Coffee House Musing

Nobody, who accepts the Big Bang, denies that there have been inflationary forces (or fields), from the very beginning.There is a majority of scientific opinion that accepts a very early inflation field that began and ended when the Universe was less than 1 second old.What is today called Dark Energy is generally viewed as something unrelated to that earlier, and much stronger, field.Today's Dark Energy is much weaker, in its repulsive push (verses matter) than the early inflation (the super early inflation is technically known as "inflation", while the later inflation is known ad Dark Energy.The ironic thing is that today's "Dark Energy" could very well have existed from the very beginning and worked as a team with earlier inflation fields. In fact today's inflation ( Dark Energy!), by itself, is probably not strong enough to have separated matter, with the creation of space, in the first several million (or so) years of our Univers' existence.We have no idea how many constituent (various inflation field) parts there are to the current expansion of space.( Dark Energy is an interpretation of distant observations that were only recently discovered. The whole thing is on its infancy, and all admit that much more is known of Dark Matter than Dark Energy, though the knowledge EVEN THERE is ...well. fairly dark. No pun intended, but they named these thing "dark" due to the fact that they would be extremely difficult to get to the bottom of)

Where are Draco and Crux located?You said we observe Dark Energy affects there?Try and keep the response limited to my specific question.( You already let Paul of Arizona confuse your interpretation of this entire discussion, so don't make you own slight of hand waves)Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Just to avoid POTENTIAL slight of hand opportunities, I was able to find some work downtime to clarify that I know Percy was talking about observations in the space toward and around the stars in Crux, as well as Draco.I understand what he said ( I dont have time to re read it right now), and I just want to see what he has to demonstrate his comment's background details.Respond to all angles of the question, with integrity.Crux is totally in the Milky Way, I think, so I am just wondering what directions, near Crux, show Dark Energy. I have no great preconceptions about the (coming) demonstration mind you.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

I just noticed something.Did you really mean to say "cosmoligical constant" in the direction of Crux?You might have meant Cosmological PRINCIPLE?Answer my previous question, in any case.

I dont feel that Dark Energy necessarily creates space in any condensed part of the Universe.You admit that the space cant be measured in our Galaxy while you propose that it is created inside our very bodies then just floats away.(Ready for my words to be twisted)Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

But has the speeding up "visual signal" (my words) been from looking at space between galaxies?I will get my words twisted but you remember the multiple Super Nova revelations from 1998. The visual observation of light indicated a speeding up of space.Can you be certain that matter in galaxies, and the galaxie real estate itself, is subject to the expansion of space?Has it been demonstrated.?(I am not just talking about the Milky Way. Better make it clear that your distortions, if not rank dishonesty, are OVER on that one)(And my initial comments, way back, should not have elicited such hostile & disruptive intrusions, from you, into the discussion)Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

That's a question.

I was flipping through some Quanta magazine articles, and came to a 2015 interview. He was asked about the multiverse hypothesis (which Alan Guth says is more likely than not, with the existence of the early inflation field), by the interviewer.Weinberg said: The Big Bang, combined with the Dark Energy theory, does actually involve theological explanations by some. It might explain why some will bring god/gods into the discussion.( One poster attempted to get around my suggestion, that space expansion, at the galaxy level, at the present time, has not been demonstrated, by bringing god/gods into the discussion. The comment was clearly an attempt to twist and confuse my points, but the poster bragged, in a subsequent post, about what a clever attack he was making.)It is interesting that the issue of the (possible) multiverse will quickly become something of a theological issue. The first ever proponent of the Big Bang, George's Lemaitre, in a 1927 scientific paper, had to remove references to the biblical book of Genesis from his theory.I would urge posters here to avoid dishonest behavior, while discussing scientific theories. Religion and science have a complicated relationship, because both try to answer some of the same questions. George Gamov erroneously said that Hoyle's Steady State theory was the official theory of the Soviet Union, while Hoyle made far too much out of the Pope's support for the Big Bang theory. (In reality, the whole theological angle had little to do with the scientific work while both theories could be used to argue for or against a god/gods)Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

He was asked how we can test the multiverse theory, when we can't observe it.He went on to tell us how we can perform tests that will give us a likely answer.(It's possibility of having a demonstrable existence was heavily tied to observations surrounding String Theory)(He also mentioned the scaler field particle, the Higgs Boson, but that was earlier, I think. It helps to provide infirect evidence for the Inflaton particle, along with the WMAP evidence, I believe)Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

He did not mention god when he was asked if the multiverse theory could ever be tested. He earlier mentioned the god issue.(You combined words from an earlier post, when gods were mentioned, by me. If you cant label my quotes, with a post number, then at least use a 4 dot ellipsis between quotes)Higgs was mentioned earlier in his interview. I mentioned it because Higgs is a scaler field particle. It provides a hope that an inflation field particle can possibly exist ( hope as in a hope to find answers). The existence of the Alan Guth inflaton particle is powerful evidence for a multiverse.

I don't think that mentioning the god issue, while looking at the possible multiverse existence, should be described as a historical tidbit.It might be considered a rebuttal to the early 1980s stuff Fred Hoyle was putting in his books. About some sort of intelligence creating the Universe we all know of. I think Hoyle coined a technical term, called "anthropic". Fred Hoyle knew how to write books that would be widely cited. He attempted to "go viral" before the internet age.That aside, I dont see the multiverse as an old theory.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

George Norey, of Coast to Coast championed these catyclismic issues a decade ago.Megan McCain supported him on the electrical pulse petition.Megan was a true " maverick,"Graham Hancock made a major push, in his book on the Mars "face ".Keep pushing the issue.

I just love how you are so smart that you refuse to read books with annotations.(Leave those notes for the "ignorant")God, he's awesome

Now I am not allowed to type an adjective with an -ant- suffix (tacked onto ignore)?Wtf!This site is just too brilliant.Great shining lights, indeed.(All 5 of the majority, of 9 total posters left, will tell you themselves.)(Lol)Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Some of my squeaks are bleeped out.(I wonder if there are codes I can crack to get my squeaks back).