MigL

Yes, you're wrong. It isn't language that links them together, but theory and math. Is an after-thought a thing that you might want to consider ?

Yes sir, it does. nd is the reason its gravitational waves can cause interference in LIGO and Virgo, from 12.8 billion LY away.

Your eye bends light by refraction, the 'slowing' of light, as it passes from a less dense material to a more dense material, due to increased absorption/emission events. Planets, stars and galaxies bend light gravitationally, and the Sun will bend light passing tangentially ( close ) to its surface, by only about 1.75 arcseconds.

Seems a massive ( record breaking 142 Ms ) Black Hole was created from the collision of a 66 Ms and 85 Ms BHs. https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/discovery-of-record-breaking-black-hole-collision-surprises-astronomers ( amazing what you find when you go check tomorrow's weather ) Published today from researchers at UBC. ( that's close to Mordred's stomping grounds ) edit I guess now muruep00 knows how supermassive BHs grow in galactic centers, without the need for negative energy, or time transformations.

Your difficulties might also be related to the current Coronavirus situation. There is little incentive to hire people if most economies are at a standstill. Hopefully you'll see some interest from employers once the situation starts to change. Even after you find employment. You work to survive; you learn because you like it.

Are you saying that If space and time were not continuous, but discrete, then space and time translation symmetries wouldn't hold, and momentum and energy would not be conserved ? Even if the discrete steps were at Planck scales ? Are we sure they are conserved at such scales ? Maybe Noether is a macroscopic limit approximation, like all quantum effects seem continuous at large scales. ( or have I simply failed to understand what you mean ? ) One could use the argument that momentum and energy are quantized in quantum field theories, so the HUP might dictate that their non-commutative partners, space and time, are similarly quantized in a quantum field theory of gravity. ( but we had this discussion on Monday, in the thread about 'nothing' )

That image sure looks like a 'sombrero' to me , unfortunately any symmetry break is a 'fall' from an unstable false potential to a lower ( more ) stable one. This vacuum energy has to go somewhere, and usually it leads to an inflation. I can't see the electroweak symmetry break not leading to an inflationary period. And of course by radiation dominated, I mean only massless particles, so definitely before baryogenesis and the plasma era ( maybe I'm using the term 'radiation dominated' wrong ). Those are some of the reasons why I say 'makes sense to me'.

My niece works with Greg Frewin, a magician in Niagara Falls. He does this one simple trick with cards, where the face value of the card continuously changes. He then goes on to explain how he does it, and everyone in the audience feels like an idiot, because it is extremely simple.

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.