beecee

A couple of points....Firstly the BB was not an explosion per se. It was the evolution of space and time [spacetime] from a very hot dense state from about t+10-43 seconds. There was no before and it didn't occur in anything...it happened everywhere in the observable universe, because the observable universe was packed to within that atomic nucleus size volume. The BB theory/model is not guess work and dragged out of someone's arse, it is overwhelmingly supported by observational evidence, so much so, that even the Catholic church recognises it, along with the evolution of life. Secondly, we don't know why it evolved and/or how it actually evolved or any causes. Ideas do abound, but these are speculative. Secondly one needs to define what they mean by nothing. Here are two links I often give that illustrate what I'm trying to say......https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4a7F6dOdlc and this....https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

The famous Eddington experiment during an eclipse, showing the bending of starlight was done in 1919, and verified Einstein's claim in 1916. One would need to know the exact position of the star without the Sun being there, and then observe the position during an eclipse caused by gravitational deflection. The effect is small though.

Your very first post and you decide on myth, nonsense and fairy tales? Actually you can explain nothing, but as per many myth pushers, have a bee in your bonnet regarding the fact that science cosmology can explain much, and is increasing the parameters of those explanations, all the time, with regards to the universe/space/time and the BB.

While it's obviously true that some do see owning pedigrees as a status symbol, that most certainly does not apply to me. Every dog I have had, has been a "mate" with whom I spent plenty of time with. And while I agree with some of the sentiments reflected in the OP and in other posts, my attraction to pure breeds in general, has probably been more hand-me down from the days when my parents bred miniature Dachsunds. In fact at this moment I am trialing for a few days, with a young [14 months old] cross breed Foxy and Pug with the possibility of looking after it for a month while the owners go on an overseas holiday. How it gets along with my two Dachys will decide on whether I look after it of course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk

A bloke escapes from prison where he has been for 15 years. He breaks into a house to look for money, beer and guns and finds a young Australian couple in bed. He orders the bloke out of bed and ties him to a chair. While tying the girl to the bed he gets on top of her, kisses her neck, then goes into the bathroom.While the man is in the bathroom, the husband tells the wife: "Listen, this guy's an escaped inmate, look at his clothes! He probably spent lots of time in jail and hasn't seen a woman in years... I saw how he kissed your neck. If he wants sex, don't resist, don't complain. Do whatever he tells you. Satisfy him no matter how much he nauseates you. This guy is probably dangerous. If he gets angry, he'll kill us. Be strong, honey. I love you." To which the wife responds: "He wasn't kissing my neck. He was whispering in my ear. He told me he was gay, thought you were cute, and asked if we had any Vaseline. I told him it was in the bathroom. Be strong honey, I love you too!!"

Eternal Inflation although still speculative does have plenty going for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation from the link...... Guth declared: It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse. It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking the idea of a multiverse seriously.[21] According to Linde, "It's possible to invent models of inflation that do not allow a multiverse, but it's difficult. Every experiment that brings better credence to inflationary theory brings us much closer to hints that the multiverse is real

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-dark-quarks.html Quarks are the smallest particles that we know of. In fact, according to the Standard Model of particle physics, which describes all known particles and their interactions, quarks should be infinitely small. If that's not mind-boggling enough, enter dark quarks – hypothetical particles that have been proposed to explain dark matter, an invisible form of matter that fills the universe and holds the Milky Way and other galaxies together. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-dark-quarks.html#jCp A Supplementary article: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-potential-harbingers-physics-persist-lhc.html The potential harbingers of new physics persist in LHC data August 31, 2018, Polish Academy of Sciences For some time now, researchers have noted several anomalies in the decays of beauty mesons in the data coming in from the LHCb experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. Are they more than just statistical fluctuations? The latest analysis, taking into account so-called long-distance effects in the decays of particles, increases the probability that the anomalies are not an error in the measuring techniques. While scientists seeking direct traces of new physics try to eliminate all potential new signals in particle collisions, revealing the void predicted by the Standard Model, others looking at other phenomena begin to see increasing anomalous signals in the ocean of data that are unresolved. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-potential-harbingers-physics-persist-lhc.html#jCp :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: the paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjc%2Fs10052-018-5918-6 Long-distance effects in B→K∗ℓℓB→K∗ℓℓ from analyticity Abstract We discuss a novel approach to systematically determine the dominant long-distance contribution to B→K∗ℓℓB→K∗ℓℓ decays in the kinematic region where the dilepton invariant mass is below the open charm threshold. This approach provides the most consistent and reliable determination to date and can be used to compute Standard Model predictions for all observables of interest, including the kinematic region where the dilepton invariant mass lies between the J/ψJ/ψ and the ψ(2S)ψ(2S) resonances. We illustrate the power of our results by performing a New Physics fit to the Wilson coefficient C9C9. This approach is systematically improvable from theoretical and experimental sides, and applies to other decay modes of the type B→VℓℓB→Vℓℓ, B→PℓℓB→Pℓℓ and B→VγB→Vγ.

Like I said, perhaps our definition of nothing needs reappraised. Perhaps the quantum foam is the best nothingness that can ever be and has existed for eternity. Otherwise all we can say is, as yet we don't know. https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ "What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself". "Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account."

Perhaps the quantum foam from which the BB arose due to some fluctuation is our best description of nothing. https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

When I speak of an intelligent owner, I'm speaking of someone who can and does give plenty of TLC to his or her dog, along with a firm hand and appropriate discipline, irrespective of pedigree or lack thereof. I have had two Rottweilers, a generally known large breed with an undeserved aggressive nature, and have never once had any problem with that supposed aggression with any person or other dog because they saw me as the "Alpha". At the same time both would never let anyone unknown enter our property until I had given the OK...a great deterrent for the wandering seven day adventists and AGers that sometimes walk our streets preaching and handing out their watch tower magazines. No pet of mine was ever "wacked" for any misbehaviour, rather a change in ones voice that reflects displeasure along with no pats or acts of TLC for a few moments. Get's back to my intelligent owner argument. BTW, my second Rotty lived to be 13.5 years old, and ended up having to be put down due to bone cancer. One of the miniature Dachsunds my parents bread, lived to 15 years and secumbed for the same reasons....cancer. OK, I accept that. Which is why with some care, preventive action is needed.

Just as spacetime and the 4D universe is the backbone of GR, of which we have plenty of evidence supporting it, without any of your contrivance. Just as you have here....... And again I'm saying that any refraction is only a small part of what we see as gravitational lensing, and is readily observed and distinct from gravitational lensing with either intervening galaxies, stars, or BHs and DM. In other words any intervening matter between a light source and the observer, will warp or curve the spacetime and that which you seem to have dismissed. The reason for gravitational lensing is the warped spacetime in the presence of mass, as per GR, not as per DM. More contrivance at best and nonsense at worst. Correct, there is much I don't understand, and those that do understand on this forum are always quick to correct any misconceptions that I may have. I do though have a reasonable understanding of spacetime, how its geometry is what we see as gravity, the invariant finite speed of light, and gravitational lensing and geodesic paths through spacetime. I also understand that overall your hypothetical is superfluous at best and totally contrived at worst. But of course if you doubt my non expert opinion, and if you doubt the expert opinion of others on this forum, and you still believe what you are trying to get this forum to believe re DM and darkmospheres, then write up an appropriate paper along with the maths for professional peer review.

I dont know if this will answer whatever problem you see with Pedigree Registries or not, but people sometimes are after a specific dog with specific traits. My two dogs at this time are Miniature smooth haired Dachsunds. Why did I chose that breed? Because I was after a recognised house dog and a dog/s that did not or at least had minimal doggy smell. Reason for that, My Mrs suffers from Asthma. I also wanted a fearless breed that could in some ways act as a watch dog. Dachsunds are fearless breeds, sometimes to a fault, particulalry with some much larger version of a dog! My parents also bred Miniature Dachsunds hence my familiarity with them. Faults?? They are sometimes prone to hips Dysplacia and should be controlled as much as possible from jumping up and down of chairs/beds etc. They also make very good feet warmers in the Winter in bed! Other dogs I have had....Two Rottweilers, German Shepard, and a Labrador. My favourite all time best breed?? The old Rotty...Great dog, intelligent, fearsome look, fearless persona, great watch dog, although both the Rotty's I had at different times, were great big bloody sooks! The most important aspect with any dog breed, pedigree or otherwise, is an intelligent owner who is able to administer plenty of TLC, along with firmness in training the animal. I have never had any problem with any dog I have ever had.

Thoughtfully and nicely put.

I once believed in Santa Claus until one Xmas eve while pretending to be asleep, I saw my Old Man, creeping in with a sack of toys strung over his shoulder, which he put at the foot of my bed. I was 8 years old.

I'll let you know about a "rule of thumb" with regards to science and the scientific methodology. First and foremost, before you let your imagination run free, searching/looking for any new ideas that are not mainstream, please make an effort to get to know the mainstream product, and why it is mainstream and held as valid by most scientists...learn its predictions that have been shown to be valid...research the experiments that have supported its validity...check out all the observational data that support it. Then if you really and truly believe there is a serious fault with the particular incumbent model, start imagining why over so many years, the professionals and experts in that particular discipline, have not found this serious fault. You see that is the scientific method. Theories/models do not get established and then just rest on their laurels. They are conducting experiments everyday, testing the limits and accepted successes of the theories. Even long established theories are tested everyday...Even SR and GR are continually asked to live up to their deserved reputation. If you do that honestly, you will see why the chances of any Tom, Dick or Harry, coming to a forum open to all, to invalidate or propose some new model over-riding the incumbent is pretty close to zero. Best of luck anyway.

Time dilation is caused and primarily a result of the finite speed of light and gravity. This has been shown conclusively and amply illustrated in the twin experiment and the out going and returning world line paths through spacetime. All this so far you seem to reject, even spacetime. That seems rather ironic considering the guesses and contrivance you have put forward supporting your hypothesis. A spin about a body's axis is scientifically termed rotation, while the path of a body about another body is scientifically called an orbit. My point is as you now seem to have recognised, is that DM would create nothing anywhere dense enough to be called an atmosphere or even a darkmosphere. That is simply a contrived myth on your part. Gravitational lensing as caused by intervening galaxies, dense stellar remnants like BHs or DM, have two components that can be amply recognised by their chromatic and achromatic reactions. The small percentage of Newtonian refraction is chromatic, and by far the greater percenatge is gravitational lensing which is achromatic.

Actually, basically I'm doing no more then describing the BB as currently accepted in mainstream cosmology. Correct, it is not a copmlete theory, targeted at the origin of the universe: It is a theory of the evolution of space and time as we know them from t=10-43 seconds....much the same way as the theory of the evolution of life is not about how life first started. We call that Abiogenesis. With the BB we can speculate as per my previous link. We do not know if our universe [the whole universe] is finite or infinite. We do though know that the BB only applies to our observable universe from t=10-43 seconds. Nothing wrong in reading, particularly reputable stuff on cosmology. And things are what they are whether it agrees with your previous thoughts or not. you gave a link previously. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Singularity from that link you failed to show Singularity See also: Gravitational singularity and Planck epoch Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[19] This singularity indicates that general relativity is not an adequate description of the laws of physics in this regime. Models based on general relativity alone can not extrapolate toward the singularity beyond the end of the Planck epoch". What they are saying in that is that extrapolating the observed expansion backwards we would arrive at your mathematical singularity of infinite density. It then says that GR and all our laws fail at that epoch, the Planck/quantum epoch. This is why cosmologists today prefer to accept that the mathematical singularity and its abhorant infinities does not exist, rather that [with the BB] a region of space and time we are unfamiliar with, or [with the BH] matter/energy in a form that is unknown to us. Worth also noting that so far no discussion re Inflation, including Eternal Inflation has been discussed...both areas I am not totally knowledgable on.

It's the definition most cosmologists do use. Again, most do not accept the mathematical point singularity, rather the Singularity where our laws and GR break down at t+10-43 seconds. The BB as described in one of my links was a point of derision by the Steady State proponent Freddy Hoyle, which along with the Oscillating hypothesis were invalidated with the discovery of the CMBR. The BB was never a theory on the origin: It was a theory of how the observed space/time/universe, [as we know them] evolved from a hotter, denser state at t+10-43 seconds. Your quoted part simply gives both the mathematical point singularity and the accepted singularity where GR and our laws fail to describe...that is the quantum/Planck level, where it is presumed a surface of sorts exist [with regards to the BB and BHs] They prefer this simply because it does away with the infinities. Makes perfect sense to me. It is also a singularity as defined where our laws and GR break down. that is the quantum/Planck level. No actual fact. GR and subsequently the BB does not apply at the quantum/Planck level, or t+10-43 seconds. This is why the holy grail of physics will be the formulation of a validated QGT. The BB applies to the observable universe, simple as that. Anything beyond, no matter how extensive is unknown and unknowlable. Again, as per the link I gave, and the quora answer, the BB applies to the observable universe. I'm not moving any goal posts, simply stating the accepted general mainstream incumbent thought. That being the BB describes the evolution of space/time/universe from t+10-43 seconds, and that we are unaware of the extent of what was before. We are only aware of the space and time from 10-43 seconds, which is why I said the evolution of spacetime, [as we know them] .. I prefer that you yourself research some more in depth reputable papers or journals on mainstream cosmology.

I see this as describing the mathematical singularity, which at this stage most cosmologists do not accept exists in reality. Rather they see the quantum/Planck level where our theories and laws do not apply as being more realistic as far as BB and BH singularities go. Which is what I meant by defining what "nothing truly is". Perhaaaaps the quantum foam is as close to nothing that in reality exists and that nothing is eternal and infinte. All I can do is refer you back to the link I gave and the fact that the BB applies to the observable universe. Here's another answer......https://www.quora.com/How-can-the-universe-be-infinite-if-it-began-with-the-big-bang "This is going to come as a shock to you, but the physics community does not believe in the Big Bang and it does not believe that there was a ”singularity”. The term Big Bang is misleading, and was in fact invented by the British astronomer Fred Hoyle to mock the idea of the universe exploding from a “singularity” (he believed in a steady state universe, which exists forever, more or less unchanged). Our best theories of the early universe say that there was a time when our visible universe was incredibly small, hot and dense. That’s it. You could extrapolate back from that and say “Well, looking at this graph of the size of the universe, it crosses the zero line at this time, therefore it must have come from nothing, or a point of zero size, which we call a singularity.”, but you would be mistaken in doing so. Lots of people have made this mistake, and the name also helps to create the commonly held misconception that there was a big explosion where previously there was nothing. I could do the same for your mass, as a foetus: I’d say “Well, looking at this graph, we can see the mass of the foetus crossing the zero line at this time here - therefore, the foetus came from a singularity!”. But, you didn’t come from nothing. There was a single fertilized cell, which we know about, and then before that, something happened, but we don’t know exactly what. (And we don’t really want to know, thanks, that’s between your mom and dad). The current leading theory states that the universe expanded incredibly rapidly in a very very short space of time, due to a process called cosmic inflation. This theory made some predictions which have since been borne out, eg by some features of the cosmic background radiation, and so it’s a strong, widely accepted theory. That begs the question “Well, what inflated?”, and that is a good question. We’re not quite sure. But, it seems that there was something there before, that dumped a great deal of energy (for some reason), and that triggered a short runaway expansion of a small part of space into the much much larger part of space which made up the very early universe. Then, the inflation chain reaction stopped, and the universe continued to expand just due to the fact that it was incredibly hot and dense, and that’s what hot and dense things do if they’re not contained. Personally, i think we could cure a lot of public misunderstanding if we ditched the phrase “The Big Bang” and replaced it with “The Big Stretch”. Regarding infinity - you're right: if it is infinite now it must have been infinite then too: you can't transition from finite to infinite. All we know about is our finite part of the Big Kahuna. We don't know if the Big Kahuna is infinite. It might be." """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" The underlined part at the end, supports the premise of the first article I believe. Sorry in my haste I stuffed up the last post and some of what I was trying to say...let me try again.... Yep, correct, only back to t+10-43 seconds. If we can formulate a verifiable QGT, then that should take us back to t=0 I see this as describing the mathematical singularity, which at this stage most cosmologists do not accept exists in reality. Rather they see the quantum/Planck level where our theories and laws do not apply as being more realistic as far as BB and BH singularities go. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" OK, that's better, sorry for the stuff up.

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-long-sought-higgs-boson.html Long-sought decay of Higgs boson observed August 28, 2018, CERN Six years after its discovery, the Higgs boson has at last been observed decaying to fundamental particles known as bottom quarks. The finding, presented today at CERN1 by the ATLAS and CMS collaborations at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), is consistent with the hypothesis that the all-pervading quantum field behind the Higgs boson also gives mass to the bottom quark. Both teams have submitted their results for publication today. The Standard Model of particle physics predicts that about 60% of the time a Higgs boson will decay to a pair of bottom quarks, the second-heaviest of the six flavours of quarks. Testing this prediction is crucial because the result would either lend support to the Standard Model – which is built upon the idea that the Higgs field endows quarks and other fundamental particles with mass – or rock its foundations and point to new physics. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-long-sought-higgs-boson.html#jCp """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.08242.pdf Observation of Higgs boson decay to bottom quarks: Abstract: The observation of the standard model (SM) Higgs boson decay to a pair of bottom quarks is presented. The main contribution to this result is from processes in which Higgs bosons are produced in association with a W or Z boson (VH), and are searched for in final states including 0, 1, or 2 charged leptons and two identified bottom quark jets. The results from the measurement of these processes in a data sample recorded by the CMS experiment in 2017, comprising 41.3 fb−1 of proton-proton collisions at √ s = 13 TeV, are described. When combined with previous VH measurements using data collected at √ s = 7, 8, and 13 TeV, an excess of events is observed at mH = 125.09 GeV with a significance of 4.8 standard deviations, where the expectation for the SM Higgs boson is 4.9. The corresponding measured signal strength is 1.01 ± 0.22. The combination of this result with searches by the CMS experiment for H → bb in other production processes yields an observed (expected) significance of 5.6 (5.5) standard deviations and a signal strength of 1.04 ± 0.20.

A few points in regard to some of the misconceptions on your part. Firstly we do not yet have any evidence supporting the infinite or finite nature of the universe. Secondly the BB is a theory of the evolution of space and time [as we know them] from a hot dense state at t+10-43 seconds. Thirdly the BB only applies to the observable universe. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html "The Universe was not concentrated into a point at the time of the Big Bang. But the observable Universe was concentrated into a point. The distinction between the whole Universe and the part of it that we can see is important. In the figure below, two views of the Universe are shown: on the left for 1 Gyr after the Big Bang, and on the right the current Universe 13 Gyr after the Big Bang (assuming that the Hubble constant is Ho = 50 km/sec/Mpc and the Universe has the critical density.) The size of the box in each view is 78 billion light years. The green circle on the the right is the part of the Universe that we can currently see. In the view on the left, this same part of the Universe is shown by the green circle, but now the green circle is a tiny fraction of the 78 billion light year box, and the box is an infinitesimal fraction of the whole Universe. If we go to smaller and smaller times since the Big Bang, the green circle shrinks to a point, but the 78 billion light year box is always full, and it is always an infinitesimal fraction of the infinite Universe. Note that the black dots represent galaxies, and the galaxies do not expand even though the separation between galaxies grows with time". :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: So again, we really have no evidence which tells us whether the universe is finite or infinite, only that it is very very big, or as I like saying, near infinite in content and extent. With your remark re " An infinite universe would mean an infinitely old universe by the way, unless there were some mechanism for an infinite universe just popping up ex nihilo - which would be beyond magic, by definition it would be beyond even magic, any magic you could think of would be a mere subset of { infinity popping up ex nihilo }." Perhaps one need first to define nothing. Secondly a universe/space/time popping out of nothing is not really magic or absurd and in fact can be reasonably explained this way and supported by vacuum energy..... https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ Yes some speculation needed but if we think it through, far more logical then some more supernatural reasonings.

My own position is even less professional then yours. There's plenty of reputable material out there, and my advice would be to get hold of some of it, perhaps starting with Stephen Hawking's "Brief History of Time" Pretty basic stuff but a good start, although now probably a little bit dated. Then continue asking questions on forums such as this. Remember the theories held by mainstream did not get there overnight. They also had to go through the period of professional peer review.

Hijack? I call it bunkum. The science of mainstream also at one time had to "run the gauntlet" of critical review, and all did it through proper professional critical review, not simply driven by excessive egos and delusions of grandeur. If there was/is anything positive in the hypothetical proposed in the OP, or your own bunkum, it will come to light. Guess what? there isn't, and it won't. With regards to the OP proposals, I now after 4 pages change my summing up from superfluous, to contrived.