It is the instability principle. An object of infinite instability can remain in equilibrium if its environment is in perfect symmetry. Any change, no matter how small, causes the object to loose equilibrium and become unstable. Objects with greater stability require more change to loose...
It has been over 20 years since I read "A Brief History of Time", and can't quote it precisely; but it defines symmetry as I perceive it to be. I'm just trying to use common language in reference to complex subjects.
It is the phrase "spontaneous breaking of symmetry" that gets me. How can you break something that never was? Our universe is rattling itself into entropy like a resonance feedback loop. The tendency for all rotational inertias to align is the enthalpy counter balance. It is also the mechanics...
We started out of balance; if we didn't instability couldn't develop, no matter how sensitive stability is. It's a basis of QTF. Quantum probability means other outcomes are possible. Other outcomes, when able to interact (apparently faster than light in observations, and it only takes one of...
There has never been a perfect equilibrium still observable. It cancels itself out. All that is here is because of the infinitesimal differences in symmetry. Guess my response is a bit redundant.
Same old stuff, new day. The first thing I had to do in this form of statistical analysis was to prove conclusively that you couldn't prove anything conclusively by this method. This person is right, despite the jargon of pretension or insecurity. That is how we are trained. Grain of salt.
Gravitational lensing as we see it is a relatively singular point of mass in our learning. We are not taking into account the whole mass of our universe and the effects of being in it. Think of the geometry of Xray reflectors in thermo nuclear designs. All emissions, all effects, and all...
In response to my nonsense, the mass energy of the universe as a whole will always present an image of spherical expansion because of gravitational lensing while we are inside it. Our universe could be accreting, growing cancers, etc. and still appear spherical because of lensing.
What if our expansion isn't spherical, and it only looks that way because we are inside the gravitational lens? I think we started out as a jet and are accreting into a disk.
If you think about it; it would explain varying rates of expansion and exaggerated rotational velocities, thus dark...