beecee

In reference to the following article and paper at https://phys.org/news/2019-05-rare-earth-metals-atmosphere-glowing-hot-exoplanet.html and the paper at https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.02096v1 With regard to the extract in the article thus, "Therefore, its atmosphere reaches temperatures of around 4000 °C. In such heat, all elements are almost completely vaporized and molecules are broken apart into their constituent atoms" I find it rather difficult to imagine how any planet could form that close to its parent star and at such temperatures. Is this evidence for "planetary migration"? I also vaguely remember a proposition a few years ago, supporting the "planetary migration" hypothesis with our own gaseous giants, Jupiter and Saturn...something along the lines of probably forming much further out then their current orbital parameters, migrating inwards, then back again to their now apparent stable orbits. Any thoughts?

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-mathematical-method-black-hole-properties-gravitational-wave.html A mathematical method for calculating black-hole properties from gravitational-wave data: Sean McWilliams, an assistant professor at West Virginia University, has developed a mathematical method for calculating black hole properties from gravitational wave data. He has written a paper describing his method and posted it on the arXiv preprint server. The paper has been accepted for publication in Physical Review Letters. It has been two years since a team working with the LIGO detector made worldwide headlines by announcing that they had detected gravity waves. Since that time, workers there and elsewhere have continued the work, looking to better understand black holes, merging neutron stars, and ultimately, gravity itself. But such work has been hindered in one respect—the source of the gravity waves, merging black holes, is so complicated that it was thought the signals they generate could not be interpreted mathematically. Instead, scientists have been interpreting the signals by comparing them to signals generated using computer simulations. more at link.... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.00040.pdf Analytical Black-Hole Binary Merger Waveforms: We present a highly accurate, fully analytical model for the late inspiral, merger, and ringdown of black-hole binaries with arbitrary mass ratios and spin vectors and the associated gravitational radiation, including the contributions of harmonics beyond the fundamental mode. This model assumes only that nonlinear effects remain small throughout the entire coalescence, and is developed based on a physical understanding of the dynamics of late stage binary evolution, in particular on the tendency of the dynamical binary spacetime to behave like a linear perturbation of the stationary merger-remnant spacetime, even at times before the merger has occurred. We demonstrate that our model agrees with the most accurate numerical relativity results to within their own uncertainties throughout the merger-ringdown phase, and it does so for example cases spanning the full range of binary parameter space that is currently testable with numerical relativity. Furthermore, our model maintains accuracy back to the innermost stable circular orbit of the merger-remnant spacetime over much of the relevant parameter space, greatly decreasing the need to introduce phenomenological degrees of freedom to describe the late inspiral.

Agreed, but we do know 5 billion years ago, that the universe was a far more violent place. The paper, which I missed putting in and kindly posted by et pet, does say "A growing body of evidence indicates that binary neutron-star mergers are the primary origin of heavy elements" and mentions "This is consistent with observational estimates of neutron-star merger rates" Certainly also I agree that many of these articles as per most journalism, will tend to sensationalize, which is why I include any associated scientific paper. In this case I forgot.

Most science forums certainly have there share of nuts, and as I like calling some of them, "would be's, if they could be's" Any new scientific hypothetical needs to "run the gauntlet" so to speak, just as Einstein's theories of SR and GR did. In Galileo's time of course, it was not science or scientists rubbishing him, it was the church and its particular brand of us, Earth, all being the center of some mythical creationist idea. You don't have a model, only a unsupported invalid half arsed hypothetical. Yeah, probably correct, and thus they will logically go to those educated and professional in that discipline for answers, rather then take any notice of any Tom, Dick or Harry, on a remote science forum, imagining himself on some mythical podium. Firstly you have failed miserably in that endeavour, and again, you do not have a model, only some hair brained idea that will in time be lost in the realms of cyber space. I for one would love to hear your take on any mythical creationist or religious beliefs, as you certainly lack any scientific know how, but of course in the correct sections, OK? Again with the rest of your misinterpretations and lack of understanding of science articles, the universe is not a disk shape, nor are there centers or edges to speak of according to the current overwhelmingly accepted model we call the BB. Which observations are that? And why isn't any of these observations highlighted in reputable mainstream cosmology? Or are you just making up stuff? Als Super heating of the surface of the Sun due to unseen friction? More made up stuff? Galactic formation is explained admirably via the BB and minute variations in the general uniformity of the CMBR. That's conveniant. Again you do not have a model, and the universe does not need to adhere with what you believe makes sense. All that is nothing but speculative ideas...some good, some not so good, but all unevidenced and entirely speculative at this time. Any reference to Einstein's parallel universe theory? First I have heard of it. But first, know thoroughly what is inside the box. And secondly most scientific theories were at one time purely hypothetical and outside the box. No ruffled feathers at all, rather as I see it, rejection of your hypotheticals by reputable people here and else where, which have made you come back with your version of obvious pretense and pretentious laughter.

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-star-smash-up-billions-of-years-ago-rained-gold-and-platinum-on-the-solar-system Astronomers Just Found The Ancient Cosmic Event That Gave Earth Gold And Platinum MICHELLE STARR 8 MAY 2019 A violent collision between two neutron stars 4.6 billion years ago showered the as-yet-unformed Solar System with heavy elements, new research has found. As much as 0.3 percent of Earth's gold, platinum and uranium (along with other heavy elements) could have been forged in the fire of a merger 1,000 light-years away, when the Solar System was little more than a cloud of gas and dust. "This means that in each of us we would find an eyelash worth of these elements," said astrophysicist Imre Bartos of the University of Florida, "mostly in the form of iodine, which is essential to life." The famous neutron star collision detected in 2017 taught us many things - not least of which is that such collisions produce heavy elements. In the electromagnetic data produced by GW 170817, scientists detected, for the first time, the production of heavy elements including gold, platinum and uranium. more at link.....

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-gravitational-physicists.html Gravitational waves leave a detectable mark, physicists say: extract: Physicists have long known that gravitational waves leave a memory on the particles along their path, and have identified five such memories. Researchers have now found three more aftereffects of the passing of a gravitational wave, "persistent gravitational wave observables" that could someday help identify waves passing through the universe. Each new observable, Grant said, provides different ways of confirming the theory of general relativity and offers insight into the intrinsic properties of gravitational waves. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.084044 Persistent gravitational wave observables: General framework: ABSTRACT: The gravitational wave memory effect is characterized by the permanent relative displacement of a pair of initially comoving test particles that is caused by the passage of a burst of gravitational waves. Recent research on this effect has clarified the physical origin and the interpretation of this gravitational phenomenon in terms of conserved charges at null infinity and “soft theorems.” In this paper, we describe a more general class of effects than the gravitational wave memory that are not necessarily associated with these charges and soft theorems, but that are, in principle, measurable. We shall refer to these effects as persistent gravitational wave observables. These observables vanish in nonradiative regions of a spacetime, and their effects “persist” after a region of spacetime which is radiating. We give three examples of such persistent observables, as well as general techniques to calculate them. These examples, for simplicity, restrict the class of nonradiative regions to those which are exactly flat. Our first example is a generalization of geodesic deviation that allows for arbitrary acceleration. The second example is a holonomy observable, which is defined in terms of a closed loop. It contains the usual “displacement” gravitational wave memory; three previously identified, though less well known memory effects (the proper time, velocity, and rotation memories); and additional new observables. Finally, the third example we give is an explicit procedure by which an observer could measure a persistent effect using a spinning test particle. We briefly discuss the ability of gravitational wave detectors (such as LIGO and Virgo) to measure these observables.

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-filter-dark-universe.html A new filter to better map the dark universe by Glenn Roberts Jr., Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Just as a wine glass distorts an image showing temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background in this photo illustration, large objects like galaxy clusters and galaxies can similarly distort this light to produce lensing effects. Credit: Emmanuel Schaan and Simone Ferraro/Berkeley Lab The earliest known light in our universe, known as the cosmic microwave background, was emitted about 380,000 years after the Big Bang. The patterning of this relic light holds many important clues to the development and distribution of large-scale structures such as galaxies and galaxy clusters. Distortions in the cosmic microwave background(CMB), caused by a phenomenon known as lensing, can further illuminate the structure of the universe and can even tell us things about the mysterious, unseen universe—including dark energy, which makes up about 68 percent of the universe and accounts for its accelerating expansion, and dark matter, which accounts for about 27 percent of the universe. more at link...... the paper: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.181301 Foreground-Immune Cosmic Microwave Background Lensing with Shear-Only Reconstruction: ABSTRACT: Cosmic microwave background (CMB) lensing from current and upcoming wide-field CMB experiments such as AdvACT, SPT-3G and Simons Observatory relies heavily on temperature (versus polarization). In this regime, foreground contamination to the temperature map produces significant lensing biases, which cannot be fully controlled by multifrequency component separation, masking, or bias hardening. In this Letter, we split the standard CMB lensing quadratic estimator into a new set of optimal “multipole” estimators. On large scales, these multipole estimators reduce to the known magnification and shear estimators, and a new shear B-mode estimator. We leverage the different symmetries of the lensed CMB and extragalactic foregrounds to argue that the shear-only estimator should be approximately immune to extragalactic foregrounds. We build a new method to compute, separately and without noise, the primary, secondary, and trispectrum biases to CMB lensing from foreground simulations. Using this method, we demonstrate that the shear estimator is, indeed, insensitive to extragalactic foregrounds, even when applied to a single-frequency temperature map contaminated with cosmic infrared background, thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich, kinematic Sunyaev-Zel’dovich, and radio point sources. This dramatic reduction in foreground biases allows us to include higher temperature multipoles than with the standard quadratic estimator, thus, increasing the total lensing signal-to-noise ratio beyond the quadratic estimator. In addition, magnification-only and shear B-mode estimators provide useful diagnostics for potential residuals.

And yet you persist with your ignorant claims. The observable universe is a perfect sphere centered on the observer, that being us on Earth. If you are simply misinterpreting the illustration at your link, that is the data as delivered by WMAP, and other then evidence that the topography of the universe is flat [meaning two rays of light emitted parallel, will remain parallel] Either way you are wrong. Expansion has nothing to do with BH's. Delusional also I see. Wrong also. The universe has no membrane, no center [other then the center of one's own observable universe] and no edge to speak of. We also as yet have no evidence for any other universes although some speculative hypotheticals have raised that possibility. And finally the DM and DE you speak of are of course part of this universe...the only one we have any evidence of. Before you attempt to think outside the box my friend, know what is inside the box, which you painfully and obviously do not. Einstein of course knew thoroughly what was inside the box, and what he was expanding on. Why would you arrive at such a dumb conclusion? That is too silly to comment further on. When the data from WMAP says the universe is flat, it means simply that Euclidean geometry applies and as U mentioned earlier, two rays of light emitted parallel, remain parallel. I personally see it as misunderstanding of the articles on your part, a misinterpreting of those same articles and a pinch of ignorance. That opinion is far more likely then multiple science forums being unjust, unfair and unscientific of your ignorant claims. I And they all have banned you? Conspiracy you think?

Understandable why you have been banned or threads closed on other sites, as your rhetoric is peppered with unevidenced claims and some bizzarre nonsense, as Strange has raised. Why do you claim the universe is disked shaped? We are the center of our observable universe for logical reasons that light approaches us at the same equal speed, from all directions. Why do you claim BH's are causing the universe to expand? Why would that even be the case? BH's are an example of the power of cumalitive gravity which only attracts...you get the picture? And why would we see through a BH? For your information and education I hope, no light escapes a BH, nor anything else for that matter. Your other point re expanding FTL, is also based on ignorance as the maximum speed limit applies to anything with mass only. In essence your claims are just rhetorical made up fairy tales. From your own link..... " The observable universe consists of the part of the universe that can, in principle, be observed by light reaching Earth within the age of the universe. It encompasses a region of space that currently forms a ball centered at Earth of estimated radius 46.5 billion light-years" So much for your silly disk claim.

An Atom is the smallest part of any element, that can exist in a free state.

I have also seen his lengthy hypothesis spread over a couple of forums, with pages and pages of text, and never once replying to evidence and observations invalidating his rather fanatical stance on this matter.

Also I would presume that the property of nonlinearity that applies to gravity, would also suggest it has a potentially infinite range...Is that a valid assumption?

Vinaka Eise....Here is the news from the aLIGO site.....https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20190502

That is possibly a fair reasonable point to make. Still I intuitively see any advanced intelligence species, as rejecting outright aggression and hostility.

Your interpretation in what I said is vastly astray.... I said that GR breaks down at the quantum/Planck level and as such the infinities inferred are rejected and abhorred. Any singularity existing is only a singularity as defined by the non applicability or failure of GR and the laws of physics at the quantum/Planck level. Cosmologists and scientists generally reject any "physical singularity" of infinite spacetime curvature and density. Aussie slang is catching!

Actually infinities generally point to the failure of the theory and why are generally abhorred in physics. The BB of course only applies to the observable universe. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Other then the unlikely ridiculous scenario of infinite spacetime density and curvature...which is why cosmologists now reject that position.

That fact if true, would indeed have me going hmmm. In saying that I was under the impression that the project "Blue Book" studies had all been released. I have personally been in conflict many many times on another forum with a joker [serious joker] that was forever offering up hoards of grainy photos and supposed eye witness accounts as evidence that we have been visited many times, and invariably he/she would always equate "unidentified" to mean of Alien origin. I am not equating him with you btw, just showing that I have debated this issue before. Like many reputable astronomers and scientists, I accept that we are most probably not alone in this big wide wonderful awesome universe we inhabit, for many reasons...the sheer scale and near infinite extent and also content of the universe, coupled with the observation that "the stuff of life" is everywhere we look. In saying all that the fact remains that as yet we have no empirical evidence of any life existing beyond and off this fart arse little blue orb we call Earth, let alone any convincing evidence for any visitations. Personally, my arguments against any such visitations are that [1] If factual, we could be reasonably sure that such visits would originate from beyond our solar system and nearby star systems. Which means that [2] Such visitations would have involved astronomical distances, and as a consequence, [3] superior technology and intelligence above and beyond human kind. So then we can I believe logically conclude that [4] they would really have no need to be afraid or wary of what we could do and any dangers we may present. Also[5] advanced beings would not really want for anything in particular as what we have on Earth, can be found anywhere in the universe. Taking all that into account, and the chances that they are just explorers, why [6] have they not made there visitations official? You know, like landing on the White House Lawns, or outside Westminster or Canberra and the lawns of Parliament House? So [7] why all this just flittering in and then flittering out again, without any introduction/s? Those points are made with a couple of personal assumptions....[1] While we ourselves still have a violent gun happy and conquering disposition, we are slowly I believe shedding such "qualities, although we still obviously have come some way since the middle ages as our technology and knowledge has expanded. So to I believe that life in advance of us, would be even less prone to such basic flawed instincts and "qualities" and as such would be less prone to aggressive tactics towards us. [2] I have often heard the comparison that any advanced species would be comparible to ourselves and the occupiers of an ant's nest and would have as much consideration for us as we would in treading on these ants. I don't accept that comparison and believe such advanced intelligence as spacefaring Aliens, would indeed recognise at least a spark of intelligence in our species, and I believe would act simarily to the Aliens in the greatest sci/fi movie of all time "2001: A Space Odyssey" I'll finish of this post with a quote from the great Carl Sagan: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. PS: Perhaps the most extraordinary sighting/s that has been documented was the one in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruwa "n 1994, the Ariel School in Ruwa was the site of an alleged sighting of a landed UFO. Some of the approximately 60 students involved in the sighting also reported that a "strange being" communicated with them by staring into their eyes." <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

We have absolutely nothing to verify that any Planck scale is the lowest possible measurable. Again it is simply where our laws of physics and GR break down, and where quantum effects take over, and partly why scientists do not accept the singularity of infinite quantities such as density and spacetime curvature at the center of BH's or the BB for that matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units "In particle physics and physical cosmology, Planck units are a set of units of measurement defined exclusively in terms of five universal physical constants, in such a manner that these five physical constants take on the numerical value of 1 when expressed in terms of these units. Originally proposed in 1899 by German physicist Max Planck, these units are also known as natural units because the origin of their definition comes only from properties of nature and not from any human construct. Planck units are only one system of several systems of natural units, but Planck units are not based on properties of any prototype object or particle (that would be arbitrarily chosen), but rather on only the properties of free space. Planck units have significance for theoretical physics since they simplify several recurring algebraic expressions of physical law by nondimensionalization. They are relevant in research on unified theories such as quantum gravity." or this......The Planck length LP is defined by taking the constants of nature and combining them in such a way that their units combine to give a length. Divide the minuscule Planck length by the speed of light (which is pretty big) and you get a really tiny unit of time, the Planck time, tP, which is: from https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module6_Planck.htm

The Planck scale is certainly not necessarily the smallest of any of its measureable quantities that can ever exist, and is simply a classification derived from other recognised constants of nature, including the speed of light. It is most certainly not any fundamental aspect about the nature of space or spacetime. The Planck units of length. time and volume, do though correspond with what we know as the quantum realm and which is sometimes referred to as the quantum foam. The other aspect I have observed in this thread, is the claims of this being proven, and that being proven. Obviously most contributing to a science forum, or having any interest in the scientific discipline, would realize that as part of the scientific method, nothing is really proven in science, and is simply made more and more certain, based on the availability of further and further observations, as technology allows. The third aspect of this thread I would like to comment on is that as I have mentioned before, perhaps it is a definition of "nothing" that needs to be appraised...perhaps the quantum foam from whence the BB and space and time as we know them evolved, is this nothing some are so taken in by.

While certainly science isn't everything in life, [what is?] there isn't too much in life that science has not contributed to, and which we unconciously invoke every day.

http://bayoffundytourism.com/worlds-highest-tides/how-do-the-tides-work/ https://www.google.com/search?q=seiche&oq=seiche&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.1614j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 A seiche (/ˈseɪʃ/ SAYSH) is a standing wave in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water. Seiches and seiche-related phenomena have been observed on lakes, reservoirs, swimming pools, bays, harbours and seas.

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-black-hole-light-speed-plasma-clouds.html Astronomers have discovered rapidly swinging jets coming from a black hole almost 8000 light-years from Earth. Published today in the journal Nature, the research shows jets from V404 Cygni's black hole behaving in a way never seen before on such short timescales. The jets appear to be rapidly rotating with high-speed clouds of plasma—potentially just minutes apart—shooting out of the black hole in different directions. more at link............ the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1152-0 A rapidly changing jet orientation in the stellar-mass black-hole system V404 Cygni: Abstract: Powerful relativistic jets are one of the main ways in which accreting black holes provide kinetic feedback to their surroundings. Jets launched from or redirected by the accretion flow that powers them are expected to be affected by the dynamics of the flow, which for accreting stellar-mass black holes has shown evidence for precession1 due to frame-dragging effects that occur when the black-hole spin axis is misaligned with the orbital plane of its companion star2. Recently, theoretical simulations have suggested that the jets can exert an additional torque on the accretion flow3, although the interplay between the dynamics of the accretion flow and the launching of the jets is not yet understood. Here we report a rapidly changing jet orientation—on a time scale of minutes to hours—in the black-hole X-ray binary V404 Cygni, detected with very-long-baseline interferometry during the peak of its 2015 outburst. We show that this changing jet orientation can be modelled as the Lense–Thirring precession of a vertically extended slim disk that arises from the super-Eddington accretion rate4. Our findings suggest that the dynamics of the precessing inner accretion disk could play a role in either directly launching or redirecting the jets within the inner few hundred gravitational radii. Similar dynamics should be expected in any strongly accreting black hole whose spin is misaligned with the inflowing gas, both affecting the observational characteristics of the jets and distributing the black-hole feedback more uniformly over the surrounding environment

Here is another article and paper...... https://phys.org/news/2019-04-hubble-universe-faster.html excerpt: "The Hubble astronomers then combined their result with another set of observations, made by the Araucaria Project, a collaboration between astronomers from institutions in Chile, the U.S., and Europe. This group made distance measurements to the Large Magellanic Cloud by observing the dimming of light as one star passes in front of its partner in eclipsing binary-star systems. The combined measurements helped the SH0ES Team refine the Cepheids' true brightness. With this more accurate result, the team could then "tighten the bolts" of the rest of the distance ladder that extends deeper into space. The new estimate of the Hubble constant is 74 kilometers (46 miles) per second per megaparsec. This means that for every 3.3 million light-years farther away a galaxy is from us, it appears to be moving 74 kilometers (46 miles) per second faster, as a result of the expansion of the universe. The number indicates that the universe is expanding at a 9% faster rate than the prediction of 67 kilometers (41.6 miles) per second per megaparsec, which comes from Planck's observations of the early universe, coupled with our present understanding of the universe." the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.07603.pdf ABSTRACT: We present an improved determination of the Hubble constant from Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations of 70 long-period Cepheids in the Large Magellanic Cloud. These were obtained with the same WFC3 photometric system used to measure extragalactic Cepheids in the hosts of Type Ia supernovae. Gyroscopic control of HST was employed to reduce overheads while collecting a large sample of widely-separated Cepheids. The Cepheid Period-Luminosity relation provides a zeropoint-independent link with 0.4% precision between the new 1.2% geometric distance to the LMC from Detached Eclipsing Binaries (DEBs) measured by Pietrzy´nski et al. (2019) and the luminosity of SNe Ia. Measurements and analysis of the LMC Cepheids were completed prior to knowledge of the new DEB LMC distance. Combined with a refined calibration of the count-rate linearity of WFC3-IR with 0.1% precision (Riess et al. 2019), these three improved elements together reduce the overall uncertainty in the geometric calibration of the Cepheid distance ladder based on the LMC from 2.5% to 1.3%. Using only the LMC DEBs to calibrate the ladder we find H0=74.22 ± 1.82 km s−1 Mpc−1 including systematic uncertainties, 3% higher than before for this particular anchor. Combining the LMC DEBs, masers in NGC 4258 and Milky Way parallaxes yields our best estimate: H0 = 74.03 ± 1.42 km s−1 Mpc−1 , including systematics, an uncertainty of 1.91% —15% lower than our best previous result. Removing any one of these anchors changes H0 by less than 0.7%. The difference between H0 measured locally and the value inferred from Planck CMB and ΛCDM is 6.6±1.5 km s−1 Mpc−1 or 4.4 σ (P=99.999% for Gaussian errors) in significance, raising the discrepancy beyond a plausible level of chance. We summarize independent tests which show this discrepancy is not attributable to an error in any one source or measurement, increasing the odds that it results from a cosmological feature beyond ΛCDM.

https://www.universetoday.com/142041/as-expected-the-newly-upgraded-ligo-is-finding-a-black-hole-merger-every-week/#more-142041 As Expected, the Newly Upgraded LIGO is Finding a Black Hole Merger Every Week In February of 2016, scientists at the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) announced the first-ever detection of gravitational waves (GWs). Since then, multiple events have been detected, providing insight into a cosmic phenomena that was predicted over a century ago by Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. A little over a year ago, LIGO was taken offline so that upgrades could be made to its instruments, which would allow for detections to take place “weekly or even more often.” After completing the upgrades on April 1st, the observatory went back online and performed as expected, detecting two probable gravitational wave events in the space of two weeks. LIGO announced the first of the two new GW events on April 8th, which was followed by a second announcement on April 12th. The signals were detected thanks to the three-facility collaboration between LIGO and the Virgo Observatory in Italy, and both are believed to have been the result of a pair of black holes merging. more at link......