Aliens: What to look for, and how

Potentially obvious ways of detecting ET on exoplanets include artificial light sources (city lights), and atomic spectra of atmospheric effects (urban air pollution, NO, NO2, SO2, O3). See the links below:

Composite Photo of Earth's Cities at Night - see the website:

http://www.space.com/cgi-bin/click2...wnloads/spaceart/images/earthatnight_1280.jpg

Testing the spectra of the atmosphere over alien cities would also tell us a lot about their technology, state of industry, etc, if they have any. Either way we should build an interferometer telescope that can resolve city-sized objects roughly 20 km across. But we would want to search a large number of solar systems for terrestrial planets. Many of the nearest solar systems are known although the sample is still theoretically incomplete. Setting the theoretical population density of nearby stars equal to those found within 5 parsecs provides a basis for predicting the number of stars even further from earth.

Graph (courtesy of RECONS, the Research Consortium on Nearby Stars):

http://www.chara.gsu.edu/RECONS/missing.html

The indicated curve has the equation:

N = 1.3358 * e ^ (0.1828 * R)

where R = radius of a sphere in lightyears with earth at the center
N = number of solar systems within range(R)

This formula shows that we must build a telescope that can see 74 lightyears if we want to investigate 1 million solar systems for signs of intelligent life. At this distance a city-sized target 20 kilometers wide corresponds to an angular width (parallax) of 337.6 nano-arcseconds, or 9.38E(-11) degrees.

Next we need to determine the size of telescope mirror required to resolve targets this small. The formula for telescopic resolution is given as

alpha = 20 * W / b

where,
W = wavelength of light detected in micrometers
b = diameter telescope, or, baseline of interferometer in centimeters
alpha = smallest resolved-target size in arcseconds

The shorter the wavelength the smaller the telescope mirror required. For example the human eye detects visible wavelengths, but the Aricebo radio telescope detects radio wavelengths. The angular resolution of Aricebo is only half as good as the human eye, for its design wavelengths, yet is huge in comparison. On the other hand it is easier to build telescopes to detect longer wavelengths than shorter ones, since the quality of the detector is less critical. Only recently have long baseline optical interferometer telescopes been successfully built for the visible wavelengths. In the future, under the umbrella of NASA's Origins Program, space telescopes using optical interferometry will be put into service.

NASA's Origins Program:

http://origins.jpl.nasa.gov

Currently on schedule for launch is the Starlight Mission which will act as a testbed for non-tethered optical interferometer telescopes flying in exact formation. The Starlight spacecraft will be launched in 2005.

Starlight Mission:

http://starlight.jpl.nasa.gov

The baseline separation for this pair of spacecraft will never be more than a couple hundred meters, and unfortunately this telescope is not expected to find anything new - merely use the new technique to duplicate previous observations by other conventional optical telescopes. But it will prove the technology!

The goal:

To search the nearest 1 million solar systems for signs of intelligent life we will need an interferometer that can function at a 337.6 nano-arcsecond resolution. This hypothetical array will see city-sized targets on planets at a distance of 74 lightyears. According to the above equation, working at a wavelength of 0.7 microns (red light), it must have a baseline separation of 414.7 km. This is equivalent to a telescope with a 414.7 km-diameter main reflector mirror.

Ultimate Problem:

The earth rotates as it goes around the sun. As such a telescope that can create a 20 km-per-pixel image will see the city traverse the pixel in just 43 seconds. At 74 lightyears distance the amount of light from an omnidirectional light source will decrease in brightness by a factor of nearly 1E(-29). The combined areas of the telescopes must collect a minimum of 2500 photons per second to form a single recognizable interferogram. Since an entire city at night would emit millions of watts of light it may be possible to form an image that can discern city lights and urban air pollution spectra on distant planets: using many-telescope arrays, where each telescope has a hubble-sized light bucket. The future of astronomy is outlined at the following website:

The Future of Remote Sensing:

http://www.itss.raytheon.com/cafe/anthol/remote.html

Whatever direction the space program goes in the next 50 years, I want to see this image taken of a distant alien planet:

Composite Image of Earth's Cities at Night:

http://www.space.com/cgi-bin/click2...wnloads/spaceart/images/earthatnight_1280.jpg

Every star has a habitable zone. There MUST be life out there!

Cheers!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Look for "electrogravity"

There is much (secret) research on the subject of electrogravity. The irony of electrogravity is that its increments borrow heavily from space-time through a deeper dimensional relationship, supposedly. (See Col. Tom Bearden's writings on scalar electromagnetism on the web, for example). In other words, as Bearden writes, destructive interference (in three dimensions) of electromagnetism "bleeds into" electrogravity, and vice versa: destructive interference of electrogravity bleeds into electromagnetism. This is supposed to relate to negative energy (a kind of gravity), or what are called squeezed state fluctuations in the vacuum of space-time (see Hawking's notes on fluctuations in the vacuum of gravity also). In short, electrogravity borrows heavily from the surrounding space-time continuum and speeds the passage of time therein, thus potentially allowing faster-than-light communications---in any alien form of technology. *Again, not a flat space-time propagation, but a kind of back door quantum cosmological connectedness (i.e. Wheeler Feynman) that spends energy and speeds time. So, in such a sense, if we were looking for aliens, we wouldn't waste time looking for flat space-time electromagnetism; instead we would look for gravity fluctuations that, in turn, could be leaked into electromagnetic form through destructive interference, then read. Rather than being a Cartesian linear propagation, it would connect opposite ends of the universe in a sense, an absorber theory kind of relationship, thus the speeding of time and the deeper dimensional relocating of the "information." As such, it would not define local space-time characteristics as indivisible, as adequate in terms of the definition of information. Instead, we would tease the information out of a deeper electrogravitic relationship, as Bearden suggests. (Not a violation of relativistic constraints, but a re-integration of the parameters of its observation---in both larger, and, at the same time, finer increments of conjugate incidence).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just curious

I am just curious.... are you an idiot? Did you have trouble understanding my post and this is your way of making fun of it? If so that's really retarded.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Read it again

Frankly, as a 45-year old man, I am unaccustomed to behaviors such as yours. You literally are a "junior" member, in that, at least. Your comments concern one limited area of investigation. If you would read the sources on electrogravity and more, you would see that it is serious science. Just because you aren't familiar with it, does not mean that it is neither valid nor of interest. Mark my words: in a matter of years electrogravity will begin to dominate our research technology. Diversity allows for creativity. Your attitude reminds me of the least dignified objections to relativity 96 years ago.

 

Going through alien's' radio & TV emission trails

I think that with the Earth, our Sun & our Galaxy all rotating around the Universe, we should cross someone's emission trail, I'm sure that we are leaving a trail, a 24 hour rotating beacon, as we scream around the Galaxy. So, if there is intelligent life out there, they should be able to see or hear us, or us them sometime in the future. It seems to me our only problem is, if they or we blink, while we are in position to see each other. We have had radio for over a hundred years, & TV for at least 50, we can only hope that all others are somewhat like us, that they have anoligus sensory organs, that they develope radio, TV, telescopes, lasers, & radar like us, that they are exploring the world around them and that tiny window of opportunity does not miss us.

Live long and Prosper!

 

Alien, What to Look for?

I think if one goes and gets a Mirror you'll find all the proof you will need? Unless xxmillions of years of evolution has made a gold plated timex??

JUST A THOUGHT

Bob

 

stuff

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

hey george i wont even start to pretend i know exactly or even mostly what you are talking about except that it sounds essentialy like travel and since we all like to go for holidays (some psychological...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

{success machine
ARE YOU A PROFFESSOR OF PHYSICS?} )
I THINK ITS QUITE FUNNY THE FACT THAT THINGS ARE LOOKING TO A STATE OF TRAVEL that discards the concept of drive propulsion after soo much of our
polluted society has blindly chassed this idea past the obviouse annomilies that even people 100 years ago were stating

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

but it is good to hear that the bias is on the side of
proberbility rather than moral values

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

groove on all (just a guy with key-board

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

ps... where are the "masters" now, ...? :/

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

WHOA NOW! COOL OFF! Have some respect...

WHOA NOW! COOL OFF! Have some respect for each others pov.

Cooperation, as well as the consideration of others thoughts, have always been more fruitful than derison of others' ideas!

Life on other worlds? Simplistic!

Fluid conversion of the radioactive mass (star)! So easy!

- no matter the high (lethal) amount of radiation, and

- no matter the horrible chemicals present, and

- no matter the excessive gravity forces (specific gravity).

If the world has:

a) energy supplied by a reliable and consistant star, and

b) reasonable fluids, to constantly convert the energy forms, and

c) that these fluids may be in the form of water or other forms, and

d) most importantly, that the environment remains consistant, or in other words, does not change faster than the rate of the evolution of any promising life that may be forthcoming, and

e) that other surrounding worlds may act as vaccum cleaners for comets and large meteors, so as to prevent catastrophies upon the proposed world.


As long as there is a reliable and consistant environment, with a good reliable source of energy, then life will find a way.

Constantly changing environmental conditions are bad for burgeoning life.

Look at the facts here on Earth:

Slash & burn activities in the rainforests happen too fast for the indigeous inhabitants to adjust (evolve) so as to compensate, thus evolve to meet the fast changing conditions.

Existing life hates change. It evolves reluctantly to compensate for these environmental changes, thus it is reasonable that the very same laws apply to other worlds.

ENERGY SUPPLIED AND CONSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS!

That's the Formula!

Apply yourselves to that which I have freely given to you previously today. Understand this, and you'll be able to predict quite exactly, the possibility of life on an planet, so long as you know the environment!

Best wishes///////

ps. STOP BEING ASSHOLES TO EACH OTHER.

Two assholes never solved a problem, they only got bigger!

 

AND NOW A WORD FROM OUR SPONSER....

Now BoB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GD!!!!!!

Are you really saying that that your reflection exhibits life!??????????????????

Secondly, whats the deal with the XXX rated millions of years??? Not to mention the gold plated timex evolution???

I don't get it!

 

ripleofdeath...isms.....

Get some help RIP!


okokokokokoko..............humor me.....:

I THINK ITS QUITE FUNNY THE FACT THAT THINGS ARE LOOKING TO A STATE OF TRAVEL that discards the concept of drive propulsion after soo much of our
polluted society has blindly chassed this idea past the obviouse annomilies that even people 100 years ago were stating

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"
"


What the hell does that mean? I'm out there, But i'm too tired to try to translate! RIPOPPPPPPPPP!!!!!

And the rest of these college boyz are too dumb to understand.

So tell me plain RIP! pLEASE TRASNSKATE.

 

exp ... of my op i hope

i have heard it said that many years ago some of the astronamers said that other planets would be too far away to travel to by any normal means of going from point a-through to point be...............?
galalio(spelling might be wrong and the person) LOL
bear with me please
...and as it seems, there is the most common logical path, to connect the thought, that life on other planets exists......
i have also heard it mentioned that some of our more distant(many years ago...even hundreds of years) intilectuals have said that we will need to fold or bend space and time to get there...
so...
it seems that most theory points to the idea of time and space(place/level of reality/world)
being intertwined in a ply-able way
we know we cannot travel at light speed ...so it seems
and yet we have visits by et s from other planets
and yet people (scientist seem to be still looking at things like cold fusion drive thingeys(which would be prety dam groovy to go to the moon with but maybe not
visit a potential neighbour) is it possible that "they"
are looking at time travel at the moment or jumping into subspace through a generated hole...?
i hope that makes more sence
NOTE i never intend to insult anyone as much as ask them to look at the bigger picture in some way that will make them question there own personaly placed limits to ... as we call it"theory"
i dont belive in physical abuse ie smacking kids and the rest that is seeded from that but a sharp shock of some sort(psychological) can sometimes allow a new view point or a smaller wall in the mind of the psycologicaly bombbarded[that we all are if exposed to all "normal" media
...
HENCE
Peace...Love...and missery to all greed merchants

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

groove on all

 

Science, post-quantum

There is much talk about how we should re-parameter our science now, in the post-quantum era. Clearly, the quantum basis is indispensable, yet, as string theorists like to point out, we need to reconcile the once seemingly-irreconcilable disagreement between relativity and quantum mechanics, hence the "post quantum" label. The Copenhagen convention looked at a difficult enigma in scinece of the 20th century and worked out a strange, yet important new set of considerations. We need to do the same now, once again. We are all diverging without common agreement. No doubt Edward Witten's idea of M-theory, or multiple mathematics is important---he argues that extradimensional phenomena require seemingly weird, extra types of mathematics for each extra dimension, if I am not mistaken. For example, based on what we observe in quantum theory---nonlocality, immediate transitions across gaps in space-time, condensed matter states, etc, we can pose a mathematic in which there are no whole numbers. Why? Because the only whole number (one) that would exist in the physics of this universe would be that of the entire universe from the beginning to the end of time, and, even then it would only approach a whole number (one) quantity, at which point (for obvious reasons) it would fold back in upon itself, intravert or involute strangely (non-locally), as the universe apparently did, does. In short, our physics should instead all be enumerated to the right of the decimal point, with alternative, multiple values. The Cartesian idealization of point-singular ordinates (impossible in our new model, for example) and the bronze age idea of things, concrete qualities, etc. ---all are consequences of old and drastically mistaken whole number mathematical idealizations. Think about this one for a while--in terms of black holes (not entirely singlular, in that they are dimensioned in time, gravity, and space) and other weird phenomena... It is a basic mathematic, yet an apparently necessary one. No doubt there are more.

 

redirection of subject

hey sccs machine
i have heard the theory that it could be possible for a race of people to live underground for hundreds of years
... with sufficient technology.
if this were true and say a planet or moon that had no
internal lava type stuf like the earth supposedly has...
would we be able to detect it under a km of rock of the sorts that are found on some of our neighbouring planets and moons?
and do we have any satalite bouncing / relay of images that are on the dark side of any of these?
another one...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

can we put a satalite around the moon or mars indefinity?
or is the decay or wat ever to much
please use idiot language cos i aint a student of fissyhicks or anywho like that

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

groove on

 

how the energy condition of entire universe is marginally faster than light

Here's a basic fact of importance: Whenever an electron jumps from one energy level, or orbit/shell, to another, it does so instantaneously. This is an accepted fact of the standard model; all quantum physicists agree on this. In other words, albeit a small jump in space, it is nonetheless faster than light. We see precisely such a jump in transistors, ironically--the basis of the computer in front of you. When electrons in semiconductor chips arrive at a non-conductor barrier (silicon), they stop and wait a measured amount of time. Then, through a strange trick of the dopant (beryllium) seeded within nearby silicon, they disappear from the one side of the silicon barrier and instantly appear on the other side. Scientists say they "tunnel through" the doped semiconductor.

In short, the very existence of discretes, or distinct energy levels that communicate faster than light whenever an electron jumps from one energy level to another, is proof that the entire energy condition of the universe is apparently premised on instantaneous transitions. Quantum physics is thus considered weird, in a sense. As Richard Feynman once said, the essence of quantum physics can be understood in a simple two-slit experiment (in which a photon can be in two places at once AND CAN ALSO "KNOW," FASTER THAN LIGHT, what occurs on the other side of the slit barrier, before it approaches the slit, through which it passes.

Again, we need another Copenhagen-like convention to resolve such strangeness. Indeed, we should probably begin to premise our basic concept on the more unusual, yet definitive aspects of quantum "anomalies"--for example, the thingless or non-concrete nature of all quanta, the ability of quanta to be in multiple places at the same time, the seemingly faster than light relationship in what is known as "quantum connectedness," the faster-than-light case for all energy level transitions. In a sense, we are looking at a model in which the very center of a black hole, the singularity, is, in ways, a quantum of a strange sort. The new negative energy dynamics described in Scientific American's January 2000 article "Negative Energy, Wormholes and Warp Drive" are very important science. Negative energy involves a kind of negative cycle in which the universe "connects large scale to small scale, from the cosmic to the hyper-miniature. Hence, when the authors of the article say that negative energy fluctuations (a.k.a. electrogravity) occur when scientists aim lasers together to create destructive interference (waves that cancel out), they are basically agreeing with ret. Col. Tom Bearden's snopsis: "destructive interference of electromagnetism converging in three dimensions (i.e. along the x, y and z axes) bleeds into electrogravity, and conversely, destructive interference of electrogravity bleeds back into electrogravity."

This is a basic reciprocity, yet inherently entails marginal distortions of time and space, or electrogravity--which can be teased out of the nucleus' deeper dimensional connectedness to the larger continuum. In a sense, the very existence of precise similarities between all quanta, i.e. the fact that photons, electrons, etc. have exact standard characteristics, is "communicated" faster-than-light universally. Instead of reading such similarities as things, singular givens of concreteness of a sort, we should probably think of them as being communicated via negative energy relationships, in part, a kind of fractional wave form or deeper dimensional precision (kindred to Wheeler Feynman's absorber theory-- or Feynman's sum over histories seen in "imaginary time" --which isn't so imaginary. It is simply how the small scale is deeper dimensionally connected to the greater cosmic. It is "communicated" and is, in fact, "information." Read the Scientific American article. It is a breath of fresh air, inspired work by Einstein's contemporaries.

Also, look at Kaluza Klein, other Einstein contemporaries who argued that all electromagnetism is simply manifestations of gravity in a deeper fifth dimension (perhaps more dimensions). In short, the faster than light, or instantaneous jump of electrons from one energy level to another is easy, everyday proof of such a relationship. It was always just beneath our noses, so to speak... or better yet, within the space between our ears.

 

George

Whenever an electron jumps from one energy level, or orbit/shell, to another, it does so instantaneously. This is an accepted fact of the standard model; all quantum physicists agree on this.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that when an electron moves from a higher energy state (excited state) to a lower energy state (ground state), it does so along the order of 10^-9 seconds, which is not instantaneous.

 

Re: how the energy condition of entire universe is marginally faster than light

Uhhhhhhhh..... no, they don't move instantaneously. Sorry. No "quantum physicists" would agree with this.

No. A standard BJT operates by charge injection; a MOSFET operates by field effect. Neither involve any quantum mechanical tunneling process.

What exactly is an "energy condition?"

I don't recall Rich ever saying this. What you're actually attempting to describe is known as the Einstein-Padolsky-Rosen paradox ("spooky action-at-a-distance"), which is essentially a philosophical question about the nature of the Universe. There are several interpretations of quantum mechanics which deal with this philosophy.

Please don't become a writer.

Pointedly, we don't know exactly what happens near or at a singularity, or even if Nature allows singularities to exist.

I'll make you a deal -- I'll read the article before I comment. But modern science does not include the term 'electrogravity....'

Are you sure you didn't mean The force of magnetism is the result of a torque generated by the energy vortex Shadows associate with electromagnet energy, which causes a 'tilting' of the W axis of the fourth spatial dimensions?

What are 'exact standard characteristics?'

It is fishwrap designed to sell ad space.

But you're forgetting, again, that this doesn't actually happen. Perhaps it really is just in the space between your ears.

And I must say I'm a bit disappointed by this whole thread: I was expecting something about "Aliens: What to look for, and how."

- Warren

 

reply

Warren, Certainly, much of the above is debatable, but, in the jump to a higher energy level, the transition is effectively instantaneous, isn't it? You noted the drop toward a more retarded wave function condition--inward toward the nucleus, due to a loss of energy. On second thought, I should correct myself: none of the electrons transitions would be completely instantaneous, but would, at best accelerate toward infinity. Correct me if I am wrong, but the tunneling of a an electron in a semiconductor, its disappearance then reappearance, is effectively instantaneous. If you were to argue the case for at least some measurable time interval, then we might have to model the activity in terms of a negative energy, extra-dimensional model, only a near-simultaneity of sorts. Also, how can you explain Wheeler Feynman absorber theory solely in terms of the speed of light? *Aliens wouldn't get here unless they could exceed the speed of light, which, in Einstein's theories, is stated by ASSUMPTION as a limit. It has never been proven an unbreakable limit, to wit Hawking's black holes that allow the escape of particles--due to negative energy, of course. Hawking actually argues that they would marginally exceed the speed of light to escape, then would slow for a concomitantly brief period after escaping the black hole's event horizon.

Finally, this entire universe could not have escaped from its original singularity if we were entirely bounded by your linear constraint. Yet here we are... Faster than light relationships make no sense in terms of flat spacetime propagation, of course, but in terms of extra dimensions, they are more plausible. You argue in terms of solely local quantities, the whole-numbered energy values for an electron, the table-top values of other quanta. Not that such are invalid, of course... Instead, you probably need to also model a multi-mathematical parallel or parallels in your reasoning. Sure, you can quote various texts, all of which invariably run into the Einstein limit, the speed of light, etc. But all of those texts cannot definitively explain quantum peculiarities, the beginning of the universe, Hawking's evaporating black holes, and more.

Hawking and others' models of "quantum cosmology" may seem flawed in terms of more traditional localized constraints, yet they at least pose the universal value (any valid integrated, or unified physics, value) in every reference. My more generic response to your line of reasoning is: how can you hope to adequately model the universe and its quanta if you limit yourself to one, solely linear kind of mathematic--premised on a Cartesian coordinate system in which every point is infinitely small and non-existent, essentially posing an unchanging static value for any and all of its parameters? Such is literally impossible, only idealized, as is our whole-number mathematic. We invented it to model order, yet no whole numbers can be found in nature, none. They are only construed as such, but cannot exist apart from the larger, more definitive universal whole, the only whole refence of validity. Quanta can be idealized as islolated, yet they are always smeared out and around, possibly also inward also. They are always affected by various "forces" (perhaps better seen as "effects," of a more complex multidimensional sort in negative energy dynamics).

Any infinitely small (Cartesian point-singular) quantity would undergo relativistic effects or distortions (i.e. negative energy fluctuations), and, in the case of space-time, literally teeming with virtual particles that appear and disappear before they can be observed, we actually measure the Casimir effect. The Casimir effect partly proves that the Cartesian reference is only idealized--rendering many of your assumptions invalid. Try shrinking any reference point infinitely and what do you get? Weird distortions in the very structure of space-time that only string theory and other more advanced models can even approximate. Take a look at Louis Neilsen's (Denmark) physics of Holistic Quantum Cosmology with Decreasing Gravity (on the web). I'm not selling anything here, Warren. You're simply reciting someone else's ideas without even questioning them. I mean no disrespect---you've obviously studied such phenomena, yet you clearly, unmistakeably need a multi-mathematic (see Witten's M theory), you need to get past the impossible and unsustainable limitations of an archaic mathematic--Cartesian flatland models of categorically deeper phenomena. Black holes do not disappear from this universe, and, according to any basic model of negative energy dynamics or electrogravity, if you will, they CANNOT be infinitely deep. Instead, they interact with us gravitationally---they determine the structure of this galaxy and probably the larger universal energy condition. *I seem to have coined the term energy condition, yet it is nonetheless a valid universal concept.

Even in Einstein's view of relativistic equivalency, all points of reference seem equal, yet all are DEEPLY active, as is the energy condition of the entire universe (the entire universal reference on values for all energy phenomena--excluding no single black hole, excluding no gravitic or "electrogravitic" phenomena. )

Read CSETI's testimony, in which nearly 600 former defense, intelligence and aviation officials state that they have seen UFO's and even extraterrestrials. Former astronauts with PhD's (at least two such) are among them. Many of the witnesses describe electrogravity in detail, its technology (captured or reverse-engineered) and its necessity for viable interstellar travel as described in the www.disclosure.org (CSETI testimony). Electrogravity isn't just weird; it is reportedly alien, literally.

 

Re: reply

No.

What does "accelerate toward infinity" mean? How can you accelerate toward an abstract concept?

You are wrong.

We model tunneling as a spread in a particle's wave function (the square of which represents measurement probability) such that the particle has a non-zero probability of appearing on the opposite side of the potential barrier. It requires no negative energy or extra dimensions, or any other hogwash.

I have no idea what you're asking me to do.

No, all of relativity is derived essentially from Lorentz transforms. The derivation quite easily shows how momentum can increase without bound, but velocity cannot.

Every experiment done to date in particle accelerators indicates it is a limit.

There is no need to invoke any spooky negative energy to explain Hawking radiation.

Wrong. Hawking radiation deals with virtual pairs that are created outside the event horizon. One happens to fall in, one happens to escape. The black hole has thus lost mass and energy. No particles can ever escape from within the event horizon.

I have no idea what "escaped" means, or how you're making the case that Big Bang cosmology and relativity are not compatible.

Not necessarily. Operations of the Lorentzian O(3,1) group could be extended to higher dimensions without changing their form.

Once again, I have no idea what you're talking about. Whole numbered energy values? You can pick any units you'd like to describe energy. Whole numbers in one unit system are not whole numbers in another.

And what exactly would a "multi-mathematical parallel" be?

Apparently neither can you.

We don't limit ourselves to Cartesian coordinate systems. General relativistic calculations, for example, are performed in a tensor bundle. You can represent any geometry by any convienent coordinate system.

If I declare that the speed of light is 1 unit, then the speed of light is a whole number. If I take an apple out of my bag and put it on my table, I have one apple on my table.

"inward?"

The concept of a force is a pre-eminent one in physics. In no sense does modern physics suffer from a lack of non-rigorous hand-waving of the sort you prefer.

How can a quantity fluctuate? What are you talking about?

The Casimir effect has nothing to do with anything Cartesian.

What is a "reference point?" How may I "shrink" one?

Why? Holism? Physics?

You don't know me in any respect whatsoever. You have no idea what I have questioned, or in what manner I have questioned it.

No, I clearly, unmistakably, do not need a theory whose very named is nonsense.

I believe I, and every other person trained in GR or QM goes beyond "Cartesian flatland" as a matter of course.

Deep? Since when have black holes had a "depth?"

You're missing one part of the "coining" process -- the definition.

I have no idea what the hell this means. Active? Universal reference? Electrogravitic? Speak English.

Who cares? You were all about telling me to question things, and not fall for dogma. Who says your dogma is better than mine? My dogma can beat up your dogma.

Mmmmhmmm...

- Warren