Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Fwd: Re: {Spam?} [PrimeNumbers] Re: New file uploaded to primenumbers]

Expand Messages
  • Paul Leyland
    Oops! I d meant to send this to the list as well as to Mike but failed to Cc-all. As stated below, I won t pollute the list with more on this topic but if
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 17, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Oops! I'd meant to send this to the list as well as to Mike but failed
      to Cc-all.

      As stated below, I won't pollute the list with more on this topic but if
      anyone else is interested in continuing the discussion they will be very
      welcome to do so through the medium of private email.


      -------- Forwarded Message --------
      > From: Paul Leyland <paul@...>
      > To: mikeoakes2 <mikeoakes2@...>
      > Subject: Re: {Spam?} [PrimeNumbers] Re: New file uploaded to
      > primenumbers
      > Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 08:52:09 +0100
      > On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 09:18 +0000, mikeoakes2 wrote:
      > >
      > > --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, Paul Leyland <paul@...> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > While we're collecting elephants, please define "now".
      > > >
      > >
      > > That's quite easy.
      > > The CMB defines a local rest frame everywhere, i.e. a sheaf of
      > > time-like geodesics. The orthogonal 3-spaces give you a definition of
      > > simultaneity. This maps to the Robertson-Walker line-element and is
      > > the foundation on which the standard (LambdaCDM) cosmology rests.
      > Okey-doke. I have a few more questions but as they have essentially
      > nothing to do with prime numbers this will be my last post on this
      > particular subject. If we wish to discuss it further, we should do it
      > by private email. Anyone else (David?) would be welcome to join in.
      > First, it's not clear to me that there is a CMB-defined local rest frame
      > everywhere. Even if we assume the entire dipole anisotropy is due to
      > our motion wrt to the CMB, there appear to be higher multipole
      > components. Even leaving those out, it's possible that the CMB rest
      > frame may not be an inertial frame --- the universe could be rotating
      > for example.
      > Secondly, assuming that the CMB does indeed define a universal rest
      > frame, it is not clear to me that the CnuB (primordial neutrino
      > background) necessarily defines the same frame. Absence any evidence
      > for the CnuB, though most everyone expects it to exist, it appears
      > impossible to test this assumption.
      > Thirdly, and this refers back to a previous post, although I accept your
      > alpha argument, that appears not to be the whole truth and perhaps not
      > even the main consideration. If dark energy, or quintessence, or
      > whatever you wish to call it is real in some sense, and not just a
      > misinterpretation of observations, it would appear that portions of the
      > universe never become causally connected and, indeed, that an ever
      > decreasing fraction remains connected.
      > There are other topics (entropy and energy held in dark matter for
      > instance) which bear on the computational limits of the universe but
      > those can remain unexamined for the moment.
      > Paul
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.