MigL

This is an example of non-locality, or 'action at a distance'. ( IOW, an effect that cannot be realized with local variables, hidden or otherwise )

I love reading about these little European towns, Eise. I went to Schaffhausen to see the Rhinefalls. My cousin said they were the largest falls in Europe. I was thinking ( to myself "Have you seen Niagara Falls ?". And of course you can't get any lunch between 1 and 5 pm, so we crossed into Germany ( and me without my passport ) on our way to Basel. We stopped at a quaint little town called Waldshut-Tiengen and had a late lunch in what looked like a castle courtyard surrounded by shops and restaurants. My apologies for the veer off track, but I love Southern Germany, much more than Switzerland ( sorry Eise ).

Wow ! I didn't think that survived. Nice post, Eise.

The responses by members indicate that either you did not explain yourself very well, or, you posted nonsense/word salad. When you come back, I suggest not arguing against the 'nonsense/word salad' responses, but rather, take the time to elaborate on your explanation. Please clarify some of your non-standard terms; words have precise meanings in science and using them incorrectly results in perceived nonsense.

Before KJW and Markus make this discussion too mathematical, and the rest of us can only look on, let me put in my two cents. The rubber sheet ( trampoline ) analogy fails because it is 2D, gravity pulls the trampoline down, and we cannot show 4D curvature ( yes I know, KJW and Markus, except mathematically ). You would need to imagine trampolines above the mass, on all sides of it, and even extending into past and future. And all of those are not pulled down by gravity. Can, or is, space-time really curved ? All we know is our model does a very good job of describing how test masses act in space-time, by using the curved geodesics that ascribe curvature to our model. And that's why I never engaged full-time 4 wheel drive with my Jeep Grand Cherokee on firm, dry surfaced roads.

Just to clarify. The matter dominated era comes later; the first era was radiation dominated. What later became matter, with mass, was originally all massless radiation ( possessing the property of energy ), because the Electroweak force had not decoupled yet for the Higgs mechanism to give mass to Fermions, This would have been when the observable universe was in causal contact ( light/information has time to traverse it ) in order to establish an equilibrium that ensures isotropy and homogeneity, prior to a vacuum energy driven inflationary period that expanded that observable universe many many orders of magnitude. See Alan Guth, Electroweak symmetry break, and Inflationary Theory.

The theory for the fission bomb was already well established, but some of the parameters could only be obtained by experiment. The problem is that the experiment consumes a large amount of fissile material. As it was, the Americans were already hedging their bets, because they didn't know which system would work ( better ? ). E Fermi had already shown how to produce Plutonium from large amounts of Uranium in the reactor in Chicago; the other approach was liquid thermal diffusion of a Uranium compound to enrich it. The fissionable material for the bombs, Plutonium and enriched Uranium, was produced at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. That is where the 'heavy lifting' was done. Given the fissionable material, and some resources, even a shmuck like me could design a simple fission bomb. Other complications are arming and delivery of the weapon without it doing unintended damage. The Germans were well ahead of the Americans in the late 30s in the theory aspect, but by 1940 A Hitler had conscripted many of Germany's leading scientists; others, mostly Jewish, were either purged, or escaped to America. Hitler's advisors overestimated the time needed to develop a fission bomb, and he refused to devote manpower and resources to such a project, assuming it would not be ready in time to make a difference in the war. He did authorize development of a reactor, but even that was small scale, and used inefficient heavy water moderation instead of graphite. Japan was given a chance to surrender, but the military leaders had promised to oppose an invasion of the Japanese mainland to the very last man. It would have resulted in much higher casualties on both sides. As Swansont noted, even fire bombing Tokyo, and the first A-bomb drop, was not enough to convince them. You know what they say about 20/20 hindsight, armchair quarterbacking, the fog of war, and losing opportunities by second guessing, don't you ?

Also a good description of the global warming mechanism. Earth absorbs radiation of a certain wavelength ( temperature ) and re-emits it at a much lower wavelength ( temperature ) that is intercepted ( absorbed and emitted ) by greenhouse gases, leading to a higher temperature equilibrium.

A lot of people have 'personal demons'. Once the Church used to deal with such issues; nowdays Psychology and Psychiatry do the same. The term 'personal demons' is used to describe mental issues/conditions that lead to destructive personal, or social, behavior. Why do people want, or choose, to interpret what is clearly the time-specific allegory of the Bible, as fact ?

At first I thought it was some kind of Political analogy, when talking about 11 different states, and defending/going to war for them. But no, ... just another person confused about his/her sexuality.

I would think this election is 'do or die' for D Trump; he's banking on 'unreasonable' people. If he loses the election he's done as a Presidential candidate. He'll lose the support of Republicans, since there's no point kissing his ass anymore, and he'll be prosecuted to the full extent of the law; he stands to lose billions. Couldn't happen to a 'nicer' guy. ( unfortunately, rich people don't ever actually go broke like the rest of us do )

I remember many years ago, working for a chemical waste disposal company, a young fellow employee and I, had been sent to sample a vessel containing cyanide electroplating solution, at a decommissioned plant, about 4 hours away. We brought all necessary PPE with us, such as impermeable HazMat suits, gloves, boots, and SCBA breathing air with full face respirators, just to be on the safe side. When we got to the decommissioned plating plant, we found about a dozen workers doing the clean-up, on their lunch break , sitting around the open top vessel of cyanide solution, eating their lunch. We decided not to scare the bejeesus out of them; quickly took a few samples, with dip tubes, wearing just gloves, and left. I hope there were no cats in the area.

Previous to JC's humorous response showing a couple of pics of E Warren in a kitchen, there were only two posts. This one by CbharonY, and this one by TheVat. This is how you characterized JC's response I think JC would like clarification as to which of the two posts you believe to be 'legitimate criticism'. And why then deny making that statement ? Was 'appealing to bias justified, or are we going to get more tap dancing ?

Please look up the definition of 'observable' universe. It is that part of the larger universe that is causally connected to us. Anything outside the observable universe cannot have a causal effect on us, as information transfer is limited by the speed of light, making information from outside the observable universe inaccessible to us.

An explosion has a radial direction. Parts of the 'exploding' material closer to the origin of the explosion would be moving towards the intermediate parts, while the furthest parts wouls be moving away from the intermediate parts. We observe ALL parts moving away from us, no matter which direction we look ( and so do observers on the other parts ) Even if the explosion was a 'surface' effect so that all parts are equidistant from the origin, we would still see 'voids' when looking towards the origin, or away from it; we see neither of these. IOW, the universe's 'explosion' is not consistent with observations, but expansion, as in increasing separations between parts of the universe, is. ( c'mon Airbrush, you've participated in enough of these discussions to know better about this, and some of your other claims )

There are also theories where space, and time, are emergent properties of 'something' more fundamental, as well as theories where spatial, and temporal, separations are inherent properties of the quantum particles themselves. The hard part is trying to build a model that is not only self-consistent, but also consistent with the large body of accumulated Physical evidence/observations. Imagination is cheap; unless you can satisfy the two constraints above, you have nothing. ( I haven't read the pdf file; maybe you do satisfy those constraints, and you have something, but unless you explain it here we'll never know )

Unfortunately they only generate microWatts, and would need to be in a backpack to power your cellphone. Much ado about nothing ... Not even 'good enough for Australia'. ( entertaining blog if you're into electronics )

Maybe if we reduce the situation to its simplest form without trying to find other 'connections' between the left and right parts of the EFEs ... Geodesics are basically a description of space-time curvature or geometry. A test mass falling towards mass M, will follow a geodesic which defines the local space-time geometry. A test mass falling towards mass M10 will follow a much different geodesic; one defining a different local geometry. So, I would guess mass ( and its equivalent energy ) has some hand in determining space-time geometry. For a more 'in-depth' explanation see here

Always wondered about that @exchemist NH3 in water solution becomes NH4+ and OH-, making the solution strongly basic. But pure Ammonia, by itself, is not basic, just a strong reducer ? I never did understand a Lewis acid as an electron pair acceptor. ( Grade 13 was a long time ago )

I can't add much to the mathematical discussion, but from a physical standpoint, the fact that gravity gravitates is what causes its non-linearity. If it were somehow possible to remove the energy-momentum components of an existing gravitational field/geometry, some part of that field/geometry would still exist, because its own energy density causes ( caused ? ) a part of the field/geometry. But that original gravitational field, or geometry, had to have been caused by a local energy-momentum distribution. I don't know about mathematical considerations, but physical considerations tell us local curvature has to be caused by something ( and from my understanding of De Sitter, so is global curvature ) because our universe is causal.

Expansion cannot be eternal, as John has pointed out, but time only begins to make sense once space-time geometry is evident, and that happened at the Planck time of 10-43 sec., about 13.8 Billion years ago. What was there before that time could have been 'eternal', or could have existed for a 'second'; such labels are meaningless since time, as we know it, did not exist yet. But it certainly was not the universe we know ( and may have been embedded in another universe; see Eternal Inflation ). Is that how you were going to elucidate ? No one has invoked a 'creator' or the 'supernatural'; just you.

You're gonna have to elaborate on that one also. My understanding is that De Sitter models an essentially flat universe, devoid of ordinary matter, where the dynamics are dominated by the Cosmological Constant/Dark Energy. IOW, there is a local energy that accounts for any deviation from absolute flatness.

pointless arguing with religion, Dim. "So let it be written; So let it be done."

No. That implies that, if you wind the expansion backwards in time, you come to an 'origin' point, IOW, expansion of the universe contradicts a universe that has existed forever. Based on the expansion constant, also known as Hubble's constant, we can say our observable universe started expanding about 13.8 Billion years ago. ( If you're going to discuss with scientists, like John, who actually know their sh*t, you really should 'brush up' on yours ) PS My apologies, Dim, for continuing along the tangent; never pass up an opportunity to educate.

Yeah ... OK. But I'm not the one who felt 'insulted'. And we obviously have different definitions of the word 'similar'. American hubris ...