pantheory

"Spaghettifission," that's one I haven't heard of before. There is spaghettification and spaghettiization, and a few other variations of the same word that I have forgotten now but spaghettifission seems descriptive enough for a slightly different process . Depending on what hypothetical black-hole model you prefer, the sequence of events may go something like this: As matter accelerates to speeds maybe 10% the speed of light surrounding a black hole near the event horizon, the matter begins losing its electrons resulting in both ionization and molecular disassociation. What remains accordingly would be primarily just atomic nuclei. All of this material might be thought of as being drawn out in long strings of material by the super-gravity of the black-hole hence the idea of spaghettification. Following this, some hypothesis propose that the atomic nuclei themselves are split (fission) near or inside the event horizon. This process could be called spaghettifission. Most models further propose that the remaining atomic particles are themselves crushed out of existence, whether by a quark intermediate process of not. A few alternative models instead propose that the essence of the matter (a most fundamental particle of some kind) remains and forms a spherical agglomeration more dense than a neutron star, which would be an alternative black hole model.

No. Our galaxy could have been just one or two billion years old when the light we are now viewing was emitted from this distant galaxy 10-11 billion years ago. This would be the mainstream assertion. //

Here's the latest on the faster-than-lightspeed neutrino possibility. It seems that new measurements seem to contradict the original measurements but they do not seem to be able to exactly explain why there is a difference between the original observations and the present ones. (quote from link) http://www.scienceda...20316204743.htm

Moderation of some sort is mandatory to enforce whatever rules have been agreed upon, whether formal or not. I've seen great forums like this one that give a lot of latitude for free expression. On another forum I saw and experienced what I knew to be many moderator misinterpretations, injustices, and censorship. Bottom line, moderation is needed to enforce the rules, but that rarely includes censorship in most forums, in my opinion. And now all that's needed besides the duct tape is censorship, punishment, black leather, and XXX //

In my opinion these and other such observations greatly contradict the Big Bang model. The astronomer discoverers of these galaxies propose that they instead may be a new unknown type of proto-galaxy. These galaxies cannot be observed in detail at the present time, except for their redshift and very red appearance so such depictions of them now are simply artists conceptions. At 10-11 billion light years away however we can see details of what appear to be old galaxies. Although some great new long baseline radio and infra red scopes are just now beginning to produce "pictures" of such galaxies, it will probably take a few more years until the James Webb goes up, before clear contradictions of the mainstream model will be observable via detailed analysis of distant old galaxies, if in fact they exist. //

weeeman, For instance, if at a distance of 11 billion light years we see a galaxy that is as big and looks like the Milky Way, then this would be a problem because the Milky Way is thought to be at least 12 billion years old based upon some of the stars within it. This would mean that 11 billion years ago there was a galaxy that at that time was 12 billion years old. If both the distance and galaxy age were correct, this would make the universe at least 23 billion years old (11 + 12) . This totally would contradict the Big Bang model that proposes that the universe is only about 13.7 billion years old. If there are a great number of observations like this at the farthest distances after the James Webb goes up then the BB model in its present form could not survive. If this is what will be observed, then before chucking the BB model I think many will try to make adjustments to the age of the universe according to the BB model, by proposing additional age extending hypothesis for the model. //

The major flaw of the BB model in my opinion is that of its beginning related to what I believe is the misinterpretation of galactic redshifts which limit the universe to a specific age. For a universe of 13.7 billion years old (as in the BB model), we should not be seeing very old appearing galaxies at the farthest distances -- which we have regularly been observing for as long as we have been able to make such observations, such as in this link: http://io9.com/58649...ra+red-galaxies When the James Webb scope goes up, I believe it will be these continued observations that will cause the failure and replacement of the BB theory. //

(bold added) Expansion theory? The expansion of Matter? The expansion of space? My own model concerning the beginning also starts as a singular entity, but a simple one, unlike the BB model. It might be best described as a steady-state model with a beginning, and a matter-shrinking model with the creation of new matter from shrinking matter discards. My website URL is pantheory.org My opinion is that very little or none of the standard BB model is correct

Thanks for the question Justin. The ZPF vacuum, according to my model, is full of long (compared to their width) coiled spring-like strings of particulates, some going down to a Planck length or maybe even smaller. According to this model, these particulates are what make up what is presently called the fabric of space-time. These particulates bounce back and forth having energy of motion similar to a compressed gas. Black holes in this model are simply a highly compressed form of these particulates, much more dense than a neutron star but similar in its characteristics of spin and vibration. Black holes accordingly are of finite size and density, and the opposite of a vacuous void as proposed by many black hole models. In this model (my model), the pressure of the vacuum on matter is exactly the universal gravitational constant G, which has been determined by experiment but is presently unrecognized as the pressure of the vacuum. The basis for these answers have been based on my theory of gravity as well as my theory of black holes and their make-up.

Yes, I also agree. It would seem that there is something there that causes light to bend like the gravitational effects of matter. But since its behavior, according to this conclusion, is unlike matter -- the question becomes: is it really matter of some kind or something else? I have long proposed in my writings that what we now call dark matter is the primary substantive part of the ZPF which could then be called an aether. Light would accordingly bend based upon currents of aether flowing from high to low pressure areas which accordingly would also be the cause of all gravity rather than matter warping space. Of course these "preliminary findings" should be confirmed by others and in other locations. And of course there are seemingly many other possible explanations to explain these conclusions that might explain "dark matter," having many other possible characteristics explained by different reasoning. Many would also agree that the words "dark matter" may be just a place holder for something that is not understood and is not necessarily matter. My expectation and prediction is that what we now call dark matter behaves in a way that we will at sometime be able to equationally approximate by a form of modified Newtonian gravity not unlike Milgram's MOND. Of course such a formulation would also need to explain the inverse square law of gravity as well as the behavior of galaxies in a cluster, and I think also the related logic concerning all. Milgram's MOND cannot do any of these. It can only explain spiral disk stellar motions but another version of MOND with the appropriate logic, I believe will eventually explain it all.

For dark matter to be in fact the gravitational influence that explains the motions of spiral galaxies via gravitational influences therefore exonerating General Relativity and Newtonian gravity it would need to have a specific observable behavior. This dark matter hypothesis now seems to be in serious question based upon this link. Opponents of conventional gravity models have made such predictions since the advent of the dark matter hypothesis, my own model being one of them. http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112486232/hubble-findings-cast-doubt-on-dark-matter-theories/

What humor? It was too clever for me, maybe a smile concerning the link. Looks like an Earth look-alike without a North Pole, cool. I think the artist or photo-shop aficionado did a good job though. I guess there must be some topic related humor in your link somewhere: (form your link) Upon reading your link I didn't quite get how it ties in with the topic, but I probably missed something. It depends upon how large the atmosphere is. On a hotter water planet the atmosphere would be thick with humidity, seemingly to high altitudes. This makes the atmosphere more dense/ heavy. As on the Earth the light elements would rise above a lower denser atmosphere generally absent of the lightest gases. CO2, O2, and nitrogen are heavier gases that do not easily separate so they generally mix together. CO2 is the heaviest of these but if emitted in large quantities from natural processes on Earth, it can move over like a fog, silently and quickly killing animal and human life within it before it eventually mixes in the lower atmosphere. When the lightest gases rise to the top of any atmosphere, at this altitude the atmosphere will be very thin and unprotected from the stellar wind which can erode away the uppermost gases in time. For a hotter planet I believe one would expect that the lighter elements in the upper atmosphere would erode away more quickly than on Earth because the stellar radiation would be more influential. This is what they presently think happened to the water and most of the lighter gases that were originally thought to be on Venus. Water in the atmosphere was thought to be broken down to its elements and slowly eroded away leaving primarily the heaviest gases, primarily carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid in gas form, with only relatively small amounts of remaining water and other trace gases.

Time dilation has many faces. In Special Relativity which is based upon relative motion, each observer will have a different time frame and perspective of time dilation concerning the other time frame. On the other hand in General Relativity, the center of a gravitational field is a preferred reference frame concerning the comparison of two reference frames moving relative to the center of gravity. The frame moving faster relative to the same gravitational field will be more time dilated as measured by an observer near the center of the gravitational field, such as at the Earth's surface for instance. Another face of time dilation concerning General Relativity, concerns distance from the center of gravity. An object that is not in motion relative to the center of gravity, will be more time dilated than an object further away from that center of gravity from that gravitational reference frame such as the Earth's surface.

qsa, My meaning here was that the gravitational constant G was determined based upon experimental measurement, to be .......... I will change/ clarify this is the text, thanks. As to the couplings aspect, you are also correct. I do not use the word couplings in the text but do generally discuss how these values accordingly come about, but do not propose numerical values concerning the proposed mechanics. Mass is accordingly explained via my explanation of gravity. Accordingly the ZPF applies applies an external radial inward pushing force/ pressure to all matter which we quantify as the gravitational constant G. The force between matter would accordingly be less since matter would absorb some of the field vectors. The larger the matter the greater the difference of field pressure between matter in close proximity. This accordingly explains gravity. When matter is put on a scale (force measurement device) a weight is measured. This weight is accordingly converted into mass via our definition of mass and calculation. As to electron mass, the size and form of its individual field vortex produced by particle spin, accordingly determines how much field vectors it can absorb which is the determinate of its mass. That sounds really cool. Since my entire theory is mechanical, I would like to turn some of those minds loose concerning analysis of my model, as you have already started doing. I think I will try to find that Journal, if it still exists, as a possible publisher for some of my material By the way, thanks for looking at my theory and presenting valid criticism How about your continued criticisms, editorial or otherwise. I would appreciate it.

My own model explains coupling values in terms of mechanical field interactions involving vortexes of Zero Point Field particulates down to Planck length sizes, which move from high pressure to low pressure areas. This I use to explain both gravity and magnetism. Since Maxwell's equations were formulated based upon an aether I also ascribe to these same equations. As to galactic distances I have reformulated the Hubble formula to explain type 1a supernova accordingly without the need for dark energy. In this model there is a physical edge to the universe‎, to the existence of matter and field. The form of the universe accordingly is generally spherical. In this model matter is physically held together by pressures of the surrounding ZPF. Only field particulates can accordingly exist at the edge of the universe. Matter would disintegrate and light waves could not exist anywhere near these vastly distant boundaries. Mass is explained as something very simple which is determined by the actions of gravity on an object, which accordingly are the pressures of the ZPF. Charge accordingly is vortex based concerning individual particles determined by particle spin and the configuration of the field vortex that the particles creates. The origin of spin is that particles must accordingly unwind/ rewind which is the cause of particle spin. Entanglement accordingly also has a simple basis. Entangled photons are accordingly within the same circular or spherical wave or exactly the same physical characteristics. Accordingly EM radiation consists both of photon particulates and physical waves of particulates that they "surf" within the ZPF, AKA an aether. On the other hand electrons put in very close proximity send out physical waves that effect each other such as electrons within the same atomic shell. One has spin up and the other spin down. When these electrons are sent out in different directions they will remain in the same spin state since they accordingly have a gyro behavior as they spin and so one will have a spin up and the other will have spin down, even miles apart. But this accordingly has the mechanical cause explained. Again the double slit experiment is very easy to explain in this model. When a single photon/ electron is sent through a single slit with the other slit also open, accordingly the physic wave produced passes through both slits interfering with each other on the other side as well as directing the particulates whether photon or electron. Special relativity accordingly is solely based upon relative motion as explained by Lorenz Transforms. Accordingly there is a particulate aether something like dark matter but with vastly smaller particulates. Space is the volume that matter and field occupies. Time is an interval of change that can be measured by a measurement device called a clock, which is analogous to particle spin. Particle spin is perpetuated by a mechanical force within particles that necessitate them to unwind and rewind, while concurrently becoming smaller. Density of the universe is maintained by the creation of new matter surrounding galactic black holes. The ZPF vacuum is made up of a single particulate with its energies of relative motion and wave carrying characteristics. Energy accordingly is strictly a function of relative motion, via force times distance equals energy. EM radiation are physical waves within the aether/ AKA the Zero Point Field. All of the above are accordingly related since all matter and field are comprised of a single particulate, and most relate to vortexes within the particulate aether. The universe accordingly started as a single entity like the BB model, but this particulate slowly unwound/ rewound into two, three, four, five, six, etc. identical particulates which eventually became the ZPF. From the ZPF black holes are created. And the gravitational effect surrounding black holes creates atomic particles and from these particles stars are created, and then fusion and fission creates the rest of reality. The universe accordingly is not expanding and redshifts are explained by larger matter in the past producing longer EM radiation. The universe accordingly is in a steady state condition, galactic cycles are roughly 60 billion years long, and accordingly there is no reason why the universe will ever change. The universe is accordingly now trillions of years in age. We are accordingly both lost in space as well as lost in time. There accordingly is only one single fundamental particle that makes up both field particulates and matter particles. There accordingly are no forces of nature. Magnetism and gravity are explained by relative motion and/ or vortex motions within the field based upon flows of particulates from high to lower pressure volumes. As to the nuclear forces, the Strong Force is based upon physical connections of strings of particulates which comprise all particles, and which resist separation. The Weak Force and Strong Interaction are accordingly based upon physical connections of neutrons and protons within the nucleus which also physically resist separation. Mathematics can often be a good analog of reality, but accordingly never a perfect analog since in most or all cases there will always be exceptions based upon unusual circumstances. Accordingly both the macro-world at galactic scales, and the micro-world at quantum scales, must involve tolerances and can be calculated based upon probabilities. The entire model can be seen at pantheory.org In my own related model the definition of conciousness explains what conciousness really is. Accordingly if we could agree on a comprehensive definition and explanation of it we could agree upon what consciousness really is and what it entails. I gave you my definition and explanation of it above. Of course some may consider/ believe in additional or alternative explanations of consciousness which I have either not included, mentioned, or even considered

Although they have identified a couple of potential error culprits they will be shooting neutrinos again in late March. I would not be surprised if the "problem" is still there. If not the causes they have identified, then I still have my bets upon a distance error of about 20 meters possibly based upon errors in the GPS programming via presently unknown physics .

We can only see PNe (planetary nebula) in our own galaxy and maybe in a few of our peripheral galaxies, and possibly three of our neighboring galaxies like Andromeda. Even individual stars are difficult to observe in galaxies beyond these distances other than the biggest, brightest stars, or supernova, all of which would not have observable PNe. In our own galaxy when looking at stars with planetary nebula, we can only guess whether it is a first generation star, second generation star or even older. We can certainly make a good guess how long ago a planetary nebula was created since it only lasts thousands of years compared to most stellar lifetimes of billions of years. Therefore galaxy age-dating by this mechanism seemingly could not be done. (quote from link) (bold added) http://en.wikipedia....lanetary_nebula

G Anthony my friend, We aren't? It doesn't? For me they are synonyms But seriously I think your general idea has merit in that I also think that all theories should be required to formulate null-hypothesis, at least for them to be considered a valid theory. But who in the mainstream will ever agree to this great idea? Only those most enlightened who are very rare individuals. I agree that nearly all theories today do not meet this criteria. Although no theories can be easily proven, I try diligently to put together clear ways by which my own theories might be disproved. I believe this is one clear distinction between a well proposed theory and today's hypothesis. Realize that a mal-formed theory will probably have a much greater longevity if they do not have a null-hypothesis, and if they are not making any new consensus predictions. Some poor examples of theory IMHO are a Big Bang beginning, dark matter, dark energy, warped space, since none of these, like astrology, can ever be proved or disproved -- IMO. All instead might be considered valid hypothesis until something better comes along But in the same way, and for the same reasons I think you should form a null-hypothesis concerning religion for your own sake so that you may know the sad truth before we do not meet our maker. ................... In this vain don't count on Paskal's wager. Enlightenment by one's own mind in contradiction to whatever stands in the way of logic, is far above all else regardless of the multitudes that profess otherwise IMHO. Please excuse the little bit of philosophy thrown in here with good intent. --------Happy New year to all. It's only 10:30 PM here Dec. 31, on the west coast of the North American colonies -- upon this writing with regards, Forrest Noble

To allow for neutrino speeds faster than light not only Special Relativity would need to be altered or replaced, but also the standard model of particle physics and particle decay rate formulations would need to be changed or replaced. http://www.scienceda...11223114121.htm //

This article is another weigh-in against faster than light neutrinos. They are saying that few if any neutrinos would be produced if the pions produced by OPERA were moving at the speed of light because time dilatation would prevent decay. Since neutrinos were accordingly produced by pion decay, these pions must accordingly have been traveling slower than the speed of light. Pions decaying at velocities slower than the speed of light can only decay into/ produce particles also traveling at speeds less than the speed of light. To allow for neutrino speeds faster than light not only Special Relativity would be in jeopardy, but also the standard model of particle physics and particle decay rate formulations. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111223114121.htm

Of course massive bursts of star-formation could theoretically be attributed to the Re-ionization period, but not likely concerning pre-existing galaxies as in this link. Also, The galaxies in the OP at the same distances seem unexplainable concerning the BB model. They appear to be 4 old elliptical galaxies. I will continue to post such findings in the Science News section, in this section and thread, along with a related thread in the Speculation Forum. So far at these distances they have found as many different appearing galaxies as we can see next door. Interpretations of what they are viewing could also be mistaken if such interpretations are based upon the 13.7G year old universe of the BB model, and if the BB model is wrong and instead the universe is far older. //

Another bright galaxy that should not exist at the beginning of time. http://www.space.com/14022-rare-galaxy-dawn-time-universe-photo.html

Here's another distant bright galaxy that surprises theorists. http://www.space.com/14022-rare-galaxy-dawn-time-universe-photo.html

Here's another galaxy that should not be at the beginning of the universe. http://www.space.com/14022-rare-galaxy-dawn-time-universe-photo.html

Yes, anything at or very near absolute zero would produce no detectable EM radiation and if massive, could produce the effects of dark matter. The question is that if all the surrounding temperatures were at the observed 2.7 K micro-wave background, how could such gas etc. maintain a colder temperature than the microwave background indefinitely and how could it become that cold in the first place? According to General Relativity EM radiation as well as all matter including electrons, protons, neutrinos and anti-particles, must follow the warp lines of spacetime accordingly produced by matter, and therefore would bend in their path passing by a gravitational influence. As to quarks, they accordingly cannot exist as independent particles.