Photonics? / frequency multiplier,

Typical that you quote the whole thing to add your trivial tag line.

I won't bother because I don't think you have the wit to understand. However, for the benefit of other interested readers I will refer you to the DAMPT website which explains the four observational pillars of the hot big bang cosmology without any detailed mathematics.

It always loses something put into words and without the mathematics.

We actually live in a golden era of observational cosmology where new instruments can now survey and image the sky at high resolution in wavelengths ranging from X-rays down to long wave radio. Even the gaps like terahertz are now being filled in by metamaterial based sensors.

Theoretical models are now very well constrained by the observational data. When I was a student you could still hide "cold dark matter" as old biros, chair legs and sticks of rhubarb - but not any more.

Perhaps you would like to share with the rest of us your great insight that tells you that Big Bang Cosmology is incorrect?

Of course not. The universe has only been around for at most 14bn years so looking for 30bn year galaxies would be like digging a big pit on the Earth to look for 10bn year old fossils (Earth is 4.5bn years old).

Radio telescopes are now down to deciding what new experiments will help distinguish between the various competing theories by finding additional observational constraints. Deep radio surveys at ever lower frequencies and longer baselines have been done to death already.

The answer is already known the "Steady State Universe" is dead and had curled up its toes in the late 1960's though it took a while for its main proponents to accept this and/or die off. The battle royal between Hoyle vs Ryle (radio astronomy) in Cambridge was particularly brutal.

Observational data from the most distant regions of the universe are limited to objects that are intrinsically *very* bright and/or imaged for us by gravitational lensing of an intervening galactic cluster.

And in case you are wondering how they know the views are images of the same quasar there are two pieces of evidence. Spectroscopy and temporal variations in light output. It is an annoying property of quasars that their output varies rather rapidly (also implying small physical size and/or relativistic beaming).

The furthest back a galaxy or quasar has been seen is about Z=8 and one or two really bright ones have been found suitable for further study.

Incorrect? It sounds pretty good to me, at least after the first femtoseconds, which seem to be in some doubt.

People sometimes pontificate as tho they have god on speed dial, ((I've never received a call from Marty ;-)).

Well, she's very busy.

You're getting help on these replies from your wife, I think.

Gauss must be rolling in his grave...

Tim

OK, you caught me, and I'm going to have to admit it. I've been married twice, and both of my wives were very female. It's not really my fault... my mother was female, too. Come to think of it, all my girlfriends have been female... every one of them.

Where did I go wrong? How did you avoid having female wives or girlfriends?

Well, he's dead.

Thank you for clearing all that up for us.

Hubble, too.

So what's holding it back, then? In a soap bubble, it's the shear in density between the air and the soap. I'm thinking it's electrostatically maintained. Why is there an edge to a bubble in the dense soup? The radii of attractio/repulsion seem off.

I do like the poetry of the image of a child blowing a bubble, and that bubble is our universe. That's way cool.

So think relativistically; the timebase is different at the edges than it is in the middle.

I think I read that somewhere, can't remember. But in relativity, time is not an independent variable.

I like the origin myths of aboriginal peoples better. They've had longer to polish them.

-- Les Cargill

You are still thinking in semi-classical terms of there being something outside our universe. That is not required at all although it is not excluded as a possibility in modern cosmology.

I think you will find a gentleman by the name of Gauss proved a long time ago that inside a uniform spherical shell of mass or charge you will feel no attractive force from it at all.

Not true. Dark matter was proposed by Oort in 1932 to explain the anamolous motion of stars in the Milky Way. That is nearly 3 decades before the huge fight over Big Bang vs Steady State in the 1960's.

Dark matter was proposed to explain why galaxies don't fly apart. If you look at the speed the stars and gas in the spiral arms are doing and yet they are held together by gravity. The initial idea was that there was dark matter that is non-luminous in the form of rocks and dust to make up the balance. Modern observational techniques are now sensitive enough to rule that out so cold dark matter has to be some form of mass that doesn't interact in other ways with ordinary matter or with electromagnetic radiation.

It is reassuring that ab initio computer simulations of CDM universes now produce very good agreement with the observations of the microwave background, elemental abundances and galaxy cluster formation that we observe.

Dark energy is actually the name that has been given to the constant of integration that Einstein inserted into his field equations to facilitate a steady state universe solution. Without it he had proved that universes had to either expand or contract. It is ironic that it seems now from observations that the value is not quite exactly zero although its influence only really makes a difference at very great distances.

Actually that is done in music, with a DSP, even in realtime for karaoke. As for whether the techniques are relevant to your use is rather questionable.

the=20

=20

the=20

would=20

Actually Al2O3 is much more readily soluable/etchable than Si. What = would be really cool is SOI processes on BN.

?-)

Thanks for that Martin! Dark matter is perhaps the most interesting mystery in current day science.

George H.

Redshift-measured velocity is linear on distance from Earth. That's not obviously consistant with the high-gravity wall thing.

Hasn't anybody explained X and Y chromosomes to you yet?

Hey, I like women and you don't. It's just a matter of preference. Lots of guys don't like women.

But nobody controls me; I've been unmanageable since childhood. As far as being surrounded by women, well, bring'em on!

Emulating? Boy, you really don't understand where babies come from.

And if my life is centered on any one thing, it's designing electronics. For fun and profit.

He was a milkman, a very decent guy who had a hard life and wanted me to do better. He liked women, too.