Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


beecee last won the day on September 14

beecee had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

95 Excellent

About beecee

  • Rank
  • Birthday 07/18/44

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Maroubra Sydney
  • Interests
    cosmology, Astronomy, general science
  • Favorite Area of Science
  • Occupation
    retired maintenance Fitter and Machinist

Recent Profile Visitors

2587 profile views
  1. Great news indeed! My tip is the merger/collision has resulted in a BH.....Should further observations be able to verify this? And will we ever reach sensitivities to detect gravitational waves from the BB itself?
  2. Your first faux pas is that the universe is around 13.83 billion years old. Secondly everyone's time, everywhere, moves at 1 second per second: It is only when we in our frame, view another person's frame that is moving relative to us that we notice there time as dilated, just as they notice our's as dilated. DM is certainly needed to explain the rotation curves of galaxies, and while originally a fudge factor, has much supporting evidence now, including the and gravitational lensing.
  3. Scientific Bible

    Most scientists/cosmologists would accept the scenario that life should be relatively plentiful throughout the Universe. The reasons for that are the "near infinite" extent and content of the universe around us, plus the fact that the "stuff of life" has been found everywhere we look. In recognising all that, we still at this stage have no real evidence that life exists beyond this little blue orb, and certainly no convincing evidence of Earth having ever been visited by any ETI. There is though an increasing number of scientists that believe the evidence for life beyond Earth may well be forthcoming within the next decade or so. I hope they are shown to be correct and that it happens before I kick the bucket. Two barriers exist that inhibit any interstellar/intergalactic contact between intelligent beings: Time and distance they be.
  4. Wow, this is getting way to philosophical for me. It reminds me of a quote I once came across.....
  5. Missing Matter Found:

    Also obviously effect the Omega figure and the geometry of the universe, ie open, closed or flat and that being close to the value omega=1, indicating a flat universe.
  6. Let me say again that to my knowledge the subject tells me that the standard particle model of physics enables us to understand the physics of matter and the forces. It is deemed as far as I understand it, as very successful in its verified predictions, ( the Higgs and more) but remains As yet we do not know why there was apparently a slight excess of matter over anti matter near the BB...or why it doesn't account for gravity. But that doesn't mean it is wrong and we should throw it out...You have been asked for examples of scenarios/observations that are not explained by the standard model. I also firmly believe that anything anyone feels like claiming on a science forum, if it is not mainstream, will face critical review as it should. It's great you take physics seriously, so too did Fred Hoyle, and like Fred Hoyle you must accept criticism if it is due.
  7. Thanks....Any thoughts on why the apparent imbalance between the matter, anti matter period? PS: I suppose if we would have had the more anti matter then matter, then today we would be calling anti matter, matter, and matter, anti matter if you get my drift.
  8. (—Two teams working independently have found evidence of the existence of Baryonic matter—particles that link galaxies together. One team was made of members from the Institute of Space Astrophysics, the other was based out of the University of Edinburgh. Both teams have uploaded a paper describing their work to the arXiv preprint server and both are claiming their findings solve the mystery of where so much of the normal matter—protons, neutrons and electrons—in the universe has been hiding. Once scientists came up with the Big Bang Theory, a problem immediately arose—after calculating how much normal matter should exist in the universe at this point in time, they found approximately 50 percent of it is missing. Since then, scientists have worked on theories to explain where all that matter was hiding—the prevailing theory suggests that it exists as strands of Baryonic matter floating in the space between galaxies and cannot be seen with conventional instruments—this was the theory both teams in this new effort tested.Read more at: the paper: A Search for Warm/Hot Gas Filaments Between Pairs of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies ABSTRACT We search the Planck data for a thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (tSZ) signal due to gas filaments between pairs of Luminous Red Galaxies (LRG’s) taken from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 12 (SDSS/DR12). We identify ∼260,000 LRG pairs in the DR12 catalog that lie within 6–10 h −1Mpc of each other in tangential direction and within 6 h −1Mpc in radial direction. We stack pairs by rotating and scaling the angular positions of each LRG so they lie on a common reference frame, then we subtract a circularly symmetric halo from each member of the pair to search for a residual signal between the pair members. We find a statistically significant (5.3σ) signal between LRG pairs in the stacked data with a magnitude ∆y = (1.31 ± 0.25) × 10−8 . The uncertainty is estimated from two Monte Carlo null tests which also establish the reliability of our analysis. Assuming a simple, isothermal, cylindrical filament model of electron over-density with a radial density profile proportional to rc/r (as determined from simulations), where r is the perpendicular distance from the cylinder axis and rc is the core radius of the density profile, we constrain the product of over-density and filament temperature to be δc × (Te/107 K) × (rc/0.5h −1 Mpc) = 2.7 ± 0.5. To our knowledge, this is the first detection of filamentary gas at over-densities typical of cosmological largescale structure. We compare our result to the BAHAMAS suite of cosmological hydrodynamic simulations (McCarthy et al. 2017) and find a slightly lower, but marginally consistent Comptonization excess, ∆y = (0.84 ± 0.24) × 10−8 . ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Does this mean if further research validates these findings, that we will have less need for the quantity of DM that currently constitutes around 27% of the universe?
  9. Interesting discussion between you and Strange: I hope no one objects to me butting in. My limited knowledge on the subject tells me that the standard particle model of physics enables us to understand the physics of matter and the forces. It is deemed as far as I understand it, as very successful in its verified predictions, ( the Higgs and more) but remains As yet we do not know why there was apparently a slight excess of matter over anti matter near the BB...or why it doesn't account for gravity. But that doesn't mean it is wrong and we should throw it out...The BB still has some shortcomings, but the evidence to support it is overwhelming:the same goes for GR. Both have far more supporting them then any unexplained discrepencies. Any thoughts on my brief lay person's description from either you or Strange is welcomed...or any errors, alterations and/or corrections.
  10. So you think you know EM? Explain this!

    I'll answer your question: I havn't a bloody clue, OK? Now let me add some further comments....when we (the forum) suddenly has a newbie popping in asking a question with obviously a giant ego to feed, and when that newbie when requested for clarification of his questions by not one, but many reputable members, who are known as credentialed authorities in the discipline being discussed, answers with total arrogance and dismissal of those clarifications and requests, then in my mind that newbie needs to take a backward step, have a disprin, and a good lay down and start thinking as to why so many knowledgable members are making there requests. Otherwise other members observing such egotistical arrogant behavour from that newbie, will just dismiss him as another f$%#^&$# troll that science forums such as this seem to attract. I hope that helps.
  11. Is the Universe infinite?

    Partly agree...the part where space is not nothing. But the BB itself was the evolution of space and time, (spacetime) "as we know it" We can only speculate about anything else.
  12. Yeah that makes plenty of sense....thanks
  13. Mass shooting Las Vegas, Oct. 2. 2017

    Just takes a little bit of intestinal fortitude. Just after our (as in Australia) last mass shooting 21 years ago at Port Arthur Tasmania, we had a Liberal (conservative party) Prime Minister named John Howard, who took the bit between his teeth and commenced the implementation of a gun by back scheme and tough new restrictions and laws on fire arms etc. It worked. We have not had any massacre since that day in 1996.
  14. My first thoughts exactly, but I wasn't real sure.....then came this...... OK, this invokes the rotational period as opposed to orbital, but my problem when arguing this out was that in the H/T Pulsar papers I have read, I see no mention of a magnetic field: which then obviously supports your assertion that this needs to be showed as valid. The thread on this in the forum was resolved due to my adversary not being able to show empirical evidence why it should happen and he was banned: But I was still not fully satisfied and would have liked to have found some mention of it, to sort of "rub his nose in it" if you get my drift.
  15. The degradation in the orbital parameters of the Hulse/Taylor binary system was our first indication of the validity of GWs: A while ago on another forum, while discussing this observation, the claim that this observation was fraudulent was raised by one of our anti science god bothering evangelists, who claimed that the orbital degradation was simply a result of the interaction/s of the magnetic fields of these Pulsars. I'm pretty sure that this scenario would have been allowed for, and probably the effect from interacting magnetic field/s as minimal if at all. Does anyone have any information as to what part magnetic fields would play, if they did play a part, and why they would not play a part at all if that was the case. I have previously gone though numerous papers on the H/T system and the orbital degradation, and was unable to find any inference to magnetic fields at all. Of course after the recent discoveries of GWs by aLIGO and its sister detectors, the evidence for GWs is now a given, in line with the data as received.