beecee

Check out the Bullet Cluster anomaly...... I would also suggest that if DM was normal baryonic matter, we would have identified it by now, The facts that after 30 or 40 years of looking and still havn't it, confirms non baryonic DM. https://www.thoughtco.com/cold-dark-matter-3072275

Simple but highly inaccurate. The definition of DM is generally thought to be a form of non baryonic matter, that interacts only gravitationally with baryonic matter and spacetime and does not reflect, absorb, or emit light, which sadly leaves M31, the MW and you and me out in the cold!

Had me in too!

https://phys.org/news/2019-02-nasa-life-ocean-floor.html NASA study reproduces origins of life on ocean floor February 26, 2019, NASA: Scientists have reproduced in the lab how the ingredients for life could have formed deep in the ocean 4 billion years ago. The results of the new study offer clues to how life started on Earth and where else in the cosmos we might find it. Astrobiologist Laurie Barge and her team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, are working to recognize life on other planets by studying the origins of life here on Earth. Their research focuses on how the building blocks of life form in hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor. To re-create hydrothermal vents in the lab, the team made their own miniature seafloors by filling beakers with mixtures that mimic Earth's primordial ocean. These lab-based oceans act as nurseries for amino acids, organic compounds that are essential for life as we know it. Like Lego blocks, amino acids build on one another to form proteins, which make up all living things. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-02-nasa-life-ocean-floor.html#jCp the paper: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/02/19/1812098116 Redox and pH gradients drive amino acid synthesis in iron oxyhydroxide mineral systems: Significance: Amino acids are formed from simple organic precursors in iron oxyhydroxide mineral systems that contain geochemical gradients. Redox and pH gradients significantly impact reaction pathways: Amino acids only form when the mineral contains both oxidized and reduced iron, and when the surrounding solution is alkaline. This shows that aqueous, partially reducing iron mineral systems (which would have been common in early-Earth seafloor/vent environments) could have facilitated synthesis and concentration of prebiotic organic molecules relevant for the emergence of life. It also suggests that geochemical gradients in vent environments can drive product selectivity for prebiotic chemistry, perhaps leading to more complex organic reaction systems as these molecules continue to diffuse and react under different conditions within the gradients. Abstract: Iron oxyhydroxide minerals, known to be chemically reactive and significant for elemental cycling, are thought to have been abundant in early-Earth seawater, sediments, and hydrothermal systems. In the anoxic Fe2+-rich early oceans, these minerals would have been only partially oxidized and thus redox-active, perhaps able to promote prebiotic chemical reactions. We show that pyruvate, a simple organic molecule that can form in hydrothermal systems, can undergo reductive amination in the presence of mixed-valence iron oxyhydroxides to form the amino acid alanine, as well as the reduced product lactate. Furthermore, geochemical gradients of pH, redox, and temperature in iron oxyhydroxide systems affect product selectivity. The maximum yield of alanine was observed when the iron oxyhydroxide mineral contained 1:1 Fe(II):Fe(III), under alkaline conditions, and at moderately warm temperatures. These represent conditions that may be found, for example, in iron-containing sediments near an alkaline hydrothermal vent system. The partially oxidized state of the precipitate was significant in promoting amino acid formation: Purely ferrous hydroxides did not drive reductive amination but instead promoted pyruvate reduction to lactate, and ferric hydroxides did not result in any reaction. Prebiotic chemistry driven by redox-active iron hydroxide minerals on the early Earth would therefore be strongly affected by geochemical gradients of Eh, pH, and temperature, and liquid-phase products would be able to diffuse to other conditions within the sediment column to participate in further reactions.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_electric_field_real_or_only_a_theory So to does time. There is no universal "now" Your now is different to my now. Time and space are also interchangeable in SR, and form the larger framework we call spacetime, in which we locate events in terms of spatial coordinates and time.

Do you accept that electric/magnetic fields exist?

I suppose the best way to answer that is that Earth/Moon space is far less tenuous then interplanetary space, which again is less tenuous then interstellar space, which in turn is less tenuous then intergalactic space.

Movement/change occurs in time, not because of time. Time is real...Space is real...Spacetime is real. Again, I like Sean Carroll's description.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVINOl0Ctfk As is mentioned, the question is really, is time fundamental.

The absence of or very minimal axial tilt also suggests that areas at the poles will never experience sunlight and be in virtual permanent darkness. Which leads to thoughts of permanent water ice in those regions. Similar circumstances exist on Mercury also.

Our little corner of space is located in the outer suburbs of the arm of a spiral galaxy, which is located in an area of larger space incorporating our local group of galaxies, which is located in an even still larger area that we determine as the observable universe, which in turn may or may not be part of a finite many times larger space or possibly even infinite space, which is all there apparently is, and which most likely arose from a previous "nothing" that we just happen to call the quantum foam. N.B.: The highlighted part is unknown and speculative at this stage of our evolution.

Ideas, speculations etc, are fine and dandy, but the first step is to know thoroughly the accepted mainstream theory that applies to that situation, why it applies, what it describes and explains, and the predictions that it makes that support that theory. The second step is to understand what a scientific theory is and why it remains a theory, in line with improving technology, further observations, further gathering of data and the possibility that while a scientific theory remains the highest echelon in science and its ability to explain, it can always be improved on, modified or even scrapped. eg: GR is continually being put to the test to understand its exact limitations, despite its incredible success. The third step is to realize that if you believe you have invalidated any incumbent theory, on a forum, from the comfort of your lounge chair at home, then you are probably delusional. Can I reproduce the following again? Anyone with an alternative speculative idea they wish to debate should take note of the following points:[1] Don't present your idea as fact...don't present it as something that is "faite compli" It most certainly isn't:[2] Gather all the experimental and Observational evidence to support your claims...[3] Whatever you have at the very least, must be able to explain and predict better then the incumbent model:[4] Your idea almost certainly is going to be challenged, and will need to run the gauntlet:[5] You will be told you are incorrect and your idea is wrong in most cases:[6] Throwing a tantrum will not win you any support: [7] You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question answer it. [8] When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it is wrong and accept it:[9] Peer review may not be perfect, but it is absolutely necessary. The participants of any forum one sets out his alternative ideas on, are your peers. Accept that:[10] If you think you have accomplished a theory over riding Evolution, SR, GR the BB QM or Newton, you most certainly have not: 100 years and more of past giants, and the 100's of books and papers since, means that you will not invalidate such overwhelmingly supported ideas in a few words or posts: Accept that from the word go:[11] In all likelyhood you are not Einstein, Newton, Hawking Bohr or Feynman: Don't pretend to be.[12] And finally always be prepared to modify your ideas/model/theories, and of course make sure you know the incumbent model you are thinking of over throwing perfectly.

Point taken....DESSERT!!!

This was the nonsensical thread in the "book talk" section? It got its just deserts.

My apologies if I posted this at an earlier time, when debating the merits or otherwise of alternative hypotheticals to GR. Sometimes, well often actually, we hear criticism of mainstream science being incalcitrant, when it is painfully obvious that this is simply a furphy at best. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.08373.pdf Polarization-based Tests of Gravity with the Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background: The direct observation of gravitational waves with Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo offers novel opportunities to test general relativity in strong-field, highly dynamical regimes. One such opportunity is the measurement of gravitational-wave polarizations. While general relativity predicts only two tensor gravitational-wave polarizations, general metric theories of gravity allow for up to four additional vector and scalar modes. The detection of these alternative polarizations would represent a clear violation of general relativity. The LIGOVirgo detection of the binary black hole merger GW170814 has recently offered the first direct constraints on the polarization of gravitational waves. The current generation of ground-based detectors, however, is limited in its ability to sensitively determine the polarization content of transient gravitational-wave signals. Observation of the stochastic gravitational-wave background, in contrast, offers a means of directly measuring generic gravitational-wave polarizations. The stochastic background, arising from the superposition of many individually unresolvable gravitational-wave signals, may be detectable by Advanced LIGO at design-sensitivity. In this paper, we present a Bayesian method with which to detect and characterize the polarization of the stochastic background. We explore prospects for estimating parameters of the background, and quantify the limits that Advanced LIGO can place on vector and scalar polarizations in the absence of a detection. Finally, we investigate how the introduction of new terrestrial detectors like Advanced Virgo aid in our ability to detect or constrain alternative polarizations in the stochastic background. We find that, although the addition of Advanced Virgo does not notably improve detection prospects, it may dramatically improve our ability to estimate the parameters of backgrounds of mixed polarization.

Other then you are entirely wrong and also ignorant of the current overwhelmingly supported model of universal evolution we call the BB.

Yet the opposite is true...we notice and have evidence the universe is expanding over large scales, and have evidence to show that over smaller scales such as our local group of galaxies, that the gravity from the higher energy/density over those regions, see those galaxies gravitationally bound//eg: Milky Way, LMC, SMC, M31[Andromeda] in other words no expansion over those scales.

Thanks Mordred.....looking forward to it. https://www.ligo.org/science/Publication-O1StochNonGR/index.php#Glossary:vectorscalar LOOKING FOR "FORBIDDEN" POLARIZATIONS IN THE GRAVITATIONAL-WAVE BACKGROUND WITH ADVANCED LIGO :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Is this relevant?

Perhaps a Tutorial on the subject would be beneficial and appreciated? Further discoveries and research into gravitational waves from that far back? Perhaps from the BB itself?

Science neither hides nor denies what is unknown about the universe. But what it does know is extensive and responsible for pushing any need of any type of ID or magical spaghetti monster to explain natural phenomena and the universe around us into near oblivion. I mean we can reasonably ascertain what how the evolution of the universe took place from t+10-43 seconds up to the present day...Not bad hey!

It's fact most biologists worth their salt support evolution, and that is certainly no fallacy. Claiming anyone expert and professional in the field under discussion, is admirable and the way to go...the fallacy would be asking your local pastor or butcher on advice on that subject. Science is about the scientific methodology, and the weight of evidence, and on the subject at hand, that evidence is extraordinarily strong. Science is always open as other scientific theories that are changing all the time...Some though are as close to certain as one could wish for...evolution is at the top rung in that regard. Abiogenesis, simply put, once there was no life, then there was, is pretty damning evidence. As I said, some scientific theories are as close to certain as we could wish. Supporting such, is not arrogance, it is logic.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0573-2 Published: 24 September 2018 No evidence for modifications of gravity from galaxy motions on cosmological scales: Abstract: Current tests of general relativity (GR) remain confined to the scale of stellar systems or the strong gravity regime. A departure from GR on cosmological scales has been advocated1 as an alternative to the cosmological constant Λ (ref. 2) to account for the observed cosmic expansion history3,4. However, such models yield distinct values for the linear growth rate of density perturbations and consequently for the associated galaxy peculiar velocity field. Measurements of the resulting anisotropy of galaxy clustering5,6 have thus been proposed as a powerful probe of the validity of GR on cosmological scales7, but despite substantial efforts8,9, they suffer from systematic errors comparable to statistical uncertainties10. Here, we present the results of a forward-modelling approach that fully exploits the sensitivity of the galaxy velocity field to modifications of GR. We use state-of-the-art high-resolution N-body simulations of a standard GR (Λ cold dark matter (CDM)) model11 and a compelling f(R) model12—one of GR’s simplest variants, in which the Ricci scalar curvature, R, in the Einstein–Hilbert action is replaced by an arbitrary function of R—to build simulated catalogues of stellar-mass-selected galaxies through a robust match to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey13. We find that f(R) fails to reproduce the observed redshift-space clustering on scales of ~1–10 Mpc h−1, where h is the dimensionless Hubble parameter. Instead, the standard ΛCDM GR model agrees impressively well with the data. This result provides strong confirmation, on cosmological scales, of the robustness of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

So why did you post this nonsense in the Astronomy sciences section instead of the obvious speculation section?

You raise a fair point...................... http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jkw/phys3550/Hawking_radiation/How_does_Hawking_radiation_work.pdf Hawking radiation There are a number of ways of describing the mechanism responsible for Hawking radiation. Here's one: The vacuum in quantum field theory is not really empty; it's filled with "virtual pairs" of particles and antiparticles that pop in and out of existence, with lifetimes determined by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. When such pairs forms near the event horizon of a black hole, though, they are pulled apart by the tidal forces of gravity. Sometimes one member of a pair crosses the horizon, and can no longer recombine with its partner. The partner can then escape to infinity, and since it carries off positive energy, the energy (and thus the mass) of the black hole must decrease. There is something a bit mysterious about this explanation: it requires that the particle that falls into the black hole have negative energy. Here's one way to understand what's going on. (This argument is based roughly on section 11.4 of Schutz's book, A first course in general relativity.) To start, since we're talking about quantum field theory, let's understand what "energy" means in this context. The basic answer is that energy is determined by Planck's relation, E=hf, where f is frequency. Of course, a classical configuration of a field typically does not have a single frequency, but it can be Fourier decomposed into modes with fixed frequencies. In quantum field theory, modes with positive frequencies correspond to particles, and those with negative frequencies correspond to antiparticles. Now, here's the key observation: frequency depends on time, and in particular on the choice of a time coordinate. We know this from special relativity, of course -- two observers in relative motion will see different frequencies for the same source. In special relativity, though, while Lorentz transformations can change the magnitude of frequency, they can't change the sign, so observers moving relative to each other with constant velocities will at least agree on the difference between particles and antiparticles. Nice video, but it doesn't say Hawking Radiation is false, or anything like that...around the 8 minute mark it does say..."that it is fair to interpret this mixing as the promotion of virtual particles into real particles" and then follows on in more detail with regards to quantum entanglement.

Different universes, would be different spacetimes, or different fluctuations in the quantum foam by definition, I think.....All arising separately from different fluctuations in the nothingness of quantum foam, speaking speculatively of course. Some interesting ideas here..... https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/07/17/what-is-and-isnt-scientific-about-the-multiverse/#2c4bcec925c4 Here's another, re quantum entanglement and multiverses..... file:///C:/Users/BARRY/Downloads/universe-03-00028.pdf Quantum Entanglement in the Multiverse Abstract: In this report, we consider cosmological implications of quantum entanglement between two causally disconnected universes in the multiverse. Supposing that our universe was initially entangled with a causally separated universe, we compute the spectrum of vacuum fluctuations of our universe. To clearly see the effect of entanglement, we compare it with the spectrum of an initially non-entangled state. It is found that, due to quantum interference, scale-dependent modulations may enter the spectrum for the case of an initially non-entangled state. We discuss that the existence of causally disconnected universes may be experimentally tested by analyzing correlators in detail.

Sounds like what Albert did when he was a Patent Clerk. More fun navigating across the Pacific using one of these. But I do see your point...