Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in message news:UE3Ve.230137$E95.94162@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

Hi David,

I have to thank you! By keeping this going, you
got me thinking about black holes to the point
where a little light bulb lit up above my somewhat
dense skull :-) I'll probably reply separately
to the larger part of your post as a result.

OK.

...
"Playing the film backwards" to end up with a plasma
depends on the model you have assumed.

Not really, it starts with current observation and
just projects based on observed expansion. True, the
details vary with the form of the scale factor but
that only really affects the estimated age, not what
conditions would be like at early epochs.

"Yes really." We see structures closer and closer to the
CMBRM. This will likely obviate *all* matter being involved
in "being plasma". By that I mean "being more or less
uniformly distributed" (via your extinction coefficient)

What "extinction coefficient"?

The mathematics by which you arrived at 6200 ly is similar to
that used for nuclear shielding, and many other things. An
extinction coefficient is (also) 1 log reduction in radiation.

rather than being at a temperature high enough to provide
free electrons as the norm.

You seem to be thinking of only limited compression
where discrete structures can exist. What happens when
the average distance between the clumps of matter we
now call galaxies was say a few light years?

A superfluid, where there is little or no attraction between
"bodies", because the Universe is so small? I see no problems,
no necessary issues, or reasons to disperse structures. In such
a Universe "300 km/sec" (our motion wrt the Universe at large) is
a really good clip.

There
isn't room between them for any vacuum or even thin
gas.

Or a Universe-filling plasma?

Proto-galaxies are large structure. What happens when
the average spacing falls to just a few light years?
I don't think they can exist in discrete form at that
stage.

Gravitationally bound, likely not, since in a small Universe
lots of matter is just about as far away in any direction.
So the structure occurs (perhaps) like a signal in a plenum...
a grouping of matter (photons in the analogy) with similar
momentum.

Whatever form they took at that time, the 'space' between
then would still have to be filled with plasma.

Why "have to"? We have witnessed the collision of two spiral
galaxies, and it does not shred them both to plasma.

Again, it is remotely possible (and falsifiable), that
there was no plasma,

I would like to know why you think that, it seems
impossible given the current observed density. I
understand you have an alternative waiting to
replace it but that's not what I am questioning.

Because I can see a way that it might not be necessary,
to match observation. One that does depend on the
container Universe to provide a black body radiation
curve. And its Container. And the Container for that
one. And... you get the idea.

Yes, I get that, but you are still saying it isn't
necessary to explain the CMBR which wasn't what I
asked. Never mind.

You asked why I thought there was no plasma.

It is difficult to be clear on this. I wasn't asking
why I thought there was no need for plasma to explain
the CMBR, I was asking how you thought you could avoid
there having to have been a plasma stage given the
evidence of current matter and expansion. Can you see
the difference?

Yes. See colliding galaxies above. Ultimately, how does
matter/energy establish the "size of the Universe"? Is the
"initial size" light seconds, or light millenia across? If it is
light seconds (or more), your argument is valid. Then we have
those pesky "uniformly sized cool spots" to worry about.

If the infall of light is blackbody, I will ask you why you
think
there was a plasma of uniform density, or at least how could
you know.

I know (or at least consider it likely) because compressing
the matter we see now adiabatically must produce a plasma
unless you have some means to reverse baryogenesis at low
temperatures to remove the matter before the plasma stage
is reached. Thinking forwards, that means matter being
created long after the conventional time of last coupling
as in some steady-state models (ongoing creation).

Thinking backwards, you have assumed that the matter in this
Universe started out in a diffuse state. If it started out as
structures, or in large part as structures (and consequently of
sufficient size), "compressing" and "adiabatic expansion" are
locally non-issues.

You indicated that the light cone had zero velocity out of the
event horizon. What is the definiton of the meter? How many
meters is
n seconds at 0 meters per second? "Radially out of the hole"
is
an illusion of outer spacetime at that point.
...
All light the infaller gets is from the past. Not from "five
minutes ago", but from the number of minutes away the even
horizon is in
his/her local spacetime.
...
And it continues to be spacelike separated from us, yes. But
not
so for an infaller. Separation there is fundamentally
different.
...
The meter is not just mathematical (or at least the underlying
"reality of distance"), either.
...
At what point can you no longer directly correlate "infaller
local
proper time" to "infinite outer observer proper time"? We do
that
in this Unvierse by two-way signalling...
...
At the point that the infaller is "falling at c towards the
central singularity", he has established his own timeline
separate from
those of us outside the hole "falling at c" towards our own
future.
In infalling observer has no extent in the outer radial
direction,
since that is extent is towards the past or future. We exist
whole in a single instant.

I'll answer the above separately, I know how to decribe
it now :-)

OK.

I'm not sure about structure but it sounds as though
it should be related the the anomalous values for the
quadrupole moment in the CMBR angular power spectrum,
though perhaps at the high frequency end. I'm having
some trouble thinking how size uniformity would
translate though.

Perhaps "specular image"... ;)

You miss the point. A series of randomly spaced pulses
of random duration would have some Forier Transform,
a spectrum. How would that spectrum change if the
pulses were still randomly spaced but all of the same
width?

Still of random duration? It would be interesting how one would
derive "pattern" simply by a change of scale.

Personally I don't have a belief one way or the other
regarding other universes. The science doesn't tell us
therefore my view is "we don't know".

The science provides a model.

Not yet, not until someone merges GR and QM.

I don't think that can happen.

If so, science can never "provide a model" because
neither can be ignored at a singularity.

The singularity exists (if at all) in the macroscopic, continuum
model. Namely the reality underlying spacetime. I don't expect
QM to have any issues anywhere, since it requires neither space
nor time. After all gravitation makes it out of the BH, as will
the entire contents, eventually.

Individual behavior cannot be described by group dynamics, and
vice versa. But there are some really smart people working on
it,
so who knows.

Fingers crossed.

I hope it doesn't happen too soon. Got to have something to look
forward to.

There is *no* finite distance between you well outside a
hole,
and me having just crossed the event horizon.

I disagree, even in Schwarzcild coordinates. That was
what was shown in the page you cited:

http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modul...arzschild.html

Show me a distance measurement that uses OWLS. Think
about it.

All one-way methods must rely on prior synchronisation
so end up being equivalent to two-way anyway. I'll
show you how to do the two-way version instead.

OK. Synchronization in curved space becomes tricky...

What does your belief/expectation of "r=0" mean to me,
George? I don't have access to your r anymore. But
you are separated from me by *my* time. You *do*
have a Newtonian conception of your r extending as
my r across the event horizon.

Distance does cross the horizon without change.

Prove it by making one *actual* OWLS measurement.
*This* Universe doesn't allow it. I expect the Universe
formed *inside* to have the same constraint.

How about if I make a two-way measurement across
the horizon? It's my turn to say "Think about it.",
and I'll give you a hint, the answer isn't nearly
as simple as you might expect ;-)

Not possible if I am "falling faster than c" or "falling at c",
now is it George? How is the light going to reach me on the way
in, and what is it about a "very large" gamma affecting the
wavelength (and length in the r direction, and duration of events
in my frame). To say nothing of the curvature in the space that
one end of your TWLS experiment is to be run.

IMO, for an infalling observer in a very small lab
such that tidal effects were negligible,

BH at the center of the Milky Way...

the experiments
he would perform in it would show standard Minkowski
spacetime.

We can detect such deviances even on Earth, George.

Of course, if that's what you want. But you can
also define an arbitrarily small lab which crosses
the horizon as deemed by the "observer at infinity"
(half in, half out, width dx) and there is no
discontinuity of the physics where space becomes
time or anything like that.

How would you detect such a thing?

I guess it might look something like the 'event
horizon' in the StarGate on TV if it existed.

Light reflecting back from... a surface that is no longer in your
Universe? Something you are falling "faster than c" away from?

Push a ruler across the discontinuity and on
this side you see half while from the other side
you see the time inegrated history of the other
end of the ruler if I understand what you are
suggesting.

Neglecting the issues of a ruler that is not bound by c-moderated
forces... (the theory that cannot be killed by our machinations).
You would be able to see the far end of the ruler from
fabrication, to insertion, and assuming you had the juice,
extraction. You just might not see it all in one *place*, since
the various bits of information would have distinctly different
momenta. It is (in my imagination) all mapped to a single
interval in time, but how one gets to mapping 2D+t to 3D space
may or may not depend on the sorting of momenta.

How do you detect length contraction or time dilation in/of
your own frame?

That is in this universe.

The rules are purported to applicable to local frames on either
side of the EH...

Absolutely. "Falling at faster than c from the point of
view
of the external observer". Faster than c is already
Newton,
because Einstein/Minkowski provided that faster than c
wasn't possible, and Einstein/Hubble faster than c in
curved
space wasn't physically meaningful. You already stated
that the infaller will never be seen to actually cross the
EH,
in fact will be seen to slow down and asymptotically
approach "a full stop".

Think of it as the Shapiro delay on the outgoing light
increasing to infinite. That has no consequence for
the falling observer, he doesn't care what happens to
the light that left him.

So your assertion that the infaller "falls faster than c"
means
what? It isn't based on anything physical...

It has as much physical meaning as saying a distant
ship is just sailing "over the horizon".

It has as much meaning as saying that ship that is no longer
visible (having saled over the horizon, though its image is still
visible) is accelerating at 9.81 m/sec^2, because it has fallen
off the edge of the Earth. Note that the speed of light is an
inverse function of curvature. It is also an inverse function of
density in a medium. Both of which are expected (by the outer
Universe) to be getting larger as you go inside the BH. So
"going faster than c" is meaningless, since "we" expect c to be
decreasing asymptotically to 0.

But that's what you are missing, TWLS still works
across "the horizon" as long as it is measured
by the falling observer. For him the horizon is
still to be reached. As I said, you get simple
Minkowski spacetime for a small enough lab.

And what you are missing is that there is NO correlation
between dx in the infalling lab and dr to the infinite
observer.

Untrue, but my maths isn't that good. I hope to show it
graphically though.

OK.

I have been reinstalling the dog door obviated by my new
triply-glazed, temporarily argon-filled, patio door. The
"tools required" list is a joke.

I can believe that, do you have to supply your own
argon refil? ;-)

2nd law of thermodynamics... dispersion through the glass (and
seals, aluminum frame) is non-zero, and the gas supply is
finite.
Actually the dog door's installation list was the joke.

When you said that, I wondered if the list of tools
included that common household item, the canister
of dry argon, to replace what is lost after cutting
the hole through the tripple glasing for the dog door.

Ah! ;)

Lifetime warranty "might" be voided. No, I cut a hole in the
wall next to the door, and bought a "wall kit". The tool list
didn't cover the "well, if your wall is thinner than what we
provided threaded rod length for, you'll need to cut and rethread
the rod ends."

Honey-dos aren't allowing much time for more.

I had a short reprieve, I had my appendix out.
I don't think I can use that excuse again though.

I wonder how the creationists (or even intelligent designists)
can ignore the presence of a non-functional second stomach?

They seem to be able to ignore pretty much anything
they don't like.

He is a professor lecturing on the subject and I am
sure Baez and others will have examined it. While it
may have some simplifications, what you suggest would
make it completely wrong so I have no doubt your
views are contrary to GR.

My views are based on GR, George. As we have discussed.

I hope to add some detail to that next time. I probably
need to draw some graphics though and i'm out tomorrow
so it may be the weekend before I get it done.

Please take your time. You have been very thoughtful on this,
and I know the list of "other" kooks that you respond to is not
short. I'm not going anywhere soon. And if you need some help
on something by an old mechanical engineer, let me know. I've
got to do some noodling on integrating over all time in an
expanding Universe, on a finite (mass/energy controlled) area.
Not exactly Benoulli's equation.

That doesn't mean they are
necessarily wrong though, but if you really think
that your views are compatible with GR then you have
a topic to post just to clear that up. I can't convince
you but perhaps others can help.

Perhaps in the model setup.

Have a good weekend.

Thanks David, I hope you did too.

Almost done.

Excellent.

Until later. I smelled the season "fall" Monday. About time.

David A. Smith

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

...
"Playing the film backwards" to end up with a plasma
depends on the model you have assumed.

Not really, it starts with current observation and
just projects based on observed expansion. True, the
details vary with the form of the scale factor but
that only really affects the estimated age, not what
conditions would be like at early epochs.

"Yes really." We see structures closer and closer to the
CMBRM. This will likely obviate *all* matter being involved
in "being plasma". By that I mean "being more or less
uniformly distributed" (via your extinction coefficient)

What "extinction coefficient"?

The mathematics by which you arrived at 6200 ly is similar to
that used for nuclear shielding, and many other things. An
extinction coefficient is (also) 1 log reduction in radiation.

Ah, OK. However, that referred to thickness of the
optical layer only, not spatial distribution. There
is only a minimal relationship.

rather than being at a temperature high enough to provide
free electrons as the norm.

You seem to be thinking of only limited compression
where discrete structures can exist. What happens when
the average distance between the clumps of matter we
now call galaxies was say a few light years?

A superfluid, where there is little or no attraction between
"bodies", because the Universe is so small? I see no problems,

Maybe I can have one last attempt at conveying my question:

http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/interior.htm

"The temperature at the very center of the Sun is
about 15,000,000C (27,000,000F) and the density
is about 150 g/cm^3 (about 10 times the density of
gold or lead)."

What picture are you offering that would avoid a
plasma when the universe was so small that the
_average_ density was say 200 g/cm^3 ? Note the
word average in particular.

no necessary issues, or reasons to disperse structures. In such
a Universe "300 km/sec" (our motion wrt the Universe at large) is
a really good clip.

snip
Whatever form they took at that time, the 'space' between
then would still have to be filled with plasma.

Why "have to"? We have witnessed the collision of two spiral
galaxies, and it does not shred them both to plasma.

That's because the average density was low enough to
have stars separated by empty space. What happens when
the _average_ density gets to be higher than that of
the densest stars that can exist ?

It is difficult to be clear on this. I wasn't asking
why I thought there was no need for plasma to explain
the CMBR, I was asking how you thought you could avoid
there having to have been a plasma stage given the
evidence of current matter and expansion. Can you see
the difference?

Yes. See colliding galaxies above. Ultimately, how does
matter/energy establish the "size of the Universe"? Is the
"initial size" light seconds, or light millenia across? If it is
light seconds (or more), your argument is valid.

For the small part of the universe which is now
observable, the initial size, arbitrarily at the
end of inflation was a few cm, "about the size of
a grapefruit" as it is commonly stated. All the
matter in all the galaxies we know see was in that
space.

Then we have
those pesky "uniformly sized cool spots" to worry about.

"Cooler" by about one part in 10^5! Hardly
air-conditioned.

If the infall of light is blackbody, I will ask you why you think
there was a plasma of uniform density, or at least how could
you know.

I know (or at least consider it likely) because compressing
the matter we see now adiabatically must produce a plasma
unless you have some means to reverse baryogenesis at low
temperatures to remove the matter before the plasma stage
is reached. Thinking forwards, that means matter being
created long after the conventional time of last coupling
as in some steady-state models (ongoing creation).

Thinking backwards, you have assumed that the matter in this
Universe started out in a diffuse state. If it started out as
structures, or in large part as structures (and consequently of
sufficient size), "compressing" and "adiabatic expansion" are
locally non-issues.

I am not arguing for homogeneity, what I am querying is
what kind of structures you think would have suffient
density for the majority of the universe to be transparent
when the whole observable universe is contained in a
volume of say 100cm^3.

.. A series of randomly spaced pulses
of random duration would have some Forier Transform,
a spectrum. How would that spectrum change if the
pulses were still randomly spaced but all of the same
width?

Still of random duration?

No, the same random start times in both cases, random
durations in the first case but equal durations in the
second with the same mean duration in both.

It would be interesting how one would
derive "pattern" simply by a change of scale.

I just wondered if such a change might be related to
the anomalies in the quadrupole magnitude and
apparent curious alignments seen in the CMBR.

The science provides a model.

Not yet, not until someone merges GR and QM.

I don't think that can happen.

If so, science can never "provide a model" because
neither can be ignored at a singularity.

The singularity exists (if at all) in the macroscopic, continuum
model. Namely the reality underlying spacetime.

But energy bends spacetime and quantum fluctuations
become so large that spacetime is no longer smooth
but chaotic. Without a combined theory, it becomes
impossible to use either because the approximations
each needs to work in isolation are no longer valid.

I don't expect
QM to have any issues anywhere, since it requires neither space
nor time.

Yes it does, it assumes universal time in the
collapse of the wavefunction.

How about if I make a two-way measurement across
the horizon? It's my turn to say "Think about it.",
and I'll give you a hint, the answer isn't nearly
as simple as you might expect ;-)

Not possible if I am "falling faster than c" or "falling at c",
now is it George?

Awww, you ignored my hint :-( That was the
simple answer.

How is the light going to reach me on the way
in, and what is it about a "very large" gamma affecting the
wavelength (and length in the r direction, and duration of events
in my frame). To say nothing of the curvature in the space that
one end of your TWLS experiment is to be run.

Gamma and "faster than c" are statements meaningful
to a remote observer. Is that a better hint?

I guess it might look something like the 'event
horizon' in the StarGate on TV if it existed.

Light reflecting back from... a surface that is no longer in your
Universe? Something you are falling "faster than c" away from?

I wasn't thinking of it reflecting back, rather being
passed through but time averaged.

Push a ruler across the discontinuity and on
this side you see half while from the other side
you see the time inegrated history of the other
end of the ruler if I understand what you are
suggesting.

Neglecting the issues of a ruler that is not bound by c-moderated
forces... (the theory that cannot be killed by our machinations).
You would be able to see the far end of the ruler from
fabrication, to insertion, and assuming you had the juice,
extraction. You just might not see it all in one *place*, since
the various bits of information would have distinctly different
momenta. It is (in my imagination) all mapped to a single
interval in time, but how one gets to mapping 2D+t to 3D space
may or may not depend on the sorting of momenta.

What I thought you said was that at any point you
would see the light accumulated over internal time
at a particular instant of external time. However,
you asked "How would you detect such a thing?" and
regardless of the details, what you wouldn't see is
just the other end of the ruler looking normal.

How do you detect length contraction or time dilation in/of
your own frame?

That is in this universe.

The rules are purported to applicable to local frames on either
side of the EH...

Yes, and across it. Remember the EH isn't a unique
location, it depends on the observer.

So your assertion that the infaller "falls faster than c"
means what? It isn't based on anything physical...

It has as much physical meaning as saying a distant
ship is just sailing "over the horizon".

It has as much meaning as saying that ship that is no longer
visible (having saled over the horizon, though its image is still
visible) is accelerating at 9.81 m/sec^2, because it has fallen
off the edge of the Earth.

Not quite, those on board feel nothing different
because they haven't reached the edge yet, the local
acceleration is smal, perhaps less than 1g for a
supermassive BH. It is only at the centre that the
curvature goes to infinity.

Note that the speed of light is an
inverse function of curvature.

Again, not locally, only as measured by a remote
observer, the guy on the clif watching the ship
depart.

It is also an inverse function of
density in a medium. Both of which are expected (by the outer
Universe) to be getting larger as you go inside the BH. So
"going faster than c" is meaningless, since "we" expect c to be
decreasing asymptotically to 0.

Nope, c is a constant. The speed measured from a
distance is anisotropic.

When you said that, I wondered if the list of tools
included that common household item, the canister
of dry argon, to replace what is lost after cutting
the hole through the tripple glasing for the dog door.

Ah! ;)

Lifetime warranty "might" be voided. No, I cut a hole in the
wall next to the door, and bought a "wall kit". The tool list
didn't cover the "well, if your wall is thinner than what we
provided threaded rod length for, you'll need to cut and rethread
the rod ends."

Gotcha. The devil is in the details.

My views are based on GR, George. As we have discussed.

I hope to add some detail to that next time. I probably
need to draw some graphics though and i'm out tomorrow
so it may be the weekend before I get it done.

Please take your time. You have been very thoughtful on this,
and I know the list of "other" kooks that you respond to is not
short.

They're kooks so for amusement only, this has been
educational for me,it's the real reason I'm still
here, I'm still learning :-)

I'm not going anywhere soon. And if you need some help
on something by an old mechanical engineer, let me know. I've
got to do some noodling on integrating over all time in an
expanding Universe, on a finite (mass/energy controlled) area.
Not exactly Benoulli's equation.

I hope to give you more to mull over once I get it
straight myself but it should make that integration
look no harder than Boyles Law if I can write it up
in a comprehensible manner.

Until later. I smelled the season "fall" Monday. About time.

It arrived here (southern England) a couple of weeks
ago.

best regards
George

Dear George Dishman:

"Dishman" wrote in message
oups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

...
"Playing the film backwards" to end up with a plasma
depends on the model you have assumed.

Not really, it starts with current observation and
just projects based on observed expansion. True, the
details vary with the form of the scale factor but
that only really affects the estimated age, not what
conditions would be like at early epochs.

"Yes really." We see structures closer and closer to the
CMBRM. This will likely obviate *all* matter being involved
in "being plasma". By that I mean "being more or less
uniformly distributed" (via your extinction coefficient)

What "extinction coefficient"?

The mathematics by which you arrived at 6200 ly is similar
to that used for nuclear shielding, and many other things.
An extinction coefficient is (also) 1 log reduction in
radiation.

Ah, OK. However, that referred to thickness of the
optical layer only, not spatial distribution. There
is only a minimal relationship.

As are shields around nuclear sources. Thicknesses are based on
macroscopic averages, and not specific "lines of flight". One
usually just applies a factor of safety, and beefs it up a bit,
as long as the source is not too large.

rather than being at a temperature high enough to provide
free electrons as the norm.

You seem to be thinking of only limited compression
where discrete structures can exist. What happens when
the average distance between the clumps of matter we
now call galaxies was say a few light years?

A superfluid, where there is little or no attraction between
"bodies", because the Universe is so small? I see no
problems,

Maybe I can have one last attempt at conveying my question:

http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/interior.htm

"The temperature at the very center of the Sun is
about 15,000,000C (27,000,000F) and the density
is about 150 g/cm^3 (about 10 times the density of
gold or lead)."

What picture are you offering that would avoid a
plasma when the universe was so small that the
_average_ density was say 200 g/cm^3 ? Note the
word average in particular.

Question conveyed. I will say that compressible fluids can have
variable density, which in our case could correlate to the
presence of structures.

Now consider "how do you know what size the Universe was at the
time of the CMBRM?" You keep dragging it back to the standard
model. How much of your assumed density included Dark Matter?

no necessary issues, or reasons to disperse structures. In
such
a Universe "300 km/sec" (our motion wrt the Universe at large)
is
a really good clip.

snip
Whatever form they took at that time, the 'space' between
then would still have to be filled with plasma.

Why "have to"? We have witnessed the collision of two spiral
galaxies, and it does not shred them both to plasma.

That's because the average density was low enough to
have stars separated by empty space. What happens when
the _average_ density gets to be higher than that of
the densest stars that can exist ?

Perhaps that density was not achieved. Certainly the standard
model has it so. But how big did the mass/energy in this
Universe, make the Universe start out at? A good idea for
mapping might give a clue.

It is difficult to be clear on this. I wasn't asking
why I thought there was no need for plasma to explain
the CMBR, I was asking how you thought you could avoid
there having to have been a plasma stage given the
evidence of current matter and expansion. Can you see
the difference?

Yes. See colliding galaxies above. Ultimately, how does
matter/energy establish the "size of the Universe"? Is the
"initial size" light seconds, or light millenia across? If it
is
light seconds (or more), your argument is valid.

For the small part of the universe which is now
observable, the initial size, arbitrarily at the
end of inflation was a few cm, "about the size of
a grapefruit" as it is commonly stated. All the
matter in all the galaxies we know see was in that
space.

This is the standard model. We cannot see before 5 lengths (or
so) before your extinction coefficient. So 30,000 ly "diameter"
at least. Perhaps that is the of the Universe at the time of the
"CMBRM as infall from a container Universe".

Then we have
those pesky "uniformly sized cool spots" to worry about.

"Cooler" by about one part in 10^5! Hardly
air-conditioned.

Yet pattern in random is unlikely. Two or three spots can be
random. But all spots? And no, I am not building a case around
the observation. It is simply news.

If the infall of light is blackbody, I will ask you why you
think
there was a plasma of uniform density, or at least how
could
you know.

I know (or at least consider it likely) because compressing
the matter we see now adiabatically must produce a plasma
unless you have some means to reverse baryogenesis at low
temperatures to remove the matter before the plasma stage
is reached. Thinking forwards, that means matter being
created long after the conventional time of last coupling
as in some steady-state models (ongoing creation).

Thinking backwards, you have assumed that the matter in this
Universe started out in a diffuse state. If it started out as
structures, or in large part as structures (and consequently
of
sufficient size), "compressing" and "adiabatic expansion" are
locally non-issues.

I am not arguing for homogeneity, what I am querying is
what kind of structures you think would have suffient
density for the majority of the universe to be transparent
when the whole observable universe is contained in a
volume of say 100cm^3.

*I* don't start there. I start larger (perhaps). See I don't
attempt to start a Universe with a "central singularity", and
then imagine all sorts of mystical ways to get the Universe we
see to come boiling out of it.

.. A series of randomly spaced pulses
of random duration would have some Forier Transform,
a spectrum. How would that spectrum change if the
pulses were still randomly spaced but all of the same
width?

Still of random duration?

No, the same random start times in both cases, random
durations in the first case but equal durations in the
second with the same mean duration in both.

It would be interesting how one would
derive "pattern" simply by a change of scale.

I just wondered if such a change might be related to
the anomalies in the quadrupole magnitude and
apparent curious alignments seen in the CMBR.

Scale change does not create pattern. We don't need to continue
this, since it is perpheral, not key.

The science provides a model.

Not yet, not until someone merges GR and QM.

I don't think that can happen.

If so, science can never "provide a model" because
neither can be ignored at a singularity.

The singularity exists (if at all) in the macroscopic,
continuum model. Namely the reality underlying
spacetime.

But energy bends spacetime

And does so at the event horizon, as well.

and quantum fluctuations
become so large that spacetime is no longer smooth
but chaotic.

Witness Hawking radiation... again, at the event horizon.

Without a combined theory, it becomes
impossible to use either because the approximations
each needs to work in isolation are no longer valid.

I disagree. The number of "overlapping" or "mutually exclusive"
theories used in production and operation of an automobile might
surprise you. Yet we are able to build them. You use the tool
best suited for the job. The difficulty comes in describing the
job, so that tools can be selected...

I don't expect
QM to have any issues anywhere, since it requires
neither space nor time.

Yes it does, it assumes universal time in the
collapse of the wavefunction.

Example?

How about if I make a two-way measurement
across the horizon? It's my turn to say "Think
about it.", and I'll give you a hint, the answer
isn't nearly as simple as you might expect ;-)

Not possible if I am "falling faster than c" or "falling at
c",
now is it George?

Awww, you ignored my hint :-( That was the
simple answer.

Sorry.

How is the light going to reach me on the way
in, and what is it about a "very large" gamma
affecting the wavelength (and length in the r
direction, and duration of events in my frame).
To say nothing of the curvature in the space that
one end of your TWLS experiment is to be run.

Gamma and "faster than c" are statements meaningful
to a remote observer. Is that a better hint?

Sorry, no. I see no way for an infinte observer to make a TWLS
distance measurement. Ditto for the infaller.

I guess it might look something like the 'event
horizon' in the StarGate on TV if it existed.

Light reflecting back from... a surface that is no longer in
your
Universe? Something you are falling "faster than c" away
from?

I wasn't thinking of it reflecting back, rather being
passed through but time averaged.

Problem is, the mapping of "back through but time averaged" is:
- still one way, and
- the correlation from outer location-on-EH and time-of-crossing,
to location-in-inner-space and "the Beginning", is not trivial.

Push a ruler across the discontinuity and on
this side you see half while from the other side
you see the time inegrated history of the other
end of the ruler if I understand what you are
suggesting.

Neglecting the issues of a ruler that is not bound by
c-moderated forces... (the theory that cannot be
killed by our machinations).
You would be able to see the far end of the ruler from
fabrication, to insertion, and assuming you had the
juice, extraction. You just might not see it all in one
*place*, since the various bits of information would
have distinctly different momenta. It is (in my
imagination) all mapped to a single interval in time,
but how one gets to mapping 2D+t to 3D space
may or may not depend on the sorting of momenta.

What I thought you said was that at any point you
would see the light accumulated over internal time
at a particular instant of external time.

Backwards. We look at the CMBR, and I want to see if the "entire
history" of our container is written there.

However,
you asked "How would you detect such a thing?" and
regardless of the details, what you wouldn't see is
just the other end of the ruler looking normal.

Agreed, although you might want to reconsider. Now consider what
you just said, with the infaller receiving specular images from a
star in the container Unvierse.

How do you detect length contraction or time dilation
in/of your own frame?

That is in this universe.

The rules are purported to applicable to local frames on
either
side of the EH...

Yes, and across it. Remember the EH isn't a unique
location, it depends on the observer.

Well, we are talking about an infinite observer in the container
(at least several AU to a vew ly, depending on the size of the
BH), and observations made some thousands of years after the Big
Bang.

So your assertion that the infaller "falls faster than c"
means what? It isn't based on anything physical...

It has as much physical meaning as saying a distant
ship is just sailing "over the horizon".

It has as much meaning as saying that ship that is no longer
visible (having saled over the horizon, though its image is
still
visible) is accelerating at 9.81 m/sec^2, because it has
fallen
off the edge of the Earth.

Not quite, those on board feel nothing different
because they haven't reached the edge yet, the local
acceleration is smal, perhaps less than 1g for a
supermassive BH. It is only at the centre that the
curvature goes to infinity.

Note that the speed of light is an
inverse function of curvature.

Again, not locally, only as measured by a remote
observer, the guy on the clif watching the ship
depart.

So what is "falling faster than c", if not an assignment by such
an observer? Because the infaller surely sees the laws of
physics the same all around him.

It is also an inverse function of
density in a medium. Both of which are expected
(by the outer Universe) to be getting larger as you go
inside the BH. So "going faster than c" is meaningless,
since "we" expect c to be decreasing asymptotically to 0.

Nope, c is a constant. The speed measured from a
distance is anisotropic.

Sorry, you always take off when I am less than clear. Yes, c is
always a constant locally. No, the
speed-of-light-as-a-function-of-r is not expected to be. And
since c_remote defines distance_remote, then the external
infinite observer should expect the infaller to see an expanding
Universe. Both time-rate-as-a-function-of-r, and the
speed-of-light-as-a-function-of-r indicate *vast* expanses await
at the "singularity at the center of a BH". From the POV of the
infinite observer. Far from a sticky end, the infaller has an
end like we also expect. Assuming we don't try and map our r to
the inside of the BH... as r.

When you said that, I wondered if the list of tools
included that common household item, the canister
of dry argon, to replace what is lost after cutting
the hole through the tripple glasing for the dog door.

Ah! ;)

Lifetime warranty "might" be voided. No, I cut a hole in the
wall next to the door, and bought a "wall kit". The tool list
didn't cover the "well, if your wall is thinner than what we
provided threaded rod length for, you'll need to cut and
rethread
the rod ends."

Gotcha. The devil is in the details.

My views are based on GR, George. As we have discussed.

I hope to add some detail to that next time. I probably
need to draw some graphics though and i'm out tomorrow
so it may be the weekend before I get it done.

Please take your time. You have been very thoughtful on this,
and I know the list of "other" kooks that you respond to is
not
short.

They're kooks so for amusement only, this has been
educational for me,it's the real reason I'm still
here, I'm still learning :-)

Me too! You are one tough hombre.

I'm afraid the "2D+t - 3D+t_0 mapping" will be the end of me. I
am still cooking though. What sorts year n infall to an internal
location-set in this hypothetical Universe? Somehow I don't
think the conservation laws are enough to tell me.

I'm not going anywhere soon. And if you need some help
on something by an old mechanical engineer, let me know.
I've got to do some noodling on integrating over all time in
an expanding Universe, on a finite (mass/energy
controlled) area. Not exactly Benoulli's equation.

I hope to give you more to mull over once I get it
straight myself but it should make that integration
look no harder than Boyles Law if I can write it up
in a comprehensible manner.

I see that I need to model different start times for the 3 BH
types too. If I get any sort of reasonable answer on one
iteration, that is. When would you figure the various BHs
"began"? The "free BH" and "consuming companion" likely anytime,
since white dwarves die and pulsars pulse even today. A galactic
core BH, likely existed from very near the time of the CMBRM,
right?

Until later. I smelled the season "fall" Monday. About time.

It arrived here (southern England) a couple of weeks
ago.

Excellent. Still nearly 110 deg F (43 deg C) today. But
something other than pigeons (and "fried chicken") now show up to
get fed in the mornings.

David A. Smith

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message newsUpWe.253218$E95.203645@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"Dishman" wrote in message
oups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

...
"Playing the film backwards" to end up with a plasma
depends on the model you have assumed.

Not really, it starts with current observation and
just projects based on observed expansion. True, the
details vary with the form of the scale factor but
that only really affects the estimated age, not what
conditions would be like at early epochs.

"Yes really." We see structures closer and closer to the
CMBRM. This will likely obviate *all* matter being involved
in "being plasma". By that I mean "being more or less
uniformly distributed" (via your extinction coefficient)

What "extinction coefficient"?

The mathematics by which you arrived at 6200 ly is similar
to that used for nuclear shielding, and many other things.
An extinction coefficient is (also) 1 log reduction in radiation.

Ah, OK. However, that referred to thickness of the
optical layer only, not spatial distribution. There
is only a minimal relationship.

As are shields around nuclear sources. Thicknesses are based on
macroscopic averages, and not specific "lines of flight". One usually
just applies a factor of safety, and beefs it up a bit, as long as the
source is not too large.

When you look at the shielding, you don't see very
far into it. It it was made of translucent plastic
instead of concrete, you might see a few millimetres.

Stand back though and you can look over a wide area
of the shield and look for discolourations many metres
across on the surface. I don't see any connection
between the two other than you might less deeply into
a discoloured area. In other words, I still don't
understand your comment that the "extinction
coefficient" is somehow related structures.

Maybe I can have one last attempt at conveying my question:

http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/interior.htm

"The temperature at the very center of the Sun is
about 15,000,000C (27,000,000F) and the density
is about 150 g/cm^3 (about 10 times the density of
gold or lead)."

What picture are you offering that would avoid a
plasma when the universe was so small that the
_average_ density was say 200 g/cm^3 ? Note the
word average in particular.

Question conveyed. I will say that compressible fluids can have variable
density, which in our case could correlate to the presence of structures.

Sure but a density varying between 199.998 g/cc and
200.002 g/cc would still be a plasma everywhere even
though the denser regions are the beginning of what
would eventually become galactic clusters.

Anyway, you asked why I thought there needed to be a
plasma period and that is my reasoning. If your time-
integrating surface was where the conventional theory
places a cosmic age of around 500k years, you could
avoid it.

Now consider "how do you know what size the Universe was at the time of
the CMBRM?" You keep dragging it back to the standard model.

Applying GR to what we see gives the form of the
scale factor a(t), the ratio of a(t) then to a(t)
now is the same as the z factor.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm#SF

Since that is 1089
for the CMBR, that gives you the then size for any
current region.

Of course that isn't the size of the universe, only
the small patch we can currently observe.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo240.gif

From

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm#MSTD

How much of your assumed density included Dark Matter?

Dark matter appears to be about an order greater than
the visible at most.

Whatever form they took at that time, the 'space' between
then would still have to be filled with plasma.

Why "have to"? We have witnessed the collision of two spiral
galaxies, and it does not shred them both to plasma.

That's because the average density was low enough to
have stars separated by empty space. What happens when
the _average_ density gets to be higher than that of
the densest stars that can exist ?

Perhaps that density was not achieved. Certainly the standard model has
it so. But how big did the mass/energy in this Universe, make the
Universe start out at? A good idea for mapping might give a clue.

Already answered:
For the small part of the universe which is now
observable, the initial size, arbitrarily at the
end of inflation was a few cm, "about the size of
a grapefruit" as it is commonly stated. All the
matter in all the galaxies we know see was in that
space.

This is the standard model. We cannot see before 5 lengths (or so) before
your extinction coefficient.

Not true, the angular power spectrum tells us about
conditions about a month after the bang and the
nucleosythesis abundancies tell us about the period
a few seconds to a few minutes after the bang.

So 30,000 ly "diameter" at least. Perhaps that is the of the Universe at
the time of the "CMBRM as infall from a container Universe".

Then we have
those pesky "uniformly sized cool spots" to worry about.

"Cooler" by about one part in 10^5! Hardly
air-conditioned.

Yet pattern in random is unlikely. Two or three spots can be random. But
all spots? And no, I am not building a case around the observation. It
is simply news.

Your words concern me a little. What has been reported
isn't a pattern. Think of an Ishihara chart with random
colour dots of random size (without the sneaky numbers
that form the test). Now instead of random sizes, make
all the dots the same size yet keep their random
locations.

Thinking backwards, you have assumed that the matter in this
Universe started out in a diffuse state. If it started out as
structures, or in large part as structures (and consequently of
sufficient size), "compressing" and "adiabatic expansion" are
locally non-issues.

I am not arguing for homogeneity, what I am querying is
what kind of structures you think would have suffient
density for the majority of the universe to be transparent
when the whole observable universe is contained in a
volume of say 100cm^3.

*I* don't start there. I start larger (perhaps). See I don't attempt to
start a Universe with a "central singularity", and then imagine all sorts
of mystical ways to get the Universe we see to come boiling out of it.

I guess you need to make some prediction of the
scale factor at your horizon or something like
that.

.. A series of randomly spaced pulses
of random duration would have some Forier Transform,
a spectrum. How would that spectrum change if the
pulses were still randomly spaced but all of the same
width?

Still of random duration?

No, the same random start times in both cases, random
durations in the first case but equal durations in the
second with the same mean duration in both.

It would be interesting how one would
derive "pattern" simply by a change of scale.

I just wondered if such a change might be related to
the anomalies in the quadrupole magnitude and
apparent curious alignments seen in the CMBR.

Scale change does not create pattern. We don't need to continue this,
since it is perpheral, not key.

Sure, it was an aside, but note they have not
observed a pattern in the spots, just less
randomness in spot size than expected.

The science provides a model.

Not yet, not until someone merges GR and QM.

I don't think that can happen.

If so, science can never "provide a model" because
neither can be ignored at a singularity.

The singularity exists (if at all) in the macroscopic,
continuum model. Namely the reality underlying
spacetime.

But energy bends spacetime

And does so at the event horizon, as well.

But for large mass holes, that curvature can be less
than 1g so no more a problem than on the surface
of the Earth, it is valid to use the "weak field"
approximation. That fails near the central singularity
though.

and quantum fluctuations
become so large that spacetime is no longer smooth
but chaotic.

Witness Hawking radiation... again, at the event horizon.

Again, still in weak field. At the centre, the
energy in the Hawking radiation is high enough
to produce curvature so strong that it alone
could produce Hawking radiation, hence the
equations run away.

Without a combined theory, it becomes
impossible to use either because the approximations
each needs to work in isolation are no longer valid.

I disagree. The number of "overlapping" or "mutually exclusive" theories
used in production and operation of an automobile might surprise you. Yet
we are able to build them. You use the tool best suited for the job. The
difficulty comes in describing the job, so that tools can be selected...

At the centre, all our tools fail at the moment,
that's the problem.

I don't expect
QM to have any issues anywhere, since it requires
neither space nor time.

Yes it does, it assumes universal time in the
collapse of the wavefunction.

Example?

I'm not into QM but if you look it up, it's
bound to be in the FAQs, it's common knowledge
I believe.

How about if I make a two-way measurement
across the horizon? It's my turn to say "Think
about it.", and I'll give you a hint, the answer
isn't nearly as simple as you might expect ;-)

Not possible if I am "falling faster than c" or "falling at c",
now is it George?

Awww, you ignored my hint :-( That was the
simple answer.

Sorry.

How is the light going to reach me on the way
in, and what is it about a "very large" gamma
affecting the wavelength (and length in the r
direction, and duration of events in my frame).
To say nothing of the curvature in the space that
one end of your TWLS experiment is to be run.

Gamma and "faster than c" are statements meaningful
to a remote observer. Is that a better hint?

Sorry, no. I see no way for an infinte observer to make a TWLS distance
measurement.

Correct, it would take infinite time for the light
to even reach the area ;-)

Ditto for the infaller.

Ah, that's the interesting answer. Now suppose I
could show you how the infaller can make two-way
measurements over some region by sending light
to a mirror and back. With a little more detail,
would you be prepared to agree that the observer
and mirror are in the same universe during that
process?

I guess it might look something like the 'event
horizon' in the StarGate on TV if it existed.

Light reflecting back from... a surface that is no longer in your
Universe? Something you are falling "faster than c" away from?

I wasn't thinking of it reflecting back, rather being
passed through but time averaged.

Problem is, the mapping of "back through but time averaged" is:
- still one way, and
- the correlation from outer location-on-EH and time-of-crossing, to
location-in-inner-space and "the Beginning", is not trivial.

OK, but you get my drift, the apperance through
the surface would be different to that within
our own universe in some way.


What I thought you said was that at any point you
would see the light accumulated over internal time
at a particular instant of external time.

Backwards. We look at the CMBR, and I want to see if the "entire history"
of our container is written there.

OK, yes I wrote it the wrong way round.

However,
you asked "How would you detect such a thing?" and
regardless of the details, what you wouldn't see is
just the other end of the ruler looking normal.

Agreed, although you might want to reconsider. Now consider what you just
said, with the infaller receiving specular images from a star in the
container Unvierse.

No, I can see what you are saying. My point about
the distorted images on Andrew's pages is that they
suggest that the horizon doesn't do any averaging.
I think you are misunderstanding GR, not disputing
your picture of what would result if it did average.

How do you detect length contraction or time dilation
in/of your own frame?

That is in this universe.

The rules are purported to applicable to local frames on either
side of the EH...

Yes, and across it. Remember the EH isn't a unique
location, it depends on the observer.

Well, we are talking about an infinite observer in the container (at least
several AU to a vew ly, depending on the size of the BH), and observations
made some thousands of years after the Big Bang.

I am talking about the nature of the horizon and to
figure that out I intend to use multiple observers.

Note that the speed of light is an
inverse function of curvature.

Again, not locally, only as measured by a remote
observer, the guy on the clif watching the ship
depart.

So what is "falling faster than c", if not an assignment by such an
observer?

It is a description applicable to the observer
infinitely far away. The infaller sees himself
as not moving of course.

Because the infaller surely sees the laws of physics the same all around
him.

Yes, including the law that says the speed of
light is 299792458m/s.

It is also an inverse function of
density in a medium. Both of which are expected
(by the outer Universe) to be getting larger as you go
inside the BH. So "going faster than c" is meaningless,
since "we" expect c to be decreasing asymptotically to 0.

Nope, c is a constant. The speed measured from a
distance is anisotropic.

Sorry, you always take off when I am less than clear.

Sorry, I know it sems like nitpicking but so many
arguments are exacerbated by ambiguous phraseology
that I have got into the habit of always mentioning
them. In a significant fraction I find people didn't
mean what I assumed so it's worth the annoyance, at
least to me.

Yes, c is always a constant locally. No, the
speed-of-light-as-a-function-of-r is not expected to be.

speed-of-light-as-a-function-of-r as measured by
whom? There isn't one value, we aren't talking
Newtonian here.

And since c_remote defines distance_remote, then the external infinite
observer should expect the infaller to see an expanding Universe. Both
time-rate-as-a-function-of-r, and the speed-of-light-as-a-function-of-r
indicate *vast* expanses await at the "singularity at the center of a BH".
From the POV of the infinite observer.

But both time and speed and distance are unaffected
for the infaller and only he is local to the centre.

Far from a sticky end, the infaller has an end like we also expect.
Assuming we don't try and map our r to the inside of the BH... as r.


They're kooks so for amusement only, this has been
educational for me,it's the real reason I'm still
here, I'm still learning :-)

Me too! You are one tough hombre.

I'm afraid the "2D+t - 3D+t_0 mapping" will be the end of me. I am still
cooking though. What sorts year n infall to an internal location-set in
this hypothetical Universe? Somehow I don't think the conservation laws
are enough to tell me.

Let me try to explore that with you. First though
since you are trying to work with GR, can I assume
you are familiar with the geometrical interpretation
of SR and can handle changes of speed as rotations
of worldlines? I would make life easier if I could
use those as a common foundation for going into the
GR aspects. I'm going to start sketching some
diagrams over the weekend so it would really help
to be able to pitch them at the right level.

I'm not going anywhere soon. And if you need some help
on something by an old mechanical engineer, let me know.
I've got to do some noodling on integrating over all time in
an expanding Universe, on a finite (mass/energy
controlled) area. Not exactly Benoulli's equation.

I hope to give you more to mull over once I get it
straight myself but it should make that integration
look no harder than Boyles Law if I can write it up
in a comprehensible manner.

I see that I need to model different start times for the 3 BH types too.
If I get any sort of reasonable answer on one iteration, that is. When
would you figure the various BHs "began"? The "free BH" and "consuming
companion" likely anytime, since white dwarves die and pulsars pulse even
today.

There are graphics on the web showing the growth of the
event horizon out during the collapse of a star though
I don't have a reference handy.

A galactic core BH, likely existed from very near the time of the CMBRM,
right?

Tricky, nobody knows. There has been a debate about
which comes first, the galaxy or the hole but it
now seems posible they evolve simultaneously. My own
speculation might be that they come from Pop III
stars of greater than 240 M_sun (IIRC) but possibly
the cool spots in the CMBR could be locations of
rapidly growing primordial BH. Denser regions might
provide more rapid growth and the larger surface
area would then allow more rapid assimilation of the
surrounding material. If more dense regions were more
rapidly depleted, that could be related to the
surprising uniformity.

Until later. I smelled the season "fall" Monday. About time.

It arrived here (southern England) a couple of weeks
ago.

Excellent. Still nearly 110 deg F (43 deg C) today. But something other
than pigeons (and "fried chicken") now show up to get fed in the mornings.

Phew. It was about 16C here today, nice and sunny
though.

best regards
George

Dear Geroge Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in message newsUpWe.253218$E95.203645@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"Dishman" wrote in message
oups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

.... trimming down a mite.

What "extinction coefficient"?

The mathematics by which you arrived at 6200 ly is similar
to that used for nuclear shielding, and many other things.
An extinction coefficient is (also) 1 log reduction in
radiation.

Ah, OK. However, that referred to thickness of the
optical layer only, not spatial distribution. There
is only a minimal relationship.

As are shields around nuclear sources. Thicknesses are
based on macroscopic averages, and not specific "lines of
flight". One usually just applies a factor of safety, and
beefs it up a bit, as long as the source is not too large.

When you look at the shielding, you don't see very
far into it. It it was made of translucent plastic
instead of concrete, you might see a few millimetres.

Stand back though and you can look over a wide area
of the shield and look for discolourations many metres
across on the surface. I don't see any connection
between the two other than you might less deeply into
a discoloured area. In other words, I still don't
understand your comment that the "extinction
coefficient" is somehow related structures.

I keep attempting to get a handle on how large the Universe was
at the time of the CMBRM. If I am "sailing away from" the
standard model, I'm not sure I get to use its size. Maybe it
isn't important until after I get a spectrum. (I see your answer
below.)

....
What picture are you offering that would avoid a
plasma when the universe was so small that the
_average_ density was say 200 g/cm^3 ? Note the
word average in particular.

Question conveyed. I will say that compressible fluids
can have variable density, which in our case could
correlate to the presence of structures.

Sure but a density varying between 199.998 g/cc and
200.002 g/cc would still be a plasma everywhere even
though the denser regions are the beginning of what
would eventually become galactic clusters.

Anyway, you asked why I thought there needed to be a
plasma period and that is my reasoning. If your time-
integrating surface was where the conventional theory
places a cosmic age of around 500k years, you could
avoid it.

OK.

Now consider "how do you know what size the Universe
was at the time of the CMBRM?" You keep dragging it
back to the standard model.

Applying GR to what we see gives the form of the
scale factor a(t), the ratio of a(t) then to a(t)
now is the same as the z factor.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm#SF

Since that is 1089
for the CMBR, that gives you the then size for any
current region.

Of course that isn't the size of the universe, only
the small patch we can currently observe.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo240.gif

From

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm#MSTD

OK. Since I am adhering to GR (or at least one interpretation of
it), I should be able to massage that into an answer.

How much of your assumed density included Dark Matter?

Dark matter appears to be about an order greater than
the visible at most.

OK.

Whatever form they took at that time, the 'space' between
then would still have to be filled with plasma.

Why "have to"? We have witnessed the collision of two
spiral
galaxies, and it does not shred them both to plasma.

That's because the average density was low enough to
have stars separated by empty space. What happens when
the _average_ density gets to be higher than that of
the densest stars that can exist ?

Perhaps that density was not achieved. Certainly the standard
model has it so. But how big did the mass/energy in this
Universe, make the Universe start out at? A good idea for
mapping might give a clue.

Already answered:
For the small part of the universe which is now
observable, the initial size, arbitrarily at the
end of inflation was a few cm, "about the size of
a grapefruit" as it is commonly stated. All the
matter in all the galaxies we know see was in that
space.

OK. I'll work on the specturm first. Don't really need the cart
before the horse.

This is the standard model. We cannot see before 5 lengths
(or so) before your extinction coefficient.

Not true, the angular power spectrum tells us about
conditions about a month after the bang and the
nucleosythesis abundancies tell us about the period
a few seconds to a few minutes after the bang.

"Angular power spectrum" tells you about what "ionized" the
CMBRM?

Time averaging up to the BHs evaporative demise could easily
provide the abundances observed also. With surprising
implications/consequences.

Then we have
those pesky "uniformly sized cool spots" to worry about.

"Cooler" by about one part in 10^5! Hardly
air-conditioned.

Yet pattern in random is unlikely. Two or three spots can
be random. But all spots? And no, I am not building a
case around the observation. It is simply news.

Your words concern me a little. What has been reported
isn't a pattern.

The uniform size of the spots *is* a pattern, if the *location*
of the spots is fully random. Maybe a betere word would be
"anomaly".

Think of an Ishihara chart with random
colour dots of random size (without the sneaky numbers
that form the test). Now instead of random sizes, make
all the dots the same size yet keep their random
locations.

Understood.

....
I am not arguing for homogeneity, what I am querying is
what kind of structures you think would have suffient
density for the majority of the universe to be transparent
when the whole observable universe is contained in a
volume of say 100cm^3.

*I* don't start there. I start larger (perhaps). See I don't
attempt to start a Universe with a "central singularity", and
then imagine all sorts of mystical ways to get the Universe we
see to come boiling out of it.

I guess you need to make some prediction of the
scale factor at your horizon or something like
that.

Cart before horse. I need to not worry about this detail, and
generate the spectrum. This "house of cards" could die there.

....
It would be interesting how one would
derive "pattern" simply by a change of scale.

I just wondered if such a change might be related to
the anomalies in the quadrupole magnitude and
apparent curious alignments seen in the CMBR.

Scale change does not create pattern. We don't need to
continue this, since it is perpheral, not key.

Sure, it was an aside, but note they have not
observed a pattern in the spots, just less
randomness in spot size than expected.

OK.

....
If so, science can never "provide a model" because
neither can be ignored at a singularity.

The singularity exists (if at all) in the macroscopic,
continuum model. Namely the reality underlying
spacetime.

But energy bends spacetime

And does so at the event horizon, as well.

But for large mass holes, that curvature can be less
than 1g so no more a problem than on the surface
of the Earth, it is valid to use the "weak field"
approximation. That fails near the central singularity
though.

...."central singularity"...

and quantum fluctuations
become so large that spacetime is no longer smooth
but chaotic.

Witness Hawking radiation... again, at the event horizon.

Again, still in weak field. At the centre, the
energy in the Hawking radiation is high enough
to produce curvature so strong that it alone
could produce Hawking radiation, hence the
equations run away.

Actually I think you'd have a different issue entirely. Position
*and* energy known to arbitrary accuracy. I think the contents
would become a B-E condensate of sorts and tunnel out that way.

Without a combined theory, it becomes
impossible to use either because the approximations
each needs to work in isolation are no longer valid.

I disagree. The number of "overlapping" or "mutually
exclusive"
theories used in production and operation of an automobile
might
surprise you. Yet we are able to build them. You use the
tool
best suited for the job. The difficulty comes in describing
the
job, so that tools can be selected...

At the centre, all our tools fail at the moment,
that's the problem.

Not really. The inifinte observer predicts an eternally
expanding, cooling Universe for the infaller. I don't think "the
center" is what you believe it to be.

I don't expect
QM to have any issues anywhere, since it requires
neither space nor time.

Yes it does, it assumes universal time in the
collapse of the wavefunction.

Example?

I'm not into QM but if you look it up, it's
bound to be in the FAQs, it's common knowledge
I believe.

First I'd heard of it, actually. Never heard any discussions
relating to "universal time" in anything related to science.

....
How is the light going to reach me on the way
in, and what is it about a "very large" gamma
affecting the wavelength (and length in the r
direction, and duration of events in my frame).
To say nothing of the curvature in the space that
one end of your TWLS experiment is to be run.

Gamma and "faster than c" are statements meaningful
to a remote observer. Is that a better hint?

Sorry, no. I see no way for an infinte observer to make
a TWLS distance measurement.

Correct, it would take infinite time for the light
to even reach the area ;-)

Ditto for the infaller.

Ah, that's the interesting answer. Now suppose I
could show you how the infaller can make two-way
measurements over some region by sending light
to a mirror and back. With a little more detail,
would you be prepared to agree that the observer
and mirror are in the same universe during that
process?

That depends, George. Are we and the CMBRM in the same Universe?
We do send light between here and the Moon, with both the
initiation and reflection "in the past". But we cannot bounce
anything off of the CMBRM. We can't get "the mirror" to be
anything before/beyond "the singularity" (regardless of its
location).

Light reflecting back from... a surface that is no longer
in your Universe? Something you are falling "faster
than c" away from?

I wasn't thinking of it reflecting back, rather being
passed through but time averaged.

Problem is, the mapping of "back through but time
averaged" is:
- still one way, and
- the correlation from outer location-on-EH and
time-of-crossing, to location-in-inner-space and "the
Beginning", is not trivial.

OK, but you get my drift, the apperance through
the surface would be different to that within
our own universe in some way.

Agreed.

What I thought you said was that at any point you
would see the light accumulated over internal time
at a particular instant of external time.

Backwards. We look at the CMBR, and I want to
see if the "entire history" of our container is written
there.

OK, yes I wrote it the wrong way round.

OK. Understood.