BlueCosmology

I look forward to hearing about your nobel prize. (you might like to make sure in your acceptance speech though you look up what field you're actually talking about. The topology of the universe is cosmology not astrophysics)

Not true. The higgs bosons mass is a free parameter, which is (one of the reasons) why it was very hard to detect it.

It would definitely be accurate to say that, however I'd definitely feel that is not more accurate, but considerably less accurate. Not only do all current measurements indicate the universe does not have a center, but our most well tested theoretical models for space also predict it to be, e.g. general relativity / Friedmann metric. For an analogy, if you measure the position of some objects on a desk it's certainly accurate to say that "to all recent measurements objects left on their own stay still". However, that isn't more accurate then the models that govern it.

Again, the universe does not have a center. The 3D spatial part of the universe we live on sits on the surface of 4D spacetime. Just like the 2D part of a balloon sits on the surface of the 3D volume. The estimates you're talking about are estimates of the observable universe. http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/podcasts/transcripts/070523_universe.html The universe does NOT have a center. Inflation was not just some expansion outwards of things in space.

Hahahahahhahaha, there's nothing to understand. All you've done is post a random number and pretend to know about science and maths.

That is not what proof means. You can never prove/disprove something with an experiment, you can only gather evidence for or against. Proof is a word used purely in mathematics. A theory can NOT have little to no evidence. A physical theory requires a lot of evidence. Theory is pretty much the highest you can get in terms of evidence in physics. Ofcourse maths won't do anything without some reasoning behind them, because it doesn't exist. There is no such thing as maths without reasoning. Maths IS reasoning Randomly picking a number and then giving a description full of completely meaningless words is not progress. The beginning of a physical theory or similar is the most simple speculation you can think of, and it's never a number. The start is a simple postulate, eg transformations should be linear. It is not a random number. - - - Updated - - - What nonsense mindset? That a completely random number picked out the air is not how science works? Please, we both know you don't have any 'papers' of interest. You're clearly a school kid that doesn't really understand what their talking about. I've seen your other posts (eg that complete nonsense proof of the area of a circle or your post on division by zero... Or this post.) In what world is asking someone to explain themselves slander? A mathematical point is not just an idea, a mathematical point is a fact. A number is not a mathematical point. A conclusion is not the basics. Not to mention the basics are the part of a physical theory that require the most thought, not the least. Finding the right postulates is an incredibly important and thought requiring process. Again, random number is not an idea. Hahahaha, how am I meant to prove you wrong? All you've done is say a meaningless random number. 67242873. Prove me wrong.

Clearly very very incorrect. Since Planck length and time do not have any physical significance, they are just a convenient unit system for particle physics. Some (read: very few) physicists believe they may slightly be around about the length and time that space and time are quantized. This is because they are arrived at by dimensional analysis which is purely a guessing tool that can tell you nothing other than something is wrong. This is a very unpopular view to actual theoretical physicists, for multiple reasons, that is very over exaggerated in popscience. For one there is no accepted upon theory of quantum gravity which is the realm at which space and time would be quantized if they are, and many popular quantum gravity theories do not even have space and time being quantized. There's also no reason you'd just ignore relativity if you were going to go about this problem this way as well, you can pass any planet in any arbitrarily short time in your reference frame.

There is neither a center of the universe or an outer bound of the universe. The universe is expanding from all points. Just like how there is no center or outer bound of the surface of an expanding balloon.

So are you not planning to give absolutely any indication where you plucked that random number from then?

What do you mean a 1/4 away from the center? Do you mean within the core?

. Yes.

How did you arrive with that velocity, that energy and that "rift" ?