That was a great idea this idea has also inspired me as well. If you paid attention to my post you would have realized that my idea had a very similar foundation mentioned in your post, when I made a comparison to Danshawens field theory analysis. My idea has the same end goal in mind as Guth and Linde "to combine quantum field theory with GR to derive an origin for this universe.[/QUOTE]" but obviously I may take another approach. So if you can give them credit for that idea, you can give me credit for at least having the same end goal. It is just up to me to successfully unify these points of views using my own method.
We just can't wait, but perhaps while we do you could learn grammar, punctuation, and frickin' physics?
I will address all of your concerns, as soon as I start doing physics and grammar courses, then I can provide you with any evidence, where data already exist, taken from empirically valid situations that validate my idea.
Guth and Linde's idea was founded in their knowledge of quantum field theory and the cosmological metric. GR. That was my point for you. The only thing you'll get credit for is showing an interest in this subject. That credit will be removed when you show that you're more interested in bullshit than the actual science. So far danshawen thinks he's smarter than Edward Witten, Minkowski, Thorne, ?, etc..... He's at about -4 on my credit dispensing analysis charts. I'm at -3.
You get another for honesty, Bruce. -2. Sorry I'm stingy.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If he understood his idea he would've already done that. Resulting in the placement of an eternal cork. IE install a permanent cork.
Lots of folks in this forum are way smarter and know more than most 19th century mathematicians. One thing that hasn't changed since the 19th century is that no one knows for certain which theories will survive the test of time. I suspect that string theory likely will not, because like superstition, it can be co-opted to predict virtually anything you might want it to. Of what possible use is that?
YES!!! Thanks very much for this. I always find trying to understand something from a slide show without the accompanying explanation a bit hard, but this is exactly on the issue - and seems to explain arfa's comment above. Looking for the qualitative point to take away, as I always do, it seems that in a polarisable medium the momentum is shared between the medium and the photon - which seems intuitively very reasonable. Good stuff.