beecee

White light as proven by Isacc Newton, is composed of seven colours Violet, Indigo, Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange, Red. As already said, the colour of any object first depends on what part of the visible spectrum falls on that object, secondly, what part of the light that has fallen on that object is reflected and/or absorbed. This also is subject to the physics and makeup of the eye of the beholder. The claim of friction between the light and matter is a nonsense. So you reference some questionable speculation to support even more questionable, speculation?

I can now die a happy man!😉

Not reading through your text, but it is certain that the sky is blue because of what we call Rayleigh scattering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering#:~:text=Rayleigh scattering (%2Fˈreɪ,the wavelength of the radiation. The answer to the second part of your question is more complicated. The colour of any object, (in the first instant) depends on the wavelenght of the visible spectrum that falls on the object being viewed. On the second instant, it depends on the reflectibility of that object, or what part of the visible spectrum is reflected and what is absorbed. We can ask, "what colour is an Orange in the dark?" The correct answer would be, it has no colour in the dark.

Are you saying at absolute zero, a gas becomes a solid? Then I agree. So some space is still occupied? Now what follows does not compute with me studiot, and I certainly need some clarification. I am of the opinion, and have learnt over the years that space and time cannot exist [as we know them] without one another. They both [as we know them] evolved together at t+10-45 seconds. Please let me die a happy man and show me that makes sense!! 😉

As I understand it, we have absolutely no information back before t+10-45 seconds. So we have no information about t=0 All we can do at this time is speculate. I was taught by an astronomer, that space and time (as we know them )evolved at t+10-45 seconds, The highlighted bit is important. Your first sentence is totally correct. (as we know them)

There is; the singularity. Note, not any singularity as defined by infinite density and curvature, but as defined by where our laws of physics and GR, are not applicable.

Of course you do when asked. Or possibly there is none that supports your cause [whatever that maybe] Down votes are applied generally when someone is wrong or contankerous. With this "truth" you speak of, and spreading it amongst the people, you do understand that this is just a remote science forum that reaches a very small scant number of people don't you? I mean if you have faith in what you are claiming, and it differs from maainstream convention, then you need to get your brainwave published to reach any semblance of a wider audience to explain your so called brain wave. Or alternatively be told to go back to the drawing boards.

Of course some of it may be true. Let me exxplain my comment more fully. No society is perfect, including the USA and Australia also. And much should be done to improve a society so as to see justice and fairness to all, and eliminate that which prevents justice and fairness to all. While western society in general, is greatly similar, my personal criticisms of American society [is where it does differ from others] is in relation to their archaic gun laws and lack of any universal health care. I see the OP as a rant by some extreme person because its "blanket claims" seem to convey a picture of American society [and by extent other western nations]as an oligarchical republic and other like remarks, thereby spoiling and invalidating areas of truth with regards to what can be and should be improved. I mentioned a couple of those areas earlier. If I'm not explaining myself clear enough, let me finish with an example. As a union delegate in the mid sixties, I took part in a couple of anti Vietnam war marches or moratoriums. It was a cause close to my heart. The marches were all peaceful, until we were "infiltrated" by an extreme left political orginization called the "Socialist Labor League" whose actual sole aim [as obviously fruitless and impossible it was] was to overthrow the current democratic system in Australia. I know this because somehow they got hold of my address, and started calling at my home in the evenings, until I less then politely told them to f$#@ off. I also have a personal theory relating to politics in general and America and Australia particularly. The USA has just thankfully ousted the most foul President in its history, who lied and cajoled his way through American society over 4 years. Australia also has an extreme right PM as our leader, but thankfully, as yet Australia would not ever put up with the antics and shenanigans that America did with Trump. The UK also I believe has its problems with their PM. My theory [OK, lets call it an hypothesis] is that the rise in extreme left ideology, particularly with political correctness being taken too far, has seen [as a force of balance so to speak] the rise of people like Trump and the extreme right and their extreme appeals to the basic fears of some with regards to racism, sexism etc. Let me explain further. Without going into too much detail, I was accused by what I claim to be a feminazi as a sexist mysoginist person. Why? Because I generally address people whom I don't know as mate or matey [if its a male] and love [if its a female]. I gave the following example when after some home renovations, I was having a problem with paying the builder via B pay online, so I decided to visit the bank. I informed the female teller of the problem and she took the time to explain fully how I should go about the payment and directed me to another bank. I was delighted and particularly pleased with her service and help, and said "gee thanks love, you're a bloody Angel" This was seen by the feminazi as sexist, despite the reply and reaction I got back. The teller [around 45ish/50ish years old] laughed heartedly and said "Ahh you're a sweety, glad to be of help, and if you need anymore don't hesitate to come back". It's called common banter between strangers and at least in my country is not in the slightest a form of sexism or mysogeny. I could give hundreds of examples. Anyway that's the end of my rant. I hope I have made my point clear.

My favourite book as a kid was Goldilocks and the three bears. Sorry, not a monkey but an ape...will that do? I really believe you should broaden your knowledge re science, because its obvious, 'thou know not what thou do or say" Father forgive him!

Yeah right! 🤣😆

People testify [falsely and under illusionary scenarios] all the time.

No. I also havn't investigated claims of fairies at the bottom of my garden either. or a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

You will excuse my doubt/s as to what you claim?

Between Venus and Mars?? Earth. 😉

The preponderence of evidence. eg: as theories continue to align with predictions, like GR predicting gravitational waves a 100 years ago, they grow in certainty. Again the theory of evolution of life is 100% certain.

Genuine question? OK, I'll accept that. Let's start on the origins of planets. Planets more or less were formed from the left over debris, after the formation of a star from a gravitationaly activated acretion disk collapse. This was the general hypothesis for many years until in the last couple of decades, we saw evidence of that hypothesis in other stellar systems and planets, in different time lines of formation. We are now pretty certain of that. Scientific theories are our best estimation/explanation of something, that remains "theory" in case new observational and/or experimental evidence comes to light, as per the previous explantion re planets. Of course as theoretical predictions and observations continue to be validated, those theories gain in certainty over timeeg: SR/GR the BB, and one that is now 100% certain, the theory of the evolution of life. Yes, the BB explantion of the evolution of the universe, does have "missing links"as you put it, but it still explains much, and remembering it goes back to 13.8 billion years.

Because of convention and generational hand me down notions. Ancient man, without the benefits of science, needed to explain the wonders of the universe and world around him. He saw gods in rivers, mountains, the Sun, Moon etc, to explain those wonders. Now science does that job with the support of impirical evidence at least back to t+10-45 seconds. But the creationist beliefs in some is hard to elliminate. And of course most of us understand that the bible is nothing more then an obscure book, written by obscure men, in an obscure age and an obscure manner. Now can we get back to science without silly religious/creationist undertones? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/

Lovem both! Here's another duet....

Seven Spanish Angels :

https://phys.org/news/2021-03-accuracy-cosmological-analysis-technique-mock.html Researchers confirm accuracy of cosmological data analysis technique using mock data: Astronomers have played a game of guess-the-numbers with cosmological implications. Working from a mock catalog of galaxies prepared by a Japanese team, two American teams correctly guessed the cosmological parameters used to generate the catalog to within 1% accuracy. This gives us confidence that their methods will be able to determine the correct parameters of the real universe when applied to observational data. The basic equations governing the evolution of the universe can be derived from theoretical calculations, but some of the numbers in those equations, the cosmological parameters, can only be derived through observations. Cosmological parameters tied to the unobservable parts of the universe, like the amount of dark matter or the expansion of the universe driven by dark energy, must be inferred by looking at their effects on the distribution of visible galaxies. There is always uncertainty when working with the dark part of the universe, and it is hard to be sure that the models and data analysis are accurate. more at link..... the paper: https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.123541 Blinded challenge for precision cosmology with large-scale structure: Results from effective field theory for the redshift-space galaxy power spectrum: ABSTRACT: An accurate theoretical template for the galaxy power spectrum is key for the success of ongoing and future spectroscopic surveys. We examine to what extent the effective field theory (EFT) of large-scale structure is able to provide such a template and correctly estimate cosmological parameters. To that end, we initiate a blinded challenge to infer cosmological parameters from the redshift-space power spectrum of high-resolution mock catalogs mimicking the BOSS galaxy sample but covering a 100 times larger cumulative volume. This gigantic simulation volume allows us to separate systematic bias due to theoretical modeling from the statistical error due to sample variance. The challenge is to measure three unknown input parameters used in the simulation: the Hubble constant, the matter density fraction, and the clustering amplitude. We present analyses done by two independent teams, who have fitted the mock simulation data generated by yet another independent group. This allows us to avoid any confirmation bias by analyzers and to pin down possible tuning of the specific EFT implementations. Both independent teams have recovered the true values of the input parameters within subpercent statistical errors corresponding to the total simulation volume. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Supplementary: https://phys.org/news/2021-02-supercomputer-cosmic-clock.html FEBRUARY 16, 2021 Supercomputer turns back cosmic clock: Astronomers have tested a method for reconstructing the state of the early universe by applying it to 4000 simulated universes using the ATERUI II supercomputer at the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (NAOJ). They found that together with new observations, the method can set better constraints on inflation, one of the most enigmatic events in the history of the universe. The method can shorten the observation time required to distinguish between various inflation theories. Just after the universe came into existence 13.8 billion years ago, it suddenly increased more than 1 trillion trillion times in size in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a microsecond, but no one knows how or why. This sudden inflation is one of the most important mysteries in modern astronomy. Inflation should have created primordial density fluctuations that would have affected the distribution of galaxy development. Thus, mapping the distribution of galaxies can rule out models for inflation that don't match the observed data. more at link... the paper: https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.023506 Constraining primordial non-Gaussianity with postreconstructed galaxy bispectrum in redshift space: ABSTRACT Galaxy bispectrum is a promising probe of inflationary physics in the early Universe as a measure of primordial non-Gaussianity (PNG), whereas its signal-to-noise ratio is significantly affected by the mode coupling due to nonlinear gravitational growth. In this paper, we examine the standard reconstruction method of linear cosmic mass density fields from nonlinear galaxy density fields to decorrelate the covariance in redshift-space galaxy bispectra. In particular, we evaluate the covariance of the bispectrum for massive-galaxy-sized dark matter halos with reconstruction by using 4000 independent N-body simulations. Our results show that the bispectrum covariance for the postreconstructed field approaches the Gaussian prediction at scale of k<0.2  h Mpc−1. We also verify the leading-order PNG-induced bispectrum is not affected by details of the reconstruction with perturbative theory. We then demonstrate the constraining power of the postreconstructed bispectrum for PNG at redshift of approximately 0.5. Further, we perform a Fisher analysis to make a forecast of PNG constraints by galaxy bispectra including anisotropic signals. Assuming a massive galaxy sample in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey, we find that the postreconstructed bispectrum can constrain the local, equilateral, and orthogonal types of PNG with ΔfNL∼13, 90, and 42, respectively, improving the constraints with the prereconstructed bispectrum by a factor of 1.3–3.2. In conclusion, the reconstruction plays an essential role in constraining various types of PNG signatures with a level of ΔfNL≲1 from the galaxy bispectrum based on upcoming galaxy surveys. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: OK, if I understand these two papers properly, they are confirming the general reliability of current cosmological methodologies for predicting, and validating computer simulation methods. Am I correct? If this is so, then we can be reasonably confident in the theories and models that arise from such data. Does this also add validity to the "reality" of what our data is telling us?

Pot, kettle , black? As long as we all understand that time perception is a different kettle of fish to the reality and nature of time.

This happened yesterday and is important information for our age group.I had my 2nd dose of the vaccine at the vaccination center after which I began to have blurred vision on the way home. When I got home, I called the vaccination center for advice and to ask if I should go see a doctor, or be hospitalized. I was told NOT to go to a doctor or a hospital, but just return to the vaccination center immediately and pick up my glasses!!

Agreed, thanks....I should have said that space is expanding and is inexorably linked, and inseparable from time. The expansion of space occurs over time. One cannot exist without the other.

Dear PrimalMinister, it is with the saddest of regrets that I need to inform you, that due to the 52 negative points against your name, I see it logical and reasonable to assume that your claims/conduct on this forum is less then perfect. In that respect, it follows that your hypocrisy and own veiled insults have been obvious over your time here. I would help you simply by asking you to understand fully the science in question, before attempting to deny it, have imperial evidence for your own claims, and understand that this forum does consist of experts in various fields, while your own expertise is unknown and to present yourself as having higher and nobler standards then these experts, again reflects on your own hypocrisiy. Your's Sincerely beecee

It is and was (according to the BB theory) space and time itself that is expanding, or all there ever was, so everywhere (all of spacetime at least as we know them) was packed to withing that incredibly small volume, remembering that our laws and theories are non applicable at the quantum/Planck level. In that scenario we cannot talk about any before, or any "expanding into" There was no before (as we know it) and nothing (as we know it) to expand into. Hope all that makes some sense! This of course gets back to previous debates about what is nothing. I like Professor Lawrence Krauss' speculative scenario, that the quantum foam is the true definition of nothing.