Conselice, Christopher

References:
University:  Office & webpage
Twitter:  https://twitter.com/conselice
ArXiv:  https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5641 
Conselice articles within ArXiv: https://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Conselice_C/0/1/0/all/0/1
Article in Royal Astronomical Society website: https://www.ras.org.uk  October 13, 2016

Saturday, November 5, 2016

Dear Prof. Dr. Chris Conselice:

That’s a dramatic announcement. Yet, your impressive body of work posted within ArXiv reminds me of Dolly Parton’s comment, “It took me 20 years to become an overnight success.”

You certainly are the expert, yet still don’t you think somewhere in your deep intuition that two trillion galaxies is a bit much for a big bang? If the universe is just a mere 435 quadrillion seconds old (13.8 billion years), wouldn’t that place enormous pressure on the big bang, Λ-Cold Dark Matter cosmology, and galaxy formation-and-evolution in general?

Isn’t there something that’s off?  But, what?

1. The age of the universe seems sacrosanct.
2. Perhaps we are counting from the wrong baseline assumptions about space and time. Perhaps Leibniz was right after all. But, that just opens the exploration and discounts nothing.
3. Might this new 2T figure imply exponentiation as the starting point? Could this exponentiation be a basis for natural inflation and a new logic to give us those two trillion galaxies? Exponentiation from the singularity of the Planck base units …right from the start could change everything.  Crazy?  Maybe so.  Yet, I would love to hear from you.

Thanks.

Most sincerely,
Bruce


NOTE:  Because new galaxies are lower-mass systems, most big bang scientists believe there is no reason to change our cosmology. Nevertheless, out of naivete, in a posting for November 7, 2016, I challenged the mathematics.


Monday, November 7, 2016

Chris –
Thank you. Yes, “Thank you, thank you.”
I could easily make a bigger fool of myself than I already do.
Let me noodle your deeply informed insights.
Of course, I was hoping you would have said
something like, “Let’s talk. You may have a point!”

I am just an idiosyncratic one.

The complexity, incompleteness, and theatrical compression of the big bang is one group that raises doubt, the other is the way base-2 exponential notation from “the Plancks” to the age of the universe mimics, or perhaps simulates, the big bang without a bang. It also uses a very ordinary natural inflation. A bit boring by contrast, but Wheeler and Feynman drilled simplicity into us, didn’t they?
-Bruce

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s