Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


beecee last won the day on April 19

beecee had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

453 Beacon of Hope

1 Follower

About beecee

  • Rank
  • Birthday 07/18/1944

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

9206 profile views
  1. I have seen nothing in what You have so far said, that shows your hypothetical invalidates GR, or makes verifiable predictions above and beyond GR. Science/cosmology on the other hand, has recently supported two predictions of GR that stems from its equations over the last couple of years...Gravitational waves and BH's. If in your first statement you are somehow inferring that the universe is expanding faster then light [is this what you mean by c2 ?] then that can be explained... ... and also the universal speed limit of "c" applies to anything with mass.
  2. I certainly have not seen anything that invalidates GR, or anything that makes verifiable predictions beyond GR. GR works, the model is overwhelmingly successful and 100 year old predictions have been validated due to improved technological equipment and research.
  3. The GR model works. Its as simple as that. Gravity is spacetime geometry in the presence of mass/energy. The third point is evidenced by the observational data and success of GR. Who said anything about mass impacting the age of the universe? Ahh, I see what you are getting at. The two can still be considered separately. [2] Intervals of space and time, vary according to different frames of references, but spacetime is invariant.
  4. Perhaps the tidal interactions with the Milky Way galaxy and the SMC have prompted in the past, a period of stellar formation and we now see that with the result of supernova or red giants that have become White Dwarfs after blowing off their outer layers.
  5. Interesting discussion, and while this has got way too philosophical for me, let me make a small offering....... Space is what exists between you and me, and Earth and the Moon. If space did not exist, then everything would be together and we would be as we were before the BB. Time exists to stop everything from happening at the same instant. If there was no time, we wouldn't be here and the same applies that we would be as we were before the BB. Here I submit the following..... "The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality". — Hermann Minkowski, Which in my opinion tells me that spacetime is simply the framework against which we locate events an describe them in terms of length. breadth, height and time. Spacetime is also defined by the following facts. [1] the speed of light is invariant. [2] Intervals of space and time, vary according to different frames of references, but spacetime is invariant.[3] Gravity is the geometrical warping/mis-shaping of spacetime in the presence of mass/energy. All are real as I see it, space, time, spacetime, despite not being physical.
  6. My point again is that all observers in as many frames of references as you wish, can all take their frame as valid. Your frame far away watching me get red shifted and fade from view as I approach the EH is real and valid. In my own frame as I cross the EH at a speed approaching "c'" that is just as valid to me. I don't know what you mean with regards to simulations, or any supposed "disproved" GR, but it is wrong and from what I have seen on comments by our former anti GR speculator, based on ignorance. With regards to links, I am at the end of a busy day and about to retire so I suggest you peruse the many many reputable links and scientific papers, some here, others in the other BH and HR threads, that show conclusively that GR and BH's are now overwhelmingly evidenced and generally supported in mainstream science. That fact will never be invalidated by and Tom, Dick or Harry on any science forum, open to the general public.
  7. The various effects of gravitational time dilation with regards to objects/matter/energy approaching an EH, in any frame of reference do nothing to invalidate the overwhelming evidence to support the "Gravitationally Completely Collapsed Object" as defined by GR, or if you like the BH. The evidence supporting them is verifiable.
  8. As I mentioned before to another, all frames of references are as real and as valid as each other....That is another corner stone. Two recent experiments have shown GR flavoured BH's to be now near certain and accepted by most reputable scientists. Even many years ago, the evidence was strong........ I mentioned recently the "Dying Pulse Train" effect. This as far as I know eliminates any possibility of any surface at or below the EH. And of course as also mentioned earlier, and confirmed by Strange just above, we never actually see anything freeze at or near the EH, rather just gradually red shifted until beyond the viewing range of our equipment.
  9. beecee

    What is faith?

    As per your's, less then pleased. But also tolerant. She always asks me once a year [around Chrissy] to come to church with her. I always promise next year. But she does have her choir group around once a month for singing practise. I always politely join them when they finish and mix a bowl of kava [Yaqona] Some interesting conversations develop.
  10. beecee

    What is faith?

    I highly commend you on the great charitable work you are doing...fantastic stuff nd there should be more like you. But please don't pretend that anything that you face, dangers etc, can be alleviated or helped by praying or any faith. I hate bullies, and I have on at least three occasions in my life [one with relation to my then 6 year old Son] acted against such bullies, twice at my own possible detriment and danger. Let me also say I am married to a true Christian, for 42 years now, both our one and only marriages. Some here may find that hard to believe after noting some of my replies and reactions to god botherers and religious fanaticism I have replied to. The secret? None other then tolerence of each other with of course respect and love. My self and my wife also are sponsoring a child with a reputable orginization from Africa and have done so for the last 20 years or so. There are some great sympathetic people out there that really care for those less fortunate and do something little to try and help out...some are Christian like yourself and my wife, some are agnostic, and others are Atheistic. By the same token there are some despicable so called Chistians out there as well as some despicable so called Atheists.
  11. The general message as I previously mentioned before, is that Hawking Radiation appears to most reputable mainstream scientists, as a viable process that seems likely, albeit described by different methodologies. Analogous experiments as previously detailed also support the reasonable concept of Hawking Radiation. Here's another interesting take and experiment....... "In 1974, the British physicist Stephen Hawking made a remarkable prediction about black holes. Hawking said these objects, which are so dense that light cannot escape from them, must emit radiation. That was a huge surprise. What kind of radiation could this be? Clearly it could not be produced inside the black hole so where would the emitted particles come from? After much scepticism and intense debate, physicists eventually accepted the idea that black holes probably do emit “Hawking radiation” as it become known. But although astronomers have discovered many black holes since then, nobody has spotted the tell-tale radiation that Hawking says they must emit. Now a group of Canadian physicists say they’ve measured Hawking radiation for the first time, but not from a black hole. Instead these guys have created a “white hole” in their laboratory, the time reversed equivalent of a black hole, and measured the radiation it produces. But is this really Hawking radiation? Today, one of them, Bill Unruh from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, argues that because of the formal mathematical equivalence between white holes and black holes, the answer is yes: they really have seen Hawking radiation for the first time." more at link...... the paper: Has Hawking radiation been measured? It is argued that Hawking radiation has indeed been measured and shown to posses a thermal spectrum, as predicted. This contention is based on three separate legs. The first is that the essential physics of the Hawking process for black holes can be modelled in other physical systems. The second is the white hole horizons are the time inverse of black hole horizons, and thus the physics of both is the same. The third is that the quantum emission, which is the Hawking process, is completely determined by measurements of the classical parameters of a linear physical system. The experiment conducted in 2010 fulfils all of these requirements, and is thus a true measurement of Hawking radiation.
  12. Be afraid, be very afraid! [ sorry, couldn't help myself ]
  13. beecee

    Proving the wormhole

    While at this time we have never seen or detected worm holes, they are predicted from the equations of GR.......which so far, as we all know, has a pretty good track record. The only possible way that I'm aware of where such a thing could be tested is entering a Kerr metric BH from a trajectory in line with the axis of spin, and passing through the singularity [which would be a ring singularity] exactly central. Such a trajectory would have the effects of gravity equalised on all sides and effectively cancelled out. From memory, that methodology was described and illustrated on Kip Thorne's book, "Black Holes and Time Warps'
  14. No, it follows the first. The EH is simply the parameters of spacetime/gravity around a mass where the escape velocity equals that of the speed of light. If it is as is most likely rotating, then there are two horizons which we won't go into as it isn't really a factor in what you are asking. The only "absolute" is the speed of light in any frame of reference. Add to that its finite speed, and observers in different frames of references, will see different things [each is correct] and conclude differently. eg: You watch me approaching a BH from afar. You will see me gradually further and further redshifted along the spectrum, but never crossing the EH, just fading from view. From my position, I will carry on approaching the EH and cross it as per normal [ignoring tidal gravitational effects] and proceed on to my doom.