On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 8:01:40 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 7:52:19 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> I've asked this before but can't recall the responses, so bear with me.
>> At the time of recombination, wh
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 7:52:19 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> I've asked this before but can't recall the responses, so bear with me. At
> the time of recombination, when H atoms formed, is the CMBR the result of
> the fact that the total energy of neutral H i
I've asked this before but can't recall the responses, so bear with me. At
the time of recombination, when H atoms formed, is the CMBR the result of
the fact that the total energy of neutral H is LESS than that of protons
and electrons existing independently, and that the CMBR is the energy
ctron and proton is larger than the
>>> hydrogen atom they form at recombination time. Thus, I would expect a very
>>> narrow pulse of energy as a result when recombination occurs. This
>>> apparently being the case, why does the CMBR have a black body distribution
>&
On Monday, March 18, 2019 at 11:36:24 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/18/2019 2:34 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > If that's the case, then there's no visible remnant of the
> > recombination in the observed CMBR, and what we observe is simply the
> &
On Monday, March 18, 2019 at 12:36:24 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/18/2019 2:34 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> > If that's the case, then there's no visible remnant of the
> > recombination in the observed CMBR, and what we observe is simply the
> &
On 3/18/2019 2:34 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
If that's the case, then there's no visible remnant of the
recombination in the observed CMBR, and what we observe is simply the
cooled BB radiation of pre-combination times. So what does the CMBR
tell us? AG
It tells us it was hot. So
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IIUC, the combined mass of an electron and proton is larger than the
>>>>>>> hydrogen atom they form at recombination time. Thus, I would expect a
>>>>>>> very
>>>>>&
as a result when recombination occurs.
This apparently being the case, why does the CMBR have a black body
distribution and not a pulse with a very narrow spread? TIA, AG
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubs
-6, agrays...@gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IIUC, the combined mass of an electron and proton is larger than the
>>>>>> hydrogen atom they form at recombination time. Thus, I would expect a
>>>>
, the combined mass of an electron and proton is larger than the
>>>>> hydrogen atom they form at recombination time. Thus, I would expect a
>>>>> very
>>>>> narrow pulse of energy as a result when recombination occurs. This
>>>>> appare
when recombination occurs.
This apparently being the case, why does the CMBR have
a black body distribution and not a pulse with a very
narrow spread? TIA, AG
Is this a really dumb question and the reason for zero
replies
2019 at 8:27:58 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> IIUC, the combined mass of an electron and proton is larger than the
>>>> hydrogen atom they form at recombination time. Thus, I would expect a very
>>>> narrow pulse of energ
ctron and proton is larger than the
>>> hydrogen atom they form at recombination time. Thus, I would expect a very
>>> narrow pulse of energy as a result when recombination occurs. This
>>> apparently being the case, why does the CMBR have a black body distribution
>&
expect a very
>> narrow pulse of energy as a result when recombination occurs. This
>> apparently being the case, why does the CMBR have a black body distribution
>> and not a pulse with a very narrow spread? TIA, AG
>>
>
> Is this a really dumb question and the reason for
ation occurs. This
> apparently being the case, why does the CMBR have a black body distribution
> and not a pulse with a very narrow spread? TIA, AG
>
Is this a really dumb question and the reason for zero replies; or is it
because no one here has the answer? Or maybe just no interest i
IIUC, the combined mass of an electron and proton is larger than the
hydrogen atom they form at recombination time. Thus, I would expect a very
narrow pulse of energy as a result when recombination occurs. This
apparently being the case, why does the CMBR have a black body distribution
nd faster than light and exponentially doubled in size at least 100
> times every 10^-35 seconds, and today that super tiny volume is our entire
> observable universe. The FTL expansion is why very distant parts of the
> CMBR are at almost exactly the same temperature even though t
On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 1:40:22 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 5:46:18 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>> If the temperature was non uniform when the BB occurred, if it occurred,
>> why would a sudden increase in its volume, aka
On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 1:40:22 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 5:46:18 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>> If the temperature was non uniform when the BB occurred, if it occurred,
>> why would a sudden increase in its volume, aka
nd faster than light and exponentially doubled in size at least 100
> times every 10^-35 seconds, and today that super tiny volume is our entire
> observable universe. The FTL expansion is why very distant parts of the
> CMBR are at almost exactly the same temperature even though today
s our entire
observable universe. The FTL expansion is why very distant parts of the
CMBR are at almost exactly the same temperature even though today they are
not causally connected. And the random quantum variations that must have
existed in that very tiny volume before inflation started
on, the universe still expands FTL so
> other than the local region for an observer, all other regions remain NOT
> causally connected. All inflation does is preserve the temperature
> distribution when it begins, almost immediately after the BB. IOW, I don't
> see how inflation
thermal
> equilibrium with their neighbors.
>
*I don't get it. Without inflation, the universe still expands FTL so other
than the local region for an observer, all other regions remain NOT
causally connected. All inflation does is preserve the temperature
distribution when it begins, alm
On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 10:53 PM wrote:
*> Where does the non conserved energy go, specifically the loss of energy
> represented by the cosmological red shift? AG*
If it's non-conserved then the energy went into infinite unbounded
homogeneity, that is to say into nothingness. At the
On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 12:17:34 AM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:53 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote:
>
> >> If the creation of the inflaton required conditions that existed when
>>> the universe was 10^-44 seconds old and inflation had decayed away when it
>>> was
On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 7:28 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
If the creation of the inflaton required conditions that existed when
the universe was 10^-44 seconds old and inflation had decayed away when it
was 10^-35 seconds old then the particle associated with the inflation
field
On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 1:23:19 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 12:01 PM >
> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 12:28:58 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 11:17 AM John Clark wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:53 PM Bruce Kellett
On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 12:01 PM wrote:
> On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 12:28:58 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 11:17 AM John Clark wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:53 PM Bruce Kellett
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> If the creation of the inflaton required conditions that
On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 12:28:58 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 11:17 AM John Clark > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:53 PM Bruce Kellett > > wrote:
>>
>> >> If the creation of the inflaton required conditions that existed when
the universe was 10^-44
On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 11:17 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:53 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> >> If the creation of the inflaton required conditions that existed when
>>> the universe was 10^-44 seconds old and inflation had decayed away when it
>>> was 10^-35 seconds old then
On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:53 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> If the creation of the inflaton required conditions that existed when
>> the universe was 10^-44 seconds old and inflation had decayed away when it
>> was 10^-35 seconds old then the particle associated with the inflation
>> field would
On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 2:06 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 5:14 AM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> > Why has the inflation not been seen at LHC?
>>>
>>> >> The LHC just went offline, when it comes back online after 2 years
>>> of upgrades it should reach energies close to 15
On Friday, December 28, 2018 at 10:14:13 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 10:52 AM John Clark > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:35 PM Bruce Kellett > > wrote:
>>
>> > *You seem to be convinced by inflation theory. *
>>>
>>
>> No I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'm not
On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 5:14 AM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> Why has the inflation not been seen at LHC?
>>>
>>
>> >> The LHC just went offline, when it comes back online after 2 years of
>> upgrades it should reach energies close to 15 TeV which corresponds to a
>> temperature of 10^17 Kelvin, and
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 10:52 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:35 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> > *You seem to be convinced by inflation theory. *
>>
>
> No I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'm not convinced it's right I'm
> just not convinced it's dead wrong as you seem to
On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 4:43:23 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 3:30:58 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 2:37:59 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/25/2018 4:42 PM,
On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 3:30:58 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 2:37:59 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/25/2018 4:42 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 11:26:14 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 2:37:59 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/25/2018 4:42 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 11:26:14 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/25/2018 8:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 25,
On 12/25/2018 4:42 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 11:26:14 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 12/25/2018 8:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 1:16:53 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 3:21 PM
On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 11:26:14 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/25/2018 8:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 1:16:53 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 3:21 PM wrote:
>>
>> >> You can never prove that any physical
On 12/25/2018 8:01 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 1:16:53 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 3:21 PM > wrote:
>> You can never prove that any physical quantity is exactly
zero, but we do know from observations
On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 1:16:53 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 3:21 PM > wrote:
>
> >> You can never prove that any physical quantity is exactly zero, but we
>>> do know from observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation that
>>> if the universe is
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 3:21 PM wrote:
>> You can never prove that any physical quantity is exactly zero, but we
>> do know from observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation that
>> if the universe is curved at all it is by less than one part in 100,000.
>>
>
*> Agreed. However,
On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 7:05:10 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 1:53 AM > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 5:57:35 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:27 PM wrote:
>>>
On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 1:53 AM wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 5:57:35 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:27 PM wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 2:13:46 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
On Tuesday, December
On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 6:53:28 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 5:57:35 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:27 PM wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 2:13:46 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 5:57:35 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:27 PM >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 2:13:46 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 12:35:24 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
On 12/24/2018 3:34 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 10:42:10 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 12/24/2018 1:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, December
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:27 PM wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 2:13:46 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 12:35:24 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 6:28 PM wrote:
>>>
On Monday, December
On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 2:13:46 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 12:35:24 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 6:28 PM wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 9:47:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 12:35:24 AM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 6:28 PM > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 9:47:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:04 PM wrote:
>>>
On Monday, December 24, 2018 at
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 6:28 PM wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 9:47:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:04 PM wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
On Monday, December 24,
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:35 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> *You seem to be convinced by inflation theory. *
>
No I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'm not convinced it's right I'm just
not convinced it's dead wrong as you seem to be.
*> Why has the inflation not been seen at LHC?*
>
The LHC just
On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 10:42:10 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/24/2018 1:04 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 9:47:52 PM UTC, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:04 PM > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 12/24/2018 1:04 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 12/23/2018 8:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, December
ate what those
>>> temperature variations would evolve into after the universe has been
>>> expanding for 380,000 years, and what we calculate and what we see are the
>>> same.
>>>
>>> That's also how we know that at the very largest scale the universe is
>&g
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:04 PM wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/23/2018 8:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, December
culate and what we see are the
>> same.
>>
>> That's also how we know that at the very largest scale the universe is
>> in general flat. They did this by looking at the oldest thing we can
>> see, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) formed just 380,000
>> ye
after the universe has been
> expanding for 380,000 years, and what we calculate and what we see are the
> same.
>
> That's also how we know that at the very largest scale the universe is in
> general flat. They did this by looking at the oldest thing we can see,
> the C
On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 8:25:11 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/23/2018 8:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 5:52:21 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 7:47 PM > wrote:
>
> *> **If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane extending
>> infinitely in all directions, as opposed to asymptotically flat like a huge
>> and expanding sphere,
On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 6:40:03 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/23/2018 8:22 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> *If by "flat", you mean mathematically
On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 5:52:21 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 7:47 PM > wrote:
>
> *> **If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane extending
>> infinitely in all directions, as opposed to asymptotically flat like a huge
>> and expanding sphere,
On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 7:47 PM wrote:
*> **If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane extending
> infinitely in all directions, as opposed to asymptotically flat like a huge
> and expanding sphere, you have to reconcile an infinitesimally tiny
> universe at the time of the BB,
general flat. They did this by looking at the oldest thing we can see, the
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) formed just 380,000 years
after the Big Bang. So if we look at a map of that background radiation the
largest structure we could see on it would be 380,000 light years across,
spots
On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 5:22:34 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:02 PM > wrote:
>
>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 4:47:02 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 3:33 PM wrote:
>>>
On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 4:22:24 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
On 12/23/2018 8:33 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 4:22:24 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
*If by "flat", you mean
On 12/23/2018 8:22 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
*If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane
extending infinitely in all directions, as opposed to
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 4:02 PM wrote:
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 4:47:02 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 3:33 PM wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 4:22:24 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC,
On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> *If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane extending
> infinitely in all directions, as opposed to asymptotically flat like a huge
> and expanding sphere,
On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 4:47:02 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 3:33 PM > wrote:
>
>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 4:22:24 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM,
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 3:33 PM wrote:
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 4:22:24 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> *If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat,
On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 4:22:24 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 3:50:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> *If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane extending
>> infinitely
On 12/23/2018 4:47 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
*If by "flat", you mean mathematically flat, like a plane extending
infinitely in all directions, as opposed to asymptotically flat like a
huge and expanding sphere, you have to reconcile an infinitesimally
tiny universe at the time of
On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 10:38:00 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 1:38 AM John Clark > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 11:32 PM Bruce Kellett > > wrote:
>>
>> *> The point is that inflation only solves the problem given certain
>>> initial conditions. We have no
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 1:38 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 11:32 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> *> The point is that inflation only solves the problem given certain
>> initial conditions. We have no independent knowledge of those initial
>> conditions, *
>
>
> From observations
On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 11:32 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:
*> The point is that inflation only solves the problem given certain
> initial conditions. We have no independent knowledge of those initial
> conditions, *
>From observations I think we do have a little knowledge about what those
initial
On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 3:27:35 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 3:04:07 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 1:17 PM John Clark wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 6:46 AM wrote:
>>>
>>> *> If the temperature was non uniform
On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 3:05 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 10:04 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> >>Regardless of how non-uniform the entire early universe may have been
>>> if you kept looking at smaller and smaller volumes you'd eventually find a
>>> size where thing were pretty
On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 10:04 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:
>>Regardless of how non-uniform the entire early universe may have been if
>> you kept looking at smaller and smaller volumes you'd eventually find a
>> size where thing were pretty uniform.
>>
>
> *> On what do you bas that assumption? *
>
On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 3:04:07 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 1:17 PM John Clark > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 6:46 AM >
>> wrote:
>>
>> *> If the temperature was non uniform when the BB occurred, if it
>>> occurred, why would a sudden increase in its
On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 1:17 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 6:46 AM wrote:
>
> *> If the temperature was non uniform when the BB occurred, if it
>> occurred, why would a sudden increase in its volume, aka inflation, erase
>> or wash out those non uniformities?*
>>
>
> Regardless
On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 2:17:14 AM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 6:46 AM > wrote:
>
> *> If the temperature was non uniform when the BB occurred, if it
>> occurred, why would a sudden increase in its volume, aka inflation, erase
>> or wash out those non
y, or often, the case is made that inflation
explains*
*the uniformity of the CMBR temperature, which is also called the Horizon
Problem. *
*How does it do that? What assumptions are made about initial BB
temperature to *
*cause inflation to be a plausible explanation? TIA, AG*
>
> Brent
&g
On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 6:46 AM wrote:
*> If the temperature was non uniform when the BB occurred, if it occurred,
> why would a sudden increase in its volume, aka inflation, erase or wash out
> those non uniformities?*
>
Regardless of how non-uniform the entire early universe may have been if
On 12/22/2018 3:46 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
If the temperature was non uniform when the BB occurred, if it
occurred, why would a sudden increase in its volume, aka inflation,
erase or wash out those non uniformities? ISTM, it would preserve them.
It might preserve them, but it
On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 11:46:18 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> If the temperature was non uniform when the BB occurred, if it occurred,
> why would a sudden increase in its volume, aka inflation, erase or wash out
> those non uniformities? ISTM, it would preserve them.
If the temperature was non uniform when the BB occurred, if it occurred,
why would a sudden increase in its volume, aka inflation, erase or wash out
those non uniformities? ISTM, it would preserve them. OTOH, if the initial
temperature were uniform, would that obviate the need for inflation, or
90 matches
Mail list logo
