[NotStein]

Hi Y'all, I'm new here, & likely somewhat off the 'edge', so maybe you can bring me current and tell me where I'm wrong (& I'll actually sleep on those visual-type nights!).

Why inflation occurred seems to still be mystery, but seems obvious to me. The mystery seems to be how could the universe have expanded so much faster then the speed of light at it's inception? The following 'picture' nags at me (mostly at night) and I don't see where it's wrong.

1) The 'universal constancy' of the speed of light is a fallacy.
2) 'C' is only constant in a given medium, otherwise a prism wouldn't work, right? 'C' is unique ONLY to the medium it's travelling in.
3) space-time is a bubbling froth of virtual particles popping in & out of existance, quantum loops, knots, quarks,etc. - therefore, just another medium (like glass), right (therefore setting'C")?
4) What did the Big Bang blow up into? Not space-time, 'cause it didn't exist yet, right? Space-time was created 'behind' the wave-front of the initial 'ka-pow'.
5) Therefore, the wave-front of the Big Bang blew up into what? Nothing, right? Why would the speed of light in a 'vacuum' (C) even apply? What's the speed of light in nothing, close to infinite, right?

Help.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by NotStein Hi Y'all, I'm new here, & likely somewhat off the 'edge', so maybe you can bring me current and tell me where I'm wrong (& I'll actually sleep on those visual-type nights!). Why inflation occurred seems to still be mystery, but seems obvious to me. The mystery seems to be how could the universe have expanded so much faster then the speed of light at it's inception? The following 'picture' nags at me (mostly at night) and I don't see where it's wrong. 1) The 'universal constancy' of the speed of light is a fallacy. 2) 'C' is only constant in a given medium, otherwise a prism wouldn't work, right? 'C' is unique ONLY to the medium it's travelling in. 3) space-time is a bubbling froth of virtual particles popping in & out of existance, quantum loops, knots, quarks,etc. - therefore, just another medium (like glass), right (therefore setting'C")? 4) What did the Big Bang blow up into? Not space-time, 'cause it didn't exist yet, right? Space-time was created 'behind' the wave-front of the initial 'ka-pow'. 5) Therefore, the wave-front of the Big Bang blew up into what? Nothing, right? Why would the speed of light in a 'vacuum' (C) even apply? What's the speed of light in nothing, close to infinite, right? Help.

Welcome to the toequest community Nostein,see that you have made an excellent start.
You will receive all the help you need here,good hunting.

warm regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by NotStein Hi Y'all, I'm new here, & likely somewhat off the 'edge', so maybe you can bring me current and tell me where I'm wrong (& I'll actually sleep on those visual-type nights!). Why inflation occurred seems to still be mystery, but seems obvious to me. The mystery seems to be how could the universe have expanded so much faster then the speed of light at it's inception? The following 'picture' nags at me (mostly at night) and I don't see where it's wrong. 1) The 'universal constancy' of the speed of light is a fallacy. 2) 'C' is only constant in a given medium, otherwise a prism wouldn't work, right? 'C' is unique ONLY to the medium it's travelling in. 3) space-time is a bubbling froth of virtual particles popping in & out of existance, quantum loops, knots, quarks,etc. - therefore, just another medium (like glass), right (therefore setting'C")? 4) What did the Big Bang blow up into? Not space-time, 'cause it didn't exist yet, right? Space-time was created 'behind' the wave-front of the initial 'ka-pow'. 5) Therefore, the wave-front of the Big Bang blew up into what? Nothing, right? Why would the speed of light in a 'vacuum' (C) even apply? What's the speed of light in nothing, close to infinite, right? Help.

Hi NotStein. I like a more sensible view of the universal mechanics. The Dirac Sea existed before the universal event, all the way to an infinity of fundamental substance. A true total universal decay theory kinda proves this, to me. What's left after total universal accelaration inflation decay...? Fundamental substance___Right...?

Lloyd

Welcome to ToeQuest. It's great to see another inquiring rational mind...

[NotStein]

Thanks, Lloyd - I appreciate a compliment, especially being a bit wet-behind-the-ears around here. I enjoy applying simple step-wise logic to complex problems & see what falls out. My philosophy is that nuthins' a given truth that 'ya can't kill & eat. If something's hard to understand, it's likely only an approximation of the real truth. That's why Einstein's such a hero of mine - simple logic, simple concepts, simple truths (relatively speaking!)

[NotStein]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Hi NotStein. I like a more sensible view of the universal mechanics. The Dirac Sea existed before the universal event, all the way to an infinity of fundamental substance. A true total universal decay theory kinda proves this, to me. What's left after total universal accelaration inflation decay...? Fundamental substance___Right...? Lloyd Welcome to ToeQuest. It's great to see another inquiring rational mind...

BTW Lloyd, I'm not familiar with the term 'Dirac Sea' (although I know Dirac was a scientist). Could you briefly summarize it for me? Is it what's commonly termed the 'fabric' of spacetime, but maybe including all dimensions (however many there really are)?

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by NotStein Thanks, Lloyd - I appreciate a compliment, especially being a bit wet-behind-the-ears around here. I enjoy applying simple step-wise logic to complex problems & see what falls out. My philosophy is that nuthins' a given truth that 'ya can't kill & eat. If something's hard to understand, it's likely only an approximation of the real truth. That's why Einstein's such a hero of mine - simple logic, simple concepts, simple truths (relatively speaking!)

He's a hero of mine also. What is amazing is that I can read Einstein and understand his theories.
But if I read a book about his theories, I get lost in the blah, blah, blah about his theories.

I believe it was Einstein who also said if it's the truth a 7th grader should understand it.

Best to you,

Pat