XPost: sci.electronics.design

The bubbling universe: A previously unknown phase transition in the early universe
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230201102845.htm

2 different Hubble constants united?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 05:46:38 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:

The bubbling universe: A previously unknown phase transition in the early universe
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230201102845.htm

2 different Hubble constants united?

Depends. Yes if one prefers Ptolemaic physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#/media/File:Bartolomeu_Velho_1568.jpg
Or no if one doesn’t. Don’t forget Jan, that Hubble himself until the end of his life did not believe in the Big Bang as an explanation for redshift his redshift over distance observations. He believed redshift was an as yet
un recognised property of emr as it travelled over distance. In other words he thought BBT was nonsense. All the bubble universe does is add another layer
to the Ptolemaic style BBT fantasy.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On a sunny day (Fri, 3 Feb 2023 05:53:44 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou <[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 05:46:38 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:

The bubbling universe: A previously unknown phase transition in the early >universe
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230201102845.htm

2 different Hubble constants united?

Depends. Yes if one prefers Ptolemaic physics >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#/media/File:Bartolomeu_Velho_1568.jpg
Or
no if one doesn=E2=80=99t. Don=E2=80=99t forget Jan, that Hubble himself >until the end
of his life did not believe in the Big Bang as an explanation for redshift his >redshift
over distance observations. He believed redshift was an as yet
un recognised property of emr as it travelled over distance. In other words >he
thought BBT was nonsense. All the bubble universe does is add another layer >to the Ptolemaic style BBT fantasy.

Yes, I have the same problem with the big bang, but OTOH
stars explode and throw all sort of stuff around.
Our understanding of elementary particles is still evolving
so maybe some explosion happened in a large object... the Bang.
But I do not believe in 'singularities', in my view that is only mathematicians doing a divide by zero.
'Tired light' (what you are referring to?) is perhaps a possibility.

My current view is a Le Sage like universe, where the Le Sage particles are also the carrier of EM radiation
and it is only logical that those then would lose speed due to whatever even finer 'elementary' particles they encounter.
I like to have a mechanism, Special Relativity is like Ohms law without electrons.
It gets you nowhere but in circles..

Maybe it will take hundreds of years and many generations before we see a breakthrough of the current dogma.
That is if we do not fall back thousands of years because of a nuclear WW3.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 15:16:26 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 3 Feb 2023 05:53:44 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou
wrote in

On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 05:46:38 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:

The bubbling universe: A previously unknown phase transition in the early >universe
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230201102845.htm

2 different Hubble constants united?

Depends. Yes if one prefers Ptolemaic physics >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#/media/File:Bartolomeu_Velho_1568.jpg
Or
no if one doesn=E2=80=99t. Don=E2=80=99t forget Jan, that Hubble himself >until the end
of his life did not believe in the Big Bang as an explanation for redshift his
redshift
over distance observations. He believed redshift was an as yet
un recognised property of emr as it travelled over distance. In other words >he
thought BBT was nonsense. All the bubble universe does is add another layer >to the Ptolemaic style BBT fantasy.

Yes, I have the same problem with the big bang, but OTOH
stars explode and throw all sort of stuff around.
Our understanding of elementary particles is still evolving
so maybe some explosion happened in a large object... the Bang.
But I do not believe in 'singularities', in my view that is only mathematicians doing a divide by zero.
'Tired light' (what you are referring to?) is perhaps a possibility.

Don’t forget to ignore the relativists propaganda about tired light
“losing energy” over distance
EMR can increase wavelength/ decrease frequency without losing energy.
Take for instance 100-200nm emitted range. Redshifted to 200-400nm
range. Thats 1/2 energy at each wavelength measured, but double the wavelength range.
Equals out to the same amount of energy emitted over twice the
wavelength range.
I don’t think there is a mathematician in the world who could prove that
any energy is lost with cosmological redshifting where no expansion
is the model. As long as one doesn’t assume the fantasy that light is
a photon. No one has ever observed a photon. They are lying if
they said they have. And it is for this very reason that the whole
BIG bang debacle was invented. To save alberts silly photon.
Because in 1905 he said it couldn’t lose energy over distance
In 1921 he was elevated by his religious order and the Nobel
prize commitee to God. So that when Hubble discovered Al was wrong
in 1929 it was too late. Either Hubble deferred to the relativists,
bowed down to Al, and said the universe was expanding.
Or he risked being banished and impoverished by the religious
fundamentalist order of Albertians. As I’ve already pointed elsewhere
Hubble is on the record for NEVER agreeing to expansion
to explain redshift. He always assumed it was a newly discovered
property of light changing frequency as it travelled over distance.

My current view is a Le Sage like universe, where the Le Sage particles are also the carrier of EM radiation
and it is only logical that those then would lose speed due to whatever even finer 'elementary' particles they encounter.
I like to have a mechanism, Special Relativity is like Ohms law without electrons.
It gets you nowhere but in circles..

Maybe it will take hundreds of years and many generations before we see a breakthrough of the current dogma.
That is if we do not fall back thousands of years because of a nuclear WW3.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On a sunny day (Fri, 3 Feb 2023 11:24:07 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou <[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 15:16:26 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 3 Feb 2023 05:53:44 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou
wrote in

On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 05:46:38 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:

The bubbling universe: A previously unknown phase transition in the early >>

universe

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230201102845.htm

2 different Hubble constants united?

Depends. Yes if one prefers Ptolemaic physics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#/media/File:Bartolomeu_Velho_1568.jpg

Or

no if one doesn=3DE2=3D80=3D99t. Don=3DE2=3D80=3D99t forget Jan, that Hubble

himself

until the end
of his life did not believe in the Big Bang as an explanation for redshift >his
redshift
over distance observations. He believed redshift was an as yet
un recognised property of emr as it travelled over distance. In other words >>

he

thought BBT was nonsense. All the bubble universe does is add another layer >>

to the Ptolemaic style BBT fantasy.
Yes, I have the same problem with the big bang, but OTOH
stars explode and throw all sort of stuff around.
Our understanding of elementary particles is still evolving
so maybe some explosion happened in a large object... the Bang.
But I do not believe in 'singularities', in my view that is only mathematicians

doing a divide by zero.

'Tired light' (what you are referring to?) is perhaps a possibility.

Don=E2=80=99t forget to ignore the relativists propaganda about tired light >=E2=80=9Closing energy=E2=80=9D over distance
EMR can increase wavelength/ decrease frequency without losing energy.
Take for instance 100-200nm emitted range. Redshifted to 200-400nm
range. Thats 1/2 energy at each wavelength measured, but double the >wavelength range.
Equals out to the same amount of energy emitted over twice the
wavelength range.
I don=E2=80=99t think there is a mathematician in the world who could prove >that
any energy is lost with cosmological redshifting where no expansion
is the model. As long as one doesn=E2=80=99t assume the fantasy that light is >a
photon.

Yes 'photon' is just a mathematical definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
It is related to Planck's constant, and basically to the binding force of the electron to the nucleus.
As analogy:
Imagine a vertical pole in the water with a ball connected to it on a rope. Waves come and go, and when one is big enough the rope breaks and the ball is kicked of the pole
(electron kicked out of orbit around the nucleus) and somebody screams PHOTON DETECTED.
That is how our 'photon detectors' (Photo[n?] Multiplier Tube PMT) work.
http://panteltje.com/pub/PMT/PMT_front_img_2436.jpg
I have several PMTs and designed hardware and written software for it.
Light hits a target, some electron is kicked lose, is accelerated in an electric field,
hits a next target with high speed where it kicks out more electrons,
process repeated over several target electrodes to give finally a big enough electric impulse we can measure.
In the analogy of the ball kicked from the pole in the water: it is caught by somebody who then throws
10 balls at the next person who then throws 100 balls at the next person etc.
http://panteltje.com/pub/PMT/PMT_1_img_2435.jpg
that battery is for size compare only.
You can clearly see all the electrodes and their connections to the pins:
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fotomultiplicator
Small waves that did NOT kick an electron lose exist of course....

No one has ever observed a photon. They are lying if
they said they have. And it is for this very reason that the whole
BIG bang debacle was invented. To save alberts silly photon.
Because in 1905 he said it couldnot lose energy over distance
In 1921 he was elevated by his religious order and the Nobel
prize commitee to God. So that when Hubble discovered Al was wrong
in 1929 it was too late. Either Hubble deferred to the relativists,
bowed down to Al, and said the universe was expanding.
Or he risked being banished and impoverished by the religious
fundamentalist order of Albertians. As I=E2=80=99ve already pointed elsewhere >Hubble
is on the record for NEVER agreeing to expansion
to explain redshift. He always assumed it was a newly discovered
property of light changing frequency as it travelled over distance.

Once we had epicycles... well that went...
In the same way :-) ;-)

These day we are pestered / flooded with 'quantum' stuff, 'quantum computers' and
magical correlation of particles.
..
Seems publishing about human made climate change (it is really caused by earth orbit variations)
and quantum stuff is a big thing to get you graduated
or at least read.
Still waiting for the fusion powered car, spaceship, the 'duplicator' for my pizza, the tractor beam
and my Mars cottage,
In the sixties we could actually walk on the moon.
....

Endless driving around the block for no reason at all in the ISS.
Columbus? Never heard of ?

All this said, read this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck


We need a physics overhaul...
We need to renounce Albert E. IF we want to proceed...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 06:17:02 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 3 Feb 2023 11:24:07 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou
wrote in

On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 15:16:26 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 3 Feb 2023 05:53:44 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou
wrote in

On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 05:46:38 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:

The bubbling universe: A previously unknown phase transition in the early

universe

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230201102845.htm

2 different Hubble constants united?

Depends. Yes if one prefers Ptolemaic physics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#/media/File:Bartolomeu_Velho_1568.jpg

Or

no if one doesn=3DE2=3D80=3D99t. Don=3DE2=3D80=3D99t forget Jan, that Hubble

himself

until the end
of his life did not believe in the Big Bang as an explanation for redshift

his

redshift
over distance observations. He believed redshift was an as yet
un recognised property of emr as it travelled over distance. In other words

he

thought BBT was nonsense. All the bubble universe does is add another layer

to the Ptolemaic style BBT fantasy.
Yes, I have the same problem with the big bang, but OTOH
stars explode and throw all sort of stuff around.
Our understanding of elementary particles is still evolving
so maybe some explosion happened in a large object... the Bang.
But I do not believe in 'singularities', in my view that is only mathematicians

doing a divide by zero.

'Tired light' (what you are referring to?) is perhaps a possibility.

Don=E2=80=99t forget to ignore the relativists propaganda about tired light >=E2=80=9Closing energy=E2=80=9D over distance
EMR can increase wavelength/ decrease frequency without losing energy. >Take for instance 100-200nm emitted range. Redshifted to 200-400nm
range. Thats 1/2 energy at each wavelength measured, but double the >wavelength range.
Equals out to the same amount of energy emitted over twice the
wavelength range.
I don=E2=80=99t think there is a mathematician in the world who could prove >that
any energy is lost with cosmological redshifting where no expansion
is the model. As long as one doesn=E2=80=99t assume the fantasy that light is
a
photon.

Yes 'photon' is just a mathematical definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
It is related to Planck's constant, and basically to the binding force of the electron to the nucleus.
As analogy:
Imagine a vertical pole in the water with a ball connected to it on a rope. Waves come and go, and when one is big enough the rope breaks and the ball is kicked of the pole

Yes. A good analogy. I would change that slightly for waves.
Imagine instead of a ball it’s a bucket at the edge of a pool with its rim just above pool level. The waves fill the bucket it-tips over when full and releases as one pulse all its water to a tube which triggers the amplifying cascade

(electron kicked out of orbit around the nucleus) and somebody screams PHOTON DETECTED.
That is how our 'photon detectors' (Photo[n?] Multiplier Tube PMT) work. http://panteltje.com/pub/PMT/PMT_front_img_2436.jpg
I have several PMTs and designed hardware and written software for it.

You made that pmt or ones like that?Was that part of your profession.?

Light hits a target, some electron is kicked lose, is accelerated in an electric field,
hits a next target with high speed where it kicks out more electrons, process repeated over several target electrodes to give finally a big enough electric impulse we can measure.

I think the reference sometimes calls this an electron cascade?

In the analogy of the ball kicked from the pole in the water: it is caught by somebody who then throws
10 balls at the next person who then throws 100 balls at the next person etc.

Which is an good analogy. And makes me wonder how theorists
think they saw a photon. They didn’t.
If I understand correctly each “pixel” of the photomultiplier
that recieved the photon is comprised of maybe millions of atoms.
All could have recieved 1/1,000,000 of a “photons” worth of energy
each from waves incident on pmt. And when those millions collectively
reach communal critical charge of 1 “ photon” they release the charge
to the cascade where it’s amplified, processed by pc and sent to
the screen as a dot.

http://panteltje.com/pub/PMT/PMT_1_img_2435.jpg
that battery is for size compare only.
You can clearly see all the electrodes and their connections to the pins: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fotomultiplicator
Small waves that did NOT kick an electron lose exist of course....

Even If the waves were large in amplitude but not the same frequency as the resonant f of the pmt atoms...No charge is stored by the PMT.
Which can make wave a model consistent with the photoelectric effect

No one has ever observed a photon. They are lying if
they said they have. And it is for this very reason that the whole
BIG bang debacle was invented. To save alberts silly photon.
Because in 1905 he said it couldnot lose energy over distance
In 1921 he was elevated by his religious order and the Nobel
prize commitee to God. So that when Hubble discovered Al was wrong
in 1929 it was too late. Either Hubble deferred to the relativists,
bowed down to Al, and said the universe was expanding.
Or he risked being banished and impoverished by the religious >fundamentalist order of Albertians. As I=E2=80=99ve already pointed elsewhere
Hubble
is on the record for NEVER agreeing to expansion
to explain redshift. He always assumed it was a newly discovered
property of light changing frequency as it travelled over distance.

Once we had epicycles... well that went...
In the same way :-) ;-)

These day we are pestered / flooded with 'quantum' stuff, 'quantum computers' and
magical correlation of particles.
..
Seems publishing about human made climate change (it is really caused by earth orbit variations)
and quantum stuff is a big thing to get you graduated
or at least read.
Still waiting for the fusion powered car, spaceship, the 'duplicator' for my pizza, the tractor beam
and my Mars cottage,

Have you read about that free energy chip designed by U of Arkansas

https://phys.org/news/2020-10-physicists-circuit-limitless-power-graphene.html

In the sixties we could actually walk on the moon.
....

Endless driving around the block for no reason at all in the ISS.
Columbus? Never heard of ?

All this said, read this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck

We need a physics overhaul...
We need to renounce Albert E. IF we want to proceed...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On a sunny day (Sat, 4 Feb 2023 11:15:26 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou <[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

On Saturday, 4 February 2023 at 06:17:02 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 3 Feb 2023 11:24:07 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou
wrote in

On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 15:16:26 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 3 Feb 2023 05:53:44 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou

wrote in

On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 05:46:38 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:

The bubbling universe: A previously unknown phase transition in the >early

universe

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230201102845.htm

2 different Hubble constants united?

Depends. Yes if one prefers Ptolemaic physics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#/media/File:Bartolomeu_Velho_1568.jpg

Or

no if one doesn=3D3DE2=3D3D80=3D3D99t. Don=3D3DE2=3D3D80=3D3D99t forget >Jan, that Hubble

himself

until the end
of his life did not believe in the Big Bang as an explanation for redshift

his

redshift
over distance observations. He believed redshift was an as yet
un recognised property of emr as it travelled over distance. In other >words

he

thought BBT was nonsense. All the bubble universe does is add another >layer

to the Ptolemaic style BBT fantasy.
Yes, I have the same problem with the big bang, but OTOH
stars explode and throw all sort of stuff around.
Our understanding of elementary particles is still evolving
so maybe some explosion happened in a large object... the Bang.
But I do not believe in 'singularities', in my view that is only mathematicians

doing a divide by zero.

'Tired light' (what you are referring to?) is perhaps a possibility.

Don=3DE2=3D80=3D99t forget to ignore the relativists propaganda about tired >light
=3DE2=3D80=3D9Closing energy=3DE2=3D80=3D9D over distance
EMR can increase wavelength/ decrease frequency without losing energy.

Take for instance 100-200nm emitted range. Redshifted to 200-400nm

range. Thats 1/2 energy at each wavelength measured, but double the
wavelength range.
Equals out to the same amount of energy emitted over twice the
wavelength range.
I don=3DE2=3D80=3D99t think there is a mathematician in the world who could >prove
that
any energy is lost with cosmological redshifting where no expansion
is the model. As long as one doesn=3DE2=3D80=3D99t assume the fantasy that >light is
a
photon.

Yes 'photon' is just a mathematical definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
It is related to Planck's constant, and basically to the binding force of >the electron to the nucleus.
As analogy:
Imagine a vertical pole in the water with a ball connected to it on a rope. >>

Waves come and go, and when one is big enough the rope breaks and the ball
is kicked of the pole
Yes. A good analogy. I would change that slightly for waves.
Imagine instead of a ball it=E2=80=99s a bucket at the edge of a pool with its >rim
just above pool level. The waves fill the bucket it-tips over when full and >releases as one pulse all its water to a tube which triggers the amplifying >cascade

(electron kicked out of orbit around the nucleus) and somebody screams PHOTON

DETECTED.

That is how our 'photon detectors' (Photo[n?] Multiplier Tube PMT) work.

http://panteltje.com/pub/PMT/PMT_front_img_2436.jpg

I have several PMTs and designed hardware and written software for it.

You made that pmt or ones like that?Was that part of your profession.?

Light hits a target, some electron is kicked lose, is accelerated in an electric

field,

hits a next target with high speed where it kicks out more electrons,
process repeated over several target electrodes to give finally a big enough >electric impulse we can measure.

I think the reference sometimes calls this an electron cascade?

In the analogy of the ball kicked from the pole in the water: it is caught >by somebody who then throws
10 balls at the next person who then throws 100 balls at the next person etc.

Which
is an good analogy. And makes me wonder how theorists
think they saw a photon. They didn't.
If I understand correctly each pixel of the photomultiplier
that
recieved the photon is comprised of maybe millions of atoms.
All could have recieved 1/1,000,000 of a photons worth of
energy
each from waves incident on pmt. And when those millions collectively
reach communal critical charge of 1 photon they release the
charge
to the cascade where it's amplified, processed by pc and sent to
the screen as a dot.

http://panteltje.com/pub/PMT/PMT_1_img_2435.jpg
that battery is for size compare only.
You can clearly see all the electrodes and their connections to the pins:

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fotomultiplicator

Small waves that did NOT kick an electron lose exist of course....

Even If the waves were large in amplitude but not the same frequency as the >resonant f of the pmt atoms...No charge is stored by the PMT.
Which can make wave a model consistent with the photoelectric effect

Indeed.

No one has ever observed a photon. They are lying if
they said they have. And it is for this very reason that the whole
BIG bang debacle was invented. To save alberts silly photon.
Because in 1905 he said it couldnot lose energy over distance
In 1921 he was elevated by his religious order and the Nobel
prize commitee to God. So that when Hubble discovered Al was wrong
in 1929 it was too late. Either Hubble deferred to the relativists,
bowed down to Al, and said the universe was expanding.
Or he risked being banished and impoverished by the religious
fundamentalist order of Albertians. As I=3DE2=3D80=3D99ve already pointed >elsewhere
Hubble
is on the record for NEVER agreeing to expansion
to explain redshift. He always assumed it was a newly discovered
property of light changing frequency as it travelled over distance.

Once we had epicycles... well that went...
In the same way :-) ;-)

These day we are pestered / flooded with 'quantum' stuff, 'quantum computers'

and

magical correlation of particles.
..
Seems publishing about human made climate change (it is really caused by earth

orbit variations)

and quantum stuff is a big thing to get you graduated
or at least read.
Still waiting for the fusion powered car, spaceship, the 'duplicator' for >my pizza, the tractor beam
and my Mars cottage,

Have you read about that free energy chip designed by U of Arkansas

https://phys.org/news/2020-10-physicists-circuit-limitless-power-graphene.html

Well, seems to be from october 2020 and those batteries are not in the shops here yet!
In my view it cannot work.

But I have a few nice Peltier elements the generate power from temperature differences
and those can also cool things when powered, 10 or so for a few dollars from ebay.

Also was lighting a LED with a candle:
http://panteltje.com/pub/lighting_a_LED_with_a_candle_IMG_3604.GIF
uses a thermocouple, then transforms the voltage upwards
http://panteltje.com/pub/lighting_a_LED_with_a_candle_setup_IMG_3607.GIF

Experimenting is fun.

Bit of anti-gravity:
http://panteltje.com/pub/levitation_cut_img_3039.jpg
well, is just magnetism :-)

Was just reading this this moring:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/01/230131101920.htm
Shining light on a water droplet creates effects analogous to what happens in an atom.
This can help us understand how atoms work, write researchers.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.electronics.design

On 03/02/2023 05:41, Jan Panteltje wrote:

The bubbling universe: A previously unknown phase transition in the early universe
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230201102845.htm

2 different Hubble constants united?

A definite maybe. I've never been happy with dark energy as an
explanation but the experimental evidence is now pretty clear that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating rather than slowing
down so something must be driving that.

I'd prefer to believe that there is something odd about first generation
stars myself but my friends still in the game say that isn't workable.

If your "standard candles" of known brightness are not as reproducible
as you think they are then there is scope for systematic error. The very
first generation of low metallicity stars made from primordial material
might just behave differently at the end of their life.

--
Martin Brown

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.electronics.design

On 2023-03-06 08:49, Martin Brown wrote:

On 03/02/2023 05:41, Jan Panteltje wrote:

The bubbling universe: A previously unknown phase transition in the
early universe
  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230201102845.htm

2 different Hubble constants united?

A definite maybe. I've never been happy with dark energy as an
explanation but the experimental evidence is now pretty clear that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating rather than slowing
down so something must be driving that.

I'd prefer to believe that there is something odd about first generation stars myself but my friends still in the game say that isn't workable.

If your "standard candles" of known brightness are not as reproducible
as you think they are then there is scope for systematic error. The very first generation of low metallicity stars made from primordial material
might just behave differently at the end of their life.

Cosomologists seem to have caught the string theorists' disease.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.electronics.design

On 06/03/2023 16:04, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2023-03-06 08:49, Martin Brown wrote:

On 03/02/2023 05:41, Jan Panteltje wrote:

The bubbling universe: A previously unknown phase transition in the
early universe
  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230201102845.htm

2 different Hubble constants united?

A definite maybe. I've never been happy with dark energy as an
explanation but the experimental evidence is now pretty clear that the
expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating rather than
slowing down so something must be driving that.

I'd prefer to believe that there is something odd about first
generation stars myself but my friends still in the game say that
isn't workable.

If your "standard candles" of known brightness are not as reproducible
as you think they are then there is scope for systematic error. The
very first generation of low metallicity stars made from primordial
material might just behave differently at the end of their life.

Cosomologists seem to have caught the string theorists' disease.

One of my contemporaries at university is now a world leading string
theorist. I don't find it a convincing solution because of too many free parameters and not enough observable predictions but he could be right.

It is quite likely that the next big breakthrough in cosmology will come
from some new cutting edge mathematics that allows the tricky merger of
general relativity, QCD and gravitation into one overarching theory.

I suspect that we will know it when we see it presented although like
with relativity I expect there will be a rearguard action of older
cosmologists who never quite accepted the new fangled Big Bang theory.

Fred Hoyle for instance who should really have got a Nobel prize for his
work and insights on stellar nucleosynthesis but was too much a a bluff Yorkshireman to garner enough support from his peers.

https://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/library/special_collections/hoyle/exhibition/nucleosynthesis

--
Martin Brown

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.electronics.design

On 3/7/23 04:05, Martin Brown wrote:

On 06/03/2023 16:04, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2023-03-06 08:49, Martin Brown wrote:

On 03/02/2023 05:41, Jan Panteltje wrote:

The bubbling universe: A previously unknown phase transition in the
early universe
  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230201102845.htm

2 different Hubble constants united?

A definite maybe. I've never been happy with dark energy as an
explanation but the experimental evidence is now pretty clear that
the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating rather than
slowing down so something must be driving that.

I'd prefer to believe that there is something odd about first
generation stars myself but my friends still in the game say that
isn't workable.

If your "standard candles" of known brightness are not as
reproducible as you think they are then there is scope for systematic
error. The very first generation of low metallicity stars made from
primordial material might just behave differently at the end of their
life.

Cosomologists seem to have caught the string theorists' disease.

One of my contemporaries at university is now a world leading string theorist. I don't find it a convincing solution because of too many free parameters and not enough observable predictions but he could be right.

It is quite likely that the next big breakthrough in cosmology will come
from some new cutting edge mathematics that allows the tricky merger of general relativity, QCD and gravitation into one overarching theory.

I suspect that we will know it when we see it presented although like
with relativity I expect there will be a rearguard action of older cosmologists who never quite accepted the new fangled Big Bang theory.

Fred Hoyle for instance who should really have got a Nobel prize for his
work and insights on stellar nucleosynthesis but was too much a a bluff Yorkshireman to garner enough support from his peers.

https://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/library/special_collections/hoyle/exhibition/nucleosynthesis

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and
they wander off through equation after equation and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

-- Nikola Tesla (real scientist who actually discovered and invented
real things and ideas, unlike popular celebrity scientist frauds)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 10:05:36 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:

On 06/03/2023 16:04, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2023-03-06 08:49, Martin Brown wrote:

On 03/02/2023 05:41, Jan Panteltje wrote:

The bubbling universe: A previously unknown phase transition in the
early universe
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230201102845.htm

2 different Hubble constants united?

A definite maybe. I've never been happy with dark energy as an
explanation but the experimental evidence is now pretty clear that the
expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating rather than
slowing down so something must be driving that.

I'd prefer to believe that there is something odd about first
generation stars myself but my friends still in the game say that
isn't workable.

If your "standard candles" of known brightness are not as reproducible
as you think they are then there is scope for systematic error. The
very first generation of low metallicity stars made from primordial
material might just behave differently at the end of their life.

Cosomologists seem to have caught the string theorists' disease.

One of my contemporaries at university is now a world leading string theorist. I don't find it a convincing solution because of too many free parameters and not enough observable predictions but he could be right.

It is quite likely that the next big breakthrough in cosmology will come from some new cutting edge mathematics that allows the tricky merger of general relativity, QCD and gravitation into one overarching theory.

I suspect that we will know it when we see it presented although like
with relativity I expect there will be a rearguard action of older cosmologists who never quite accepted the new fangled Big Bang theory.

Fred Hoyle for instance who should really have got a Nobel prize for his work and insights on stellar nucleosynthesis but was too much a a bluff Yorkshireman to garner enough support from his peers.

Steady state is an odd theory. It says the universe expands but no Big Bang.? Quite how Fred reconciled expanding with no Big Bang is odd.
But there are many false claims by big bangers. They say bbt predicts
the observation that quasars are proof of theory because there are only
very distant quasars.
Yet there is a quasar only 6 widths of our galaxy away from us.
Then there is the lie about CMBR. Everyone forgets that the steady
state model made the closest prediction to current temp. In 1942 by
McKellar. He predicted 2.8K. At the same time Gamow ,a BBT fan
predicted the BBT would have a CMBR of 50K.
The biggest falsehood of all is that a non expanding model doesn’t
make any successful predictions nor can explain redshift loss of energy
or CMBR.
All false claims. Hubble and then JWST found only mature galaxies.
Predicted by a non expanding model. Not predicted by BBT.The
perfect blackbody spectrum of CMBR is easily explained as galaxies at approximately 10x distance of galaxies at z=1. And averages of millions of galaxies black body spectra in any particular FOV will give a near perfect black body curve. Not to mention the near perfect density fluctuation
seen in COBE. And it’s worth noting that the BBT cannot explain redshift. Because it says it’s caused by expansion. But the theory itself cannot explain acceleration, inflation, and the first moments of the BBT.
In other words if you can’t explain how something starts or how it
does it throughout its history. You can’t explain anything including redshift. Whereas although light having the ability to redshift
frequency over distance isnt explained , there is at least actually no
loss of energy in a non expanding universe redshift.
Contrary to false claims by BBT theorists who erroneously
claim light in a non expanding model must lose energy over distance.
Because an emitted wavelength range when cosmologically
redshifted by z=1 will, yes, 1/2 it’s energy. But that is made up
at observation by admitting that one must calculate energy
by doubling the energy of the wavelength range observed.
Quite why theorists want to make up a whole new field of physics,
new particles, forms of matter, all which are still unable to explain expansion. When all they really needed to do was accept
Albert was wrong and light does change frequency over distance.

https://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/library/special_collections/hoyle/exhibition/nucleosynthesis

--
Martin Brown

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.electronics.design

On 2023-03-07 05:05, Martin Brown wrote:> On 06/03/2023 16:04, Phil
Hobbs wrote:

On 2023-03-06 08:49, Martin Brown wrote:

On 03/02/2023 05:41, Jan Panteltje wrote:

The bubbling universe: A previously unknown phase transition in
the early universe
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230201102845.htm

2 different Hubble constants united?

A definite maybe. I've never been happy with dark energy as an
explanation but the experimental evidence is now pretty clear
that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating
rather than slowing down so something must be driving that.

I'd prefer to believe that there is something odd about first
generation stars myself but my friends still in the game say
that isn't workable.

If your "standard candles" of known brightness are not as
reproducible as you think they are then there is scope for
systematic error. The very first generation of low metallicity
stars made from primordial material might just behave differently
at the end of their life.

Cosomologists seem to have caught the string theorists' disease.

One of my contemporaries at university is now a world leading string theorist. I don't find it a convincing solution because of too many
free parameters and not enough observable predictions but he could be
right.

We're still waiting for a single testable prediction. The number of
smart people who have poured their life's work down that rathole is a
tragedy.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.electronics.design

On a sunny day (Tue, 7 Mar 2023 10:15:24 -0500) it happened Phil Hobbs <[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

On 2023-03-07 05:05, Martin Brown wrote:> On 06/03/2023 16:04, Phil
Hobbs wrote:

On 2023-03-06 08:49, Martin Brown wrote:

On 03/02/2023 05:41, Jan Panteltje wrote:

The bubbling universe: A previously unknown phase transition in
the early universe
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230201102845.htm

2 different Hubble constants united?

A definite maybe. I've never been happy with dark energy as an
explanation but the experimental evidence is now pretty clear
that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating
rather than slowing down so something must be driving that.

I'd prefer to believe that there is something odd about first
generation stars myself but my friends still in the game say
that isn't workable.

If your "standard candles" of known brightness are not as
reproducible as you think they are then there is scope for
systematic error. The very first generation of low metallicity
stars made from primordial material might just behave differently
at the end of their life.

Cosomologists seem to have caught the string theorists' disease.

One of my contemporaries at university is now a world leading string
theorist. I don't find it a convincing solution because of too many
free parameters and not enough observable predictions but he could be
right.

We're still waiting for a single testable prediction. The number of
smart people who have poured their life's work down that rathole is a >tragedy.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I still want to see a mechanism.
Le Sage theory of gravity does it for me
If those particles originate in processes in stars then the 'universe' will be expanding ever faster
(pushing itself apart).
It predicts clocks slowing down in a gravity well (less flux, mass less compressed, pendulum getting longer)
and if those particles are also the carrier of EM radiation (so EM a state of those for example)
that would explain why gravity moves at the speed of light (seems to have been tested).
All that string theory crap, adding enough 'dimensions' can make you explain anything.. add a fairy too, same thing,
Mechanism is the solution, electronics without electrons would be really a dead end road.
Le Sage also predicts internal heating of planets... Not that jive about nuclear processes doing it (no evidence of that)..
But Albert E. devotees known as brainwashed 'scientists' indoctrinate people. Few hundred years ago epicycles, earth in the middle of everything, same mathematicians, VERY complicated system
only the best of them could work with..
What's new....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation

If this is right flying faster then light would be no problem.
You then also see that time does not slow down like they think at high speed, but the pendulum gets squeezed in a different
way above light speed.
And if indeed light is a state of LS particles it is 1) quantisized but NOT at the photon level
and 2) it will slow down over greater distances due to interaction with other things it encounters including itself
so redshift.. maybe even doing away with the big bang..

So there is room for speculation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 16:12:00 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 7 Mar 2023 10:15:24 -0500) it happened Phil Hobbs <[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

On 2023-03-07 05:05, Martin Brown wrote:> On 06/03/2023 16:04, Phil
Hobbs wrote:

On 2023-03-06 08:49, Martin Brown wrote:

On 03/02/2023 05:41, Jan Panteltje wrote:

The bubbling universe: A previously unknown phase transition in
the early universe
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230201102845.htm

2 different Hubble constants united?

A definite maybe. I've never been happy with dark energy as an
explanation but the experimental evidence is now pretty clear
that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating
rather than slowing down so something must be driving that.

I'd prefer to believe that there is something odd about first
generation stars myself but my friends still in the game say
that isn't workable.

If your "standard candles" of known brightness are not as
reproducible as you think they are then there is scope for
systematic error. The very first generation of low metallicity
stars made from primordial material might just behave differently
at the end of their life.

Cosomologists seem to have caught the string theorists' disease.

One of my contemporaries at university is now a world leading string
theorist. I don't find it a convincing solution because of too many
free parameters and not enough observable predictions but he could be
right.

We're still waiting for a single testable prediction. The number of
smart people who have poured their life's work down that rathole is a >tragedy.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I still want to see a mechanism.

By “Mechanism” do you mean mechanism for the redshift ?
An interesting similar effect happens with emission /absorption
spectra. Light is always re emitted at a slightly longer wavelength.
When passing through an atom.
Maybe this effect also happens at any point in the vacuum. But by a
much smaller increment. Ie cosmological Redshift.

Le Sage theory of gravity does it for me
If those particles originate in processes in stars then the 'universe' will be expanding ever faster
(pushing itself apart).

It predicts clocks slowing down in a gravity well (less flux, mass less compressed, pendulum getting longer)
and if those particles are also the carrier of EM radiation (so EM a state of those for example)
that would explain why gravity moves at the speed of light (seems to have been tested).
All that string theory crap, adding enough 'dimensions' can make you explain anything.. add a fairy too, same thing,
Mechanism is the solution, electronics without electrons would be really a dead end road.
Le Sage also predicts internal heating of planets... Not that jive about nuclear processes doing it (no evidence of that)..
But Albert E. devotees known as brainwashed 'scientists' indoctrinate people.
Few hundred years ago epicycles, earth in the middle of everything, same mathematicians, VERY complicated system
only the best of them could work with..
What's new....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation

If this is right flying faster then light would be no problem.
You then also see that time does not slow down like they think at high speed, but the pendulum gets squeezed in a different
way above light speed.
And if indeed light is a state of LS particles it is 1) quantisized but NOT at the photon level
and 2) it will slow down over greater distances due to interaction with other things it encounters including itself
so redshift.. maybe even doing away with the big bang..

So there is room for speculation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.electronics.design

On a sunny day (Tue, 7 Mar 2023 12:14:00 -0800 (PST)) it happened Lou <[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

On Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 16:12:00 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:

I still want to see a mechanism.

By Mechanism do you mean mechanism for the redshift ?

For gravity and the prediction Albert E.'s math model makes.

An interesting similar effect happens with emission /absorption
spectra. Light is always re emitted at a slightly longer wavelength.
When passing through an atom.
Maybe this effect also happens at any point in the vacuum. But by a
much smaller increment. Ie cosmological Redshift.

Yes, a mechanism will explain things in an understandable way
just like we can talk about electrons in say a vacuum rectifier causing a current anyways
but in only one direction, little negative charged balls...
OK do not get me going on the meaning of 'negative and fields etc'
Mamaticians should be kept in a special zoo..
I hardly use math, only for quantisizing things, math in itself
is just a construction of few neurons in the brain.
AI will outperform it soon, if not already has.
Albert E. knew it, he admitted on his deathbed he failed to unite the
forces of gravity with the other forces of nature I'v read.
We need a new look, a simple mechanism that unites everything.
I am not stuck with Le Sage but so far it clicks every time.
We'd better look into what such a particle should look like.
Any other mechanism that gives a better explanation: I will be open to that.

But I am but a neural net and many earthlings are so repeatedly stuck in maaaz that they do not see the forest because of the trees, or was it the other way around
trees in the forest, whatever,
Well...
:-)
Would be interesting to have a look at our 'science' a few thousand years from now,
For sure there must be alien civilizations that sort of went through the same sequence
and are a bit ahead of us.
Listening to their radio and watching their TV could maybe make us look at our future.
Seti.

Le Sage theory of gravity does it for me
If those particles originate in processes in stars then the 'universe' will >be expanding ever faster
(pushing itself apart).

It predicts clocks slowing down in a gravity well (less flux, mass less compressed,

pendulum getting longer)

and if those particles are also the carrier of EM radiation (so EM a state >of those for example)
that would explain why gravity moves at the speed of light (seems to have >been tested).
All that string theory crap, adding enough 'dimensions' can make you explain >anything.. add a fairy too, same thing,
Mechanism is the solution, electronics without electrons would be really a >dead end road.
Le Sage also predicts internal heating of planets... Not that jive about nuclear

processes doing it (no evidence of that)..

But Albert E. devotees known as brainwashed 'scientists' indoctrinate people.

Few hundred years ago epicycles, earth in the middle of everything, same mathematicians,
VERY complicated system

only the best of them could work with..
What's new....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation

If this is right flying faster then light would be no problem.
You then also see that time does not slow down like they think at high speed,

but the pendulum gets squeezed in a different

way above light speed.
And if indeed light is a state of LS particles it is 1) quantisized but NOT >at the photon level
and 2) it will slow down over greater distances due to interaction with other

things it encounters including itself

so redshift.. maybe even doing away with the big bang..

So there is room for speculation.

One thing Le Sage predicts is that on earth there must be spectral spreading of say a rubidium cloud atom's frequency as both atoms in it are hit from a less dense Le Sage particles
field due to those particles passing through earth and more from the sides and top.
Longer and shorter pendulums in that cloud of atoms so to speak...
Should the spectral spreading be less out in space away from masses, gravitational fields?
experiment, as someone else already pointed out, is the essence how we learn. For us neural nets even throwing a ball needs some tries, learning.
Kids do not use math to learn to throw a ball.
Ask a mamatician to calculate, game will be long over before he even makes an equation with all parameters, forces, wind, weight,
air pressure, gravitational constant, what not...

OK, ;-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)