safe at 20-40 km/hr over the posted limit. Need I go on ? Some things that were once common have become 'disgusting' to the majority of society; laws reflect that.