beecee

As an amateur among professionals and experts, I am open for correction...When you mention the "weakening of the field" due to expansion, Isn't that because the density of the matter/energy in the universe/spacetime, is getting less? And the way I understood it from past reputable books and such, is that after the BB and the impetus from Inflation, the universe/spacetime has been gradually slowing down, until that is, around 5 billion years ago? [from memory] that it started the acceleration that we now observe. Why? because after the impetus from the Inflation epoch had subsided, the constant DE or this unknown constant force behind the expansion, had the effect of accelerating said expansion as matter/energy density in the universe/spacetime lessened. [hope that makes sense] Yes....as was the DM also a "fudge factor" in the beginning, with many cosmologists doubting its existence. That of course has subsided as evidence for DM has come to light... strong evidence in fact with the bullet cluster evidence. DE, or whatever it actually is, is something I see as imbedded in spacetime itself, and part of its nature. Spacetime cannot exist without the matter/energy within: So sayeth Sten Odenwald...Or he puts it far better then I do https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html NB:The highlighted was a typographical error when I raised it with Sten via an E Mail: It should simply be..."DO NOT' I see space as real, time as real, and spacetime as real. While none are physical entities, they are mathematical constructs, or backdrops against which we enact the universe and laws within. That in my opinion does not disqualify it from being real. I do admit though there appears some disagreement on whether it is real or not...more philosophical then anything else.That is the entirety of my argument. Cosmologists also have been for years now, trying to formulate a verifiable QGT...or a quantizing gravity/spacetime. This also in my opinion supports the "real" case. Yet both in my opinion are still correct. GR is simply a far more precise model that reveals those very small tolerances that Newtonian misses or has no need for. I mean we certainly don't delve into the difficult mathematical structure of GR to determine events and time here on Earth, and in most cases, if not all, we use Newtonian for all space endeavours so far. It certainly is. And I remember one astronomer on my first ever science forum, tell me that any future QGT will most likely encompass GR and the BB, while at the same time, extend the parameters of them in explaining reasonably what sort of universe we occupy.

Bingo! and also the bloke pushing these anti GR propaganda on this other forum was also an IDer, [thereby hangs a tale] albeit closeted during most of his interactions. From what little I have read on this Mead, and this G4V style of GW, that the detectors at Hanford and Livingston were simply not constructed to "verfiy" or otherwise this G4V concept...something to do with parallel arms? I'm just wondering since VIRGO and the GW170608 detection, if any new info had surfaced?

Hiya Mordred....I hope this question is appropriate to this thread, as it just came to mind. On another forum I was once participating on, certain anti relativist who often expressed his anti GR stance, often expressed his support for a bloke named Carver Mead and a version of GW's labelled G4V. Can you comment on this?

Your whole OP seems as total nonsense and totally without reason or observation to me...but the paragraph that gets the Emmy award is Your hypothetical seems more like a fairy tale to me, full of wonderous imaginative creations the result of a night out on the piss.

Totally agreed by this lay person who has found this thread highly informative. In my language what they are simply saying, is why throw out an incredible theory [GR] that describes and predicts so much, so successfully, because of one or two problematic areas for which we can compensate for, [DE and DM] and then find evidence for and in support of that compensation. And of course while GR and other universal theories do and are getting stronger the longer they match what we see and predict successfully, they are always still open for that "last possibility" That is the strength of science, scientific theories and the scientific method.

Cold fusion as I understand it, seems to defy all our current theories about nuclear fusion. And of course since the first "claim" in the eighties of this proposed result, it has never been repeated despite much research and many attempts. In my opinion it appears to be in the same situation as the proposed electromagnetic propulsionless drive, but I would certainly love to be wrong about both of these potential game changing discoveries. In both respects I dont believe any law of physics would be broken, but perhaps some "unknown aspect" is hypothetically coming into play. In answer to your question though, research certainly has been undertaken, and with the EM drive, research is continuing with a proposal to test it in space.

And I answered you as others have, along with more information on your definition of nothing.

Correct, we neither know how or why the BB evolved our universe/spacetime [as we know it] but we have overwhelming evidence that it did. I mention spacetime as we know it, as the nature of what ever existed [if anything] before t=10-43 seconds is beyond our theoretical models at this time. A quantum foam or whatever. Perhaps this pre-existing quantum foam is the best definition of nothing that we can really think about or perhaps even exist. Perhaps the quantum foam is the nothing that has existed for eternity. Perhaps its our definition of nothing that needs apparaisal. In the meantime, we can reasonably speculate.... https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ Certainly has a lot more going for it then some deity that has spent his or her eternity twiddling his or her thumbs before he or she decided to create the universe13.83 billion years ago.

Archaeologists find ancient mass child sacrifice in Peru April 30, 2018 by Franklin Briceno This April 22, 2011 handout photo provided by National Geographic shows more than a dozen bodies preserved in dry sand for more than 500 years, at the Huanchaquito-Las Llamas site near Trujillo, Peru. Researchers reported that, "except for three adult burials (two females and one male), all the human skeletal remains were of children, ranging in age from approximately five to fourteen years, with the majority falling in the range of eight to twelve years of age." (Gabriel Prieto/National Geographic via AP) Archaeologists in northern Peru say they have found evidence of what could be the world's largest single case of child sacrifice. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-04-archaeologists-ancient-mass-child-sacrifice.html#jCp

Earth's magnetic field is not about to reverse, study finds April 30, 2018, University of Liverpool A study of the most recent near-reversals of the Earth's magnetic field by an international team of researchers, including the University of Liverpool, has found it is unlikely that such an event will take place anytime soon. There has been speculation that the Earth's geomagnetic fields may be about to reverse , with substantial implications, due to a weakening of the magnetic field over at least the last two hundred years, combined with the expansion of an identified weak area in the Earth's magnetic field called the South Atlantic Anomaly, which stretches from Chile to Zimbabwe. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-04-earth-magnetic-field-reverse.html#jCp :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: the paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/04/24/1722110115 Abstract The geomagnetic field has been decaying at a rate of ∼∼5% per century from at least 1840, with indirect observations suggesting a decay since 1600 or even earlier. This has led to the assertion that the geomagnetic field may be undergoing a reversal or an excursion. We have derived a model of the geomagnetic field spanning 30–50 ka, constructed to study the behavior of the two most recent excursions: the Laschamp and Mono Lake, centered at 41 and 34 ka, respectively. Here, we show that neither excursion demonstrates field evolution similar to current changes in the geomagnetic field. At earlier times, centered at 49 and 46 ka, the field is comparable to today’s field, with an intensity structure similar to today’s South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA); however, neither of these SAA-like fields develop into an excursion or reversal. This suggests that the current weakened field will also recover without an extreme event such as an excursion or reversal. The SAA-like field structure at 46 ka appears to be coeval with published increases in geomagnetically modulated beryllium and chlorine nuclide production, despite the global dipole field not weakening significantly in our model during this time. This agreement suggests a greater complexity in the relationship between cosmogenic nuclide production and the geomagnetic field than is commonly assumed.

The first reply from your link to that forum says it all..... and then gave you some proper reference thus.... https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9712019

No probs! I've done it myself!!

So you literally crawl out of the woodwork, admit in the first sentence that you are not familiar with "this stuff" , then go on some rant claiming all those that are in the know are wrong, and you do all this while trying to build a generator, and all without any scientific evidence? Flabbergasting to say the least.

The shape of all astronomical large objects, like planets and stars are all roundish due to gravity pulling equally from all directions, during their accretion and building process. So yes, explained by the theory gravity. The actual shape of the Earth has been shown to be an oblate spheroid, and overwhelming evidence also supports that fact. Along with experimentation and continued supporting repeated results, yes. Let me add that at this stage of humanities learning and knowledge, any individual that does not believe the Earth is flat, rotating and orbiting, is probably a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

Hiya Mick......What you have attributed to me saying/typing is actually what Awkward_Pause in the OP said.

Try again....While nothing is certain in science, the evidence points to a BB 13.83 billion years ago, and the fact that we have absolutely no need for any mythical construct that ancient humans may have needed to explain the wonders around him/her.

Yes, yes, yes: a thousand times yes! Hence the increasing numbers of evangelisitc crusades against what believers see as tearing down that shield.

I could quote the generally held definition of what is gravity and how it is defined in Newton's and Einstein's universe....or show many videos explaining gravity as the attraction between masses or as exhibiting itself in the curvature/warping of spacetime. But I sense you want something deeper then that. Let me supply my favourite video by one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century which I believe may answer what you are after....It's only 7.5 minutes long.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

I certainly hope I havn't confused the questioner in the OP with my mistaken view on light and travelling through denser mediums.

Thanks swansont and Strange...This has been rather difficult to get my big fat head around as I have always used the argument that it didn't actually slow down and just had a longer path to travel due to reflection/refraction etc. Guess what! I was wrong!!!! The following video gives a good explanation...glad you two treated me gently though.

We have agreed that photons always move at "c" Permittivity and permeability then affect [slow down] light as a wave? OK, that makes some sense. Perhaps I have some sort of mental block here...I'm sort of looking at this analogous to the coordinate speed of light as calculated by a distant observer and the actual local proper speed of light? Hmmm, OK...I think

But Einstein showed that light is the flow of photons. Are we thus saying it acts differently as a wave?

Here's some more "cavemen"style music from a long ago era......

Ahaa! I think I see my error. Are we simply applying the dual nature of light? [If so, I'm still slightly confused] Can you elaborate?

I have come in late on this one, and there's not much more to be said that others havn't rightly noted. Just let me reiterate that the BB is a model of the evolution of the universe/spacetime from a hotter denser state from t+10-43 seconds. In other words the BB says nothing about the actual t=0 period. In other words our model and GR fail at this quantum level...That is our singularity: So you see there is nothing really supernatural [like your spaghetti monster] about the singularity. In reality it just at this stage expresses a gap in our knowledge. So, sure, if you are still of a mind to shove your spaghetti monster in there as a sort of "god of the gaps"' just as the Catholic church have done, then be my/our guest. But please, stop your apparent evangelistic crusade that so many of you mythical believers, conduct against science. No one twisted your arm to come here.