Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


beecee last won the day on June 29

beecee had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

61 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

2033 profile views
  1. As a lay person, I included the paper Abstract simply to elaborate on the article itself, so I would say that it adds validity and reputability to that article, remembering that sometimes "pop science articles" can sometimes be misleading, in their efforts to simplify. I believe the following would some up the abstract and paper...... In essence, the data simply again reinforced the accuracy of GR, and its correctness within its zone of applicability. I once was a part of another forum, where at least four "would be's if they could be's" all claimed to different degrees that GR was wrong, and yet all they were proficient in doing was spreading their agenda laden anti Einstein nonsense on public forums and insidiously avoiding proper publication and proper professional peer review.
  2. The observable universe is simply that part of the universe that EMR from distant regions has had time to reach us: If the universe is infinite, then by definition it stretches far beyond anything we can or will ever be able to measure. The evidence so far tells us that the universe/spacetime is isotropic and homogeneous, at least for the observable universe and we (scientists that is) have no reason to believe that would not extend everywhere. The CMBR would be the same over there as it is here. Logically the universe as a whole, extends beyond our observable horizon in all directions, and probably to infinite quantities. There are no edges or centers to any reasonable current model of the universe/spacetime, either finite or infinite. Our assumptions on the isotropic and homogeneous nature of the universe tells us that they should be the same. Analogies while certainly being useful, all have limitations. Your second question is simply physics and as Strange has said, is just the relationship between volume, pressure and temperatures and is evidenced in many ways in our general day to day living.. I must admit my understanding of infinite and infinite quantities is lacking somewhat and I was advised back in the thread to read up on this topic which I intend to do. In the meantime my limited research so far tells me that infinity exist when relevant quantities are stretched far beyond what we will ever be capable of measuring and/or knowing: I am certainly more comfortable with that definition so far. Remember even when cosmologists speak of a physical BH singularity, or the BB singularity, they are not automatically inferring infinite quantities, although such singularities may lead to infinite quantities. I welcome any comment from any reputable source as to the validity or otherwise of what I have posted above...any errors, alterations and/or corrections?
  3. The Universe, and us are the best examples of coincidences...if things had not been exactly as they are, (universal constants) we would not be here...And even more importantly () if the Sun was not approximately 400 times further away then the Moon, and if it was not approximately 400 times diametrically bigger, those lucky people in the US would not have had the awesome experience of viewing a total eclipse the other day. eg: in the far distant future, solar eclipses will be impossible, as the Moon drifts further away from Earth and only Annular eclipses possible.
  4. Again, the BB applies to the observable universe, and the observable universe is then logically a spherical shell encompassing all that we are able to see from our vantage point on Earth, and is governed by the speed of light that has had the time to reach us since the evolution/expansion of the universe/spacetime, Likewise if we could magically transport ourselves to a galaxy near the edge of our observable universe, any prospective beings in that galaxy would also have their own spherical observational universe that would encompass us in one direction. The expansion of the universe/spacetime is of course equal in all directions.
  5. Funny thing,(that's funny peculiar, not funny ha ha) that the OP author has never bothered to return to support his speculative nonsense with evidence, and yet lo and behold we just happen to have another pop up out of nowhere singing its praises.
  6. No it is not necessary...It is simply one speculative answer and a non scientific answer as well. Scientists continue to explore, experiment, observe, and just as we now know [without ever being there] that the distant twinkles we see in the night sky are just other stars similar more or less to our Sun, so to in time, we may know more detail of the evolution of the Universe. Again, reasonable speculation tells us the Universe arose from nothing... I see far more logic in that explanation, rather then clinging to mythical beliefs about some magic being/deity. Ancient man may have needed such myths even to explain the natural cycles of day and night, but we now know better.
  7. You've asked some difficult questions, which I am unable to explain any better then the link I gave at...... Perhaps some confusion again is our understanding of "infinite" and that certainly applies to your's truly! ....Does it really mean something with no ending and no beginning, or is it simply something whose boundaries are unknown and can never be known? The BB is not a theory of the creation of the universe: It is a theory of how the universe/spacetime evolved from t+10-43 seconds, from a hotter, denser state. It is also a theory pertaining to the observable universe. Again the BB describes the observable universe or that part of the universe contained by the speed of light and the time it has taken to reach us since the BB. I also believe your question re the infinite universe is explained in the link. It doesn't. It describes the evolution of spacetime from 10-43 seconds post t, to what we are able to observe today. If the Universe is infinite, it would always have had to be infinite, and going back in time would just shorten the distances between any two points, up to around t+10-43 seconds. Also the singularity from whence the BB arose, does not necessarily invoke a dimensionless point in spacetime...It is simply where quantities such as density and temperatures have merged. I hope that makes some sense. Other then the links I have given, I'm not able to explain it any better, as a lay person. Perhaps one of our more professional members are able to elaborate on what I have said and what the links you yourself have given and the two of mine.
  8. It was certainly eerie to say the least! My only question is while I am able to understand the apparent sudden temperature drop, why the sudden, seemingly pick up of wind or breeze? An Annular eclipse occurs when the Moon is at apogee which would give a full view of the Sun's corona and surface, while blocking out the vast majority of the Sun....I reckon that would be spectacular.
  9. Tremendous amounts of soot, lofted into the air from global wildfires following a massive asteroid strike 66 million years ago, would have plunged Earth into darkness for nearly two years, new research finds. This would have shut down photosynthesis, drastically cooled the planet, and contributed to the mass extinction that marked the end of the age of dinosaurs. extract: Scientists also calculate that the force of the impact would have launched vaporized rock high above Earth's surface, where it would have condensed into small particles known as spherules. As the spherules fell back to Earth, they would have been heated by friction to temperatures high enough to spark global fires and broil Earth's surface. A thin layer of spherules can be found worldwide in the geologic record.Read more at: the paper: On transient climate change at the Cretaceous−Paleogene boundary due to atmospheric soot injections: Significance A mass extinction occurred at the Cretaceous−Paleogene boundary coincident with the impact of a 10-km asteroid in the Yucatán peninsula. A worldwide layer of soot found at the boundary is consistent with global fires. Using a modern climate model, we explore the effects of this soot and find that it causes near-total darkness that shuts down photosynthesis, produces severe cooling at the surface and in the oceans, and leads to moistening and warming of the stratosphere that drives extreme ozone destruction. These conditions last for several years, would have caused a collapse of the global food chain, and would have contributed to the extinction of species that survived the immediate effects of the asteroid impact. Abstract Climate simulations that consider injection into the atmosphere of 15,000 Tg of soot, the amount estimated to be present at the Cretaceous−Paleogene boundary, produce what might have been one of the largest episodes of transient climate change in Earth history. The observed soot is believed to originate from global wildfires ignited after the impact of a 10-km-diameter asteroid on the Yucatán Peninsula 66 million y ago. Following injection into the atmosphere, the soot is heated by sunlight and lofted to great heights, resulting in a worldwide soot aerosol layer that lasts several years. As a result, little or no sunlight reaches the surface for over a year, such that photosynthesis is impossible and continents and oceans cool by as much as 28 °C and 11 °C, respectively. The absorption of light by the soot heats the upper atmosphere by hundreds of degrees. These high temperatures, together with a massive injection of water, which is a source of odd-hydrogen radicals, destroy the stratospheric ozone layer, such that Earth’s surface receives high doses of UV radiation for about a year once the soot clears, five years after the impact. Temperatures remain above freezing in the oceans, coastal areas, and parts of the Tropics, but photosynthesis is severely inhibited for the first 1 y to 2 y, and freezing temperatures persist at middle latitudes for 3 y to 4 y. Refugia from these effects would have been very limited. The transient climate perturbation ends abruptly as the stratosphere cools and becomes supersaturated, causing rapid dehydration that removes all remaining soot via wet deposition. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Probably a well known occurrence, so why did I post it? I believe it shows the power of science, the scientific method, and logical reasoning.
  10. Which was what I was trying to say, albeit rather poorly. My apologies Airbrush, as Mordred has said, that is an older definition that has not been updated. What Strange and Mordred say is correct...It depends on non trivial topology such as torus shape. More detailed answers given here....
  11. Abiogenesis of course is really the only scientific answer as to explaining life...My question would be did it occur more then once throughout the universe, and on which you touched. And was Earth a cradle for it? Or did and does Panspermia play a part? I would explain the Fermi paradox by simply invoking the two great barriers inhibiting the discovery of ETL, time and distance...
  12. While it is perfectly true that scientists have not proven the non existence of any deity, isn't it also true that ID and deities are non scientific solutions to any questions? Which supports your first statement thus........ And of course nothing is really proven in science, a fact that some of our more ignorant fundamentalists will always hang their hat on.
  13. Hi jimmy...Comments are of course welcome from anyone...I specifically mentioned experts because I'm only an amateur lay person myself.
  14. Quite possible. I certainly have not read it all. I have been busy over the last few days...Most of my comments were simply elaborating on certain excerpts. Your above for instance is certainly something I can live with.
  15. I didn't say you had. In fact I'm agreeing with you. I'm simply pointing out that extreme views either side of the political/religious spectrum are inevitably dangerous, and is why I don't like labels.