Questions about inflation (no kooks or cranks need reply)

On Jul 8, 1:28 pm, Faye Kane wrote:

Most of the responses I got to my previous question were from
crazy or sarcastic people. That's why I don't post here and
barely read here anymore. Every crackpot and his brother
contradict facts already known as well as each other, and they're
all so =rude= about it.

What are these facts that are contradicting each other? Who are
rude? Please don’t consider the reflection of rudeness as so.
shrug

I never posted the method I used in my own observation (that an
H-zero of 71.4 can be obtained in a way no one seems to have
noticed before) specifically because I didn't want to be associated
with all the nuts and their aether and their religious stuff.

Cosmology is a discipline of study with lots of lots of unknowns. How
can you pin-point Hubble’s constant to 3 significant digits? With no
error bars given, that means 0.1% accuracy. What justifies for you to
proclaim Hubble’s constant with accuracy down to 3 significant
digits? Do you really think you are a god? shrug

Why do you think support of the Aether is a religion? The null
results of the MMX support transformations that falsify the principle
of relativity. These transformations say the absolute frame of
reference and thus the Aether MUST EXIST. All these so-called
experiments compiled by Tom Roberts do not falsify any of these
infinite numbers of transforms that say the Aether must exist. So,
eliminating the Aether is just stupid, misleading, and very
unprofessional on the parts of these self-styled physicists. shrug

The knowledge of these infinite numbers of transforms was first
discovered by Lorentz himself. Over the years, the self-styled
physicists have conveniently forgotten about them attempting to brush
dirt under the carpet. That is until Koobee Wublee brought them up to
their very attentions, and they are since silent about it. shrug

(BTW, my model isn't "new" at all, it just points out that H can
be computed in a different way. But since it involves 4-dimensional
geometry and claims to be new, that's already enough to place it in
"probable kook" territory on this forum).

4-dimensional geometry? You don’t mean time as a dimension, correct?
If so, any mentioning of 3+ dimensions is a kook. Oh, yeah, there is
the question asking “how do you know a spatial dimension does not
curve back to itself and thus unobservable?” What a bunch of kooks
and swindlers. shrug

I assumed my value was just an interesting coincidence (though to
me, very interesting). But after David Smith pointed out that it
also has to match the known profile of H over time, I had a way to
double-check it. I discovered that while this model doesn't match
very well (hey, that's science for you), it does predict nonlinear
expansion that is *extremely* rapid near the beginning, and falls
off very, very quickly.

David Smith is one of the most vile personality in these newsgroups.
You probably got a private email from him downloading fabricated lies
about someone behind that someone’s back. There was this Mr. Wittke
posting here a few years ago. Every time Mr. Wittke posted, David
Smith would bully and intimidate Mr. Wittke to no end. Very sinister
on David Smith’s part.

Since that sounds like inflation, I need to check if the rate profile
I get during inflation is the same as what we already know, because
then my model would be interesting again. But I can't find
information (that is, specific numbers). Everything is either aimed
at high-school students or is hidden behind subscriptions to
professional astronomy journals.

No, inflation stuff is aimed at kooks and crackpots themselves. Hate
it point it out since Andro himself is an Aether denier in bed with
self-styled physicists, but he said it the best about inflation:

“An expanding universe is as religious a concept as any other, you
believe in it on faith alone, crackpot.”

shrug

1) my main question is: do we know if the expansion was linear during
inflation, and if not, does the rate of change fit a pattern (like
exponentially decreasing), and do we know how long it took for
expansion to decelerate when it ended?

Duh! It is exactly the same as some preacher’s interpretation of what
his supported religion is to him. shrug

7) suppose we discovered that various distant events are dimmer than
we expect for some reason other than dark energy.

Dark Energy is the same as negative mass density in vacuum. The
concept is so fvcking absurd. Thus, anything cannot be construed as
the existence of negative mass density in vacuum or Dark Energy. Even
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar knew that. Under
Newtonian law of gravity, Poisson can easily attach a negative mass
density term to the Poisson equation as well, and the effect is
exactly the same as the Cosmological Constant in the field equations
--- Dark Energy, but Poisson knew better not to do that. It is very
laughable that self-styled physicists would try to label negative mass
density in vacuum as Dark Energy in hoping to get away with bull****.
How fvcking sad? shrug

Even if the method to measure the brightness indeed corresponds to
actual luminance, and Chandrasekhar limit is valid, a square-root law
to Hubble’s expansion (instead of linear from eons to eons) would
explain the expansion without invoking anti-gravity. If you know the
math, a square-root function would appear to be linear in the near
scale. Thus, Hubble could see up to 10M parsecs at the best. That
could just be near field observations within a broader square-root
function. It is anybody’s guess including yours. shrug

the whole point of the M&M results,
which were surprizingly non-null, although
not "up" to their expectation of a rigid aether,
now turns out to be that refraction
"in the medium of free space" is an adequate hypothesis.

Even if the method to measure the brightness indeed corresponds to
actual luminance, and Chandrasekhar limit is valid, a square-root law
to Hubble’s expansion (instead of linear from eons to eons) would
explain the expansion without invoking anti-gravity. *If you know the
math, a square-root function would appear to be linear in the near
scale. *Thus, Hubble could see up to 10M parsecs at the best. *That
could just be near field observations within a broader square-root
function. *It is anybody’s guess including yours. *shrug