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

102 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

3174 profile views
  1. Yet another possibility for Fermi's Paradox

    If in that very unlikely chance that we were alone, it would certainly raise far many more questions then the more likely alternative.
  2. Yet another possibility for Fermi's Paradox

    I'm a firm "believer" that we certainly are not alone in the universe, despite any real empirical evidence to support that belief. I believe most cosmologists are also of the same opinion. The sheer enormity, scope and near countless numbers of galaxies and stars in our observable universe, plus the fact that the stuff of life being everywhere we have looked, supports that general belief. We are situated on a small terrestrial planet, orbiting a humdrum dwarf star, situated in the outer suburbs of an average size galaxy, among many billions of other galaxies in the observable universe.
  3. The fact that the terrestrial planets are closer to the Sun then the gaseous and icy giants, actually support the accretion disk theory re planetary formation. And also in recent times, various stages of stellar system creation has been observed in distant systems. The heavier elements are more inclined to fall towards the center, [to create the terrestrial planets] along with the fact that closer to the Sun, the lighter elements such as Hydrogen Methane etc were prevented fro condensing due to higher temperatures. These lighter elements went into into creating the icy gaseous giants further out from the Sun, where temperatures were more conducive.
  4. Fantasy beasts and where to find them.

    Many people seem to have a need for mystery, spookiness, and paranormal concepts in their life, that according to them, science is unable to explain. I belong to another forum that is fast losing respect as a science forum simply because it is dominated by weirdos who honestly believe in ghosts, goblins, Bigfoot and even some nonsense re a nuclear war having been conducted on Mars by Alien beings! I kid you not! These types of people will always prefer the "u tube" video on the net as proof that mainstream science and "powers that be" are conspiring against the general populace. Popular TV series such as "The X-Files" and "Millenium" certainly have a lot to answer for, and the poor gullible and impressionable Idiots that they have gathered along the way. Yes sadly there are real people who still believe in this sort of nonsense.
  5. Scientific Proof that Life is Real

    Your question/s and your replies to those questions, in my opinion, illustrate why Professor Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking and others are correct in their assumptions that Philosophy has had its day. In summing Krauss suggests that philosophers are threatened by real science because science is a discipline in eternal progress while philosophy appears stagnant. His book "A Universe from Nothing" answers one of those eternally philosophical questions quite well in my opinion, while philosophy still dithers and dathers, in my opinion of course. Are we a simulation? I don't believe so. Can we prove we are or are not, part of a simulation? Science observes and conducts experiments, and models accordingly. These models/theories grow in certainty and stature over time, and as they continue to make successful predictions and align with what we observe. The theory of evolution of life is of course certain. The theories of the BB, SR and GR are all near certain and still growing in that certainty...Yet none tell us the how, or the why, or any deep underlying reality or truth. Proof and deep reality are incidental in my opinion, and may never be known in actual fact, but by the same token, if our application of the scientific method, enables us to one day reveal this "deep reality" all well and good...if not, so be it. Apologies if my post in part seems rather philosophical.
  6. LIGO

    The gravitational field is geometry of spacetime, as dictated by mass/energy. Spacetime is the multi-dimensional framework/field within which we locate events and describe the relationships between them in terms of spatial coordinates and time. The concept of spacetime follows from the observation that the speed of light is constant and invariant, i.e. it does not vary with the motion of the emitter or the observer. Spacetime allows a description of reality that is common for all observers in our universe regardless of their motion. Gravitational waves are just one of the predictions of GR that has now been validated six times, with three instruments around the world. GR stands without any real challenge as the overwhelmingly supported model of gravity by the power of its predictions and its compatibility with the BB, and the evolution of this spacetime from t+10-43 seconds. Obviously going on your remarks in the first post, you seem to have some beef with GR, and/or gravitational waves. So what is this beef? Why? What you need to do is invalidate the current findings or show a means by which our observations are explained better then the current incumbent model. Obviously like many others with an agenda [although I havn't quite worked out yours as yet...religious??] you are unable to do so and simply find relief for your frustrations on forums such as this, open to any Tom, Dick and Harry.
  7. LIGO

    Perhaps this is simply a delusion affecting yourself, as this experiment now has been confirmed by three detectors...Or will you now claim conspiracy? My suggestion is that you actually learn some stuff re SR/GR, gravitational waves and physics in general, because in reality, you seem to have put a conglomeration of general errors together [as others have informed you] and somehow reach a delusional conclusion based on those errors and erroneous interpretations as to what did happen and was detected at least 6 times now. I'm sure he'll now profusely thank you from the bottom of his heart for helping him over that hurdle.
  8. LIGO

    Ahaa! At least we are making a bit of sense now.
  9. Black hole?

    Theoretical or otherwise, Hawking Radiation does not involve anything "crossing" the EH from inside to outside. For a Schwarzchild metric BH, it certainly is, and is what is entailed by GR.
  10. Black hole?

    Yeah good point.In that case it may actually act to increase angular momentum. Complicated? That is certainly an understatement! Yet getting into this complicated scenario, could/should the angular momentum of the BH, act to prevent total compulsory collapse to the quantum/Planck level?
  11. Black hole?

    OK, my reasoning was that the interaction/s with the accretion disks and magnetic field lines, as well as other matter/energy could/would act to slow down the angular momentum over time. But considering your point, and considering what I have claimed a few times re compulsory collapse once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, should the question then be asked, does centrifugal force act to keep it from collapsing all the way down to the Quantum/Planck length? Obviously according to current thinking, a ring singularity is formed. Can this ring singularity be at the Planck/quantum level? And of course if one can calculate a trajectory upon entering a BH via the pole regions to pass through the middle of the ring singularity, one may effectively be able to do this without being torn asunder by gravitational effects, as one would be affected by gravity equally on all sides.
  12. Black hole?

    Yet GR tells us that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, (the EH is formed) further collapse is compulsory, at least (in my opinion anyway) up to the quantum/Planck level, where GR is non applicable. So isn't it more valid to accept a surface/conglomeration of sorts at that level?
  13. Black hole?

    Charge I'm sure, would be negated rather quickly and I would guess so to would angular momentum, but over a far longer period. Which seems to tell me that the simple Schwarzchild solution would be the final destination of any BH. Like you I aint sure but, just offering my thoughts.
  14. Some Personal Opinions about the Physics of Today

    I don't believe Time Travel is forbidden. In fact I'm rather positive it is a prediction of least forward time travel. Time Travel into the past is a different kettle of fish.
  15. Black hole?

    A spinning BH (Kerr BH) need not have a charge, but a charged spinning BH, called a Kerr-Newman BH is rotating and charged. The charge most probably stems from interaction/s with incoming matter and the accretion disk...Like I said, nothing crosses the EH from inside to outside. I can't do better then to quote Strange's answer to that question.... I have stated that further collapse is compulsory at least up to the singularity as defined by where GR is invalid, that is the quantum/Planck level. A mass approaching and/or crossing the BH's EH, is spaghettified and torn apart, broken down into its most basic fundamentals as it approaches the singularity by tidal gravitational effects. Whether or not a Plasma forms or any form of radiation, all matter/energy only has one has no choice in the matter. The BB singularity is a singularity "OF" spacetime: A BH singularity, is a singularity "IN" spacetime No, the BB was an evolution of spacetime as we know it, from a hot dense state, from a time of t+10-43 seconds. A BH radiating away {Hawking Radiation} simply loses its EH and becomes just another arena of spacetime. All paths lead to the singularity: There is no choice in the matter. Matter is disassembled inside a BH via tidal gravity effects...It probably along with all matter and radiation forms a surface or conglomeration unknown to us at the quantum Planck level.