beecee

That's accepted, observed phenomena.....It is only the universe/space over large scales that is expanding...smaller, denser regions like galaxies, galactic groups etc, are decoupled from any expansion by gravity. The light/photons will experience local Doppler shift due to stellar bodies orbiting, and gravitational red and blue shift, climbing out and falling into a gravity well. That does not alter or invalidate the BB one iota. The CMBR is found everywhere local and larger scales.

I'm sure we do have experiments that detect them...The Casimir effect? While certainly speculative, it is reasonable to contemplate and can explain a lot....see...https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ In the meantime, I for one am learning from this thread, despite your apparent confusion and denial...... I also found the following interesting and you may also...... https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-proof-that-virtual-particles-actually-exist Those “ripples” in a quantum field that are not considered particles…and are very complex objects. Understanding them requires some study and a lot of quantum math. Mostly, however (to answer your question ) their presence is required by quantum theory. Quantum theory has proven to be astonishingly correct and extremely valuable. Proof?? Without them, particles and fields would not operate in the manner that we observe. The “momentary’ existence of particle pairs (of opposite energy) that “pop-up” from quantum space. This is allowed by quantum theory; they pop into existence, and vanish very quickly by canceling out each other’s energy. While this sounds more outlandish than Nr. 1, above…we actually have experiments that show the fleeting effect of these ‘below the threshold’ particles. These particles are a lot easier to understand by lay persons. The “Casimir” effect will show the presence of these virtual particles (nr. 2, above). Hendrik Casimir (a Dutch Physicist), in 1948 predicted that forces deriving from a local area of quantum space should be observable. In 1997 the effect was tested in a lab, using two neutral metal plates, situated only nanometres from each other. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" again from Quora..... They are quantum vacuum fluctuations. There is an energy-time uncertainty relation that allows energy to vary for short times. The shorter the time the bigger the energy fluctuation can be. Since they go away again before there has been time to directly observe them, they are referred to as virtual. But their effects can be indirectly observed. Quantum field calculations of interactions do not get the right values without including contributions from virtual particles. The Casimir effect is an experiment that reduces the allowed spectrum of field modes in a region of space, reducing the vacuum energy relative to the exterior, and that makes a measurable force. A background field can polarize the vacuum due to the presence of things like electron-positron pairs and the back reaction on the background field can be measured. The Lamb Shift in the spectrum of the hydrogen atom is due to the interaction between the electron of that atom and virtual electron-positron pairs. To get the correct value of the van der Waals force, you need to include the Casimir effect between two atoms. Much of the near field of radio antennas is due to virtual photons. And finally, if you create a big enough voltage in empty space, you can promote virtual particles to reality, sometimes called electric breakdown of the vacuum. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" and this answer Allan Steinhardt, PhD, Author "Radar in the Quantum Limit",Formerly DARPA's Chief Scientist,Fellow Updated Feb 22, 2017 Their existence is mandated by logic once (or if) you accept the uncertainty principle. Why? Right! If you declare with certainty that a portion ( closed volume ) of space is free of thingies you have violated uncertainty. Likewise insisting that “free” energy cannot appear out of the void (momentarily) is a violation of the uncertainty principle. Of course (Heisenburg) uncertainty is an immediate consequence of Shroedinger’s equation. No other mathematical physical law has been tested and verified as much as his. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" and this for your perusal..... https://www.quora.com/If-electrons-protons-and-atoms-as-a-whole-can-pop-in-and-out-of-existence-why-cant-molecules-and-living-things-do-the-same-since-they-are-made-of-these-particles/answer/Allan-Steinhardt Another....... https://www.quora.com/Are-quantum-fluctuations-inherently-random-Wouldnt-that-imply-that-the-amount-of-information-in-a-closed-region-of-space-is-always-increasing/answer/Allan-Steinhardt I hope that alleviates some confusion. It has certainly boosted my knowledge of this fascinating aspect of quantum mechanics.

Don't be so naive, really. I said...."and for you to say that something is supernatural simply because you cannot explain, and are ignorant of other possibilities, is rather gullible and silly in the extreme". He replied...."There are no other possibilities. How can there be? That is what I am saying". While I certainly inferred it first, [based on past interactions and posts of his] he then made a positive statement about no other possibilities, meaning just because he/she can not explain it, means it is supernatural...That's analogous to someone claiming he saw a UFO and because he could not explain it, it must therefor be of Alien origin. I totally agree....In other words as I previously said, the supernatural is unscientific.

And in the meantime I found this...... https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0511/0511178.pdf ABSTRACT: Although the Universe is far from understood, we are fairly confident about some key features: Special Relativity (SR) describes the kinematics of inertial frames; General Relativity (GR) explains gravitation; the Universe had a beginning in time and has been expanding since. Nevertheless it is quite difficult to see the ‘big picture’, although the idea of applying GR to the entire Universe has been very successful with a model emerging that is consistent with observation. One unpleasant feature of the model is that cosmological photons appear not to conserve energy, and the only explanation forthcoming is the claim that GR is exempt from the principle of energy conservation. It is demonstrated here that cosmological observations may legitimately be projected onto flat spacetime and can then be treated Special Relativistically, whereupon energy conservation is restored. This is not to say that the concordance General Relativistic cosmological model is incorrect, just that in observational terms there is no energy conservation anomaly. extract: redshifts, by increasing wavelengths, must reduce the energy in the quanta. Any plausible interpretation of redshifts must account for the loss of energy.” It is important to recognise that, in contrast, the normal Doppler effect conserves energy. We can verify this by considering a spherical surface of static observers centred on a stationary isotropic radiating source with integrated luminosity L. If now the source is boosted to a velocity v in an arbitrary direction relative to the shell of observers, then observers in the general direction vˆ will measure the photons as blueshifted and observers in the general direction - vˆ will see the photons redshifted with the total integrated luminosity still L. This does not imply some sort of collusion between the blue- and red-shifted photons to ensure energy conservation – in fact all events individually conserve energy. This is easily demonstrated by a ‘before and after’ SR kinematic analysis [7]. The energy difference between the emitted energy and the absorbed energy in excess to the standard energy difference associated with the non-zero relative velocity is fully accounted for by momentum conservation (with an apparent recoil at the source as viewed from the observer). CONCLUSION: We have described a model-free description of the expansion based solely on consistency. This is in many ways a complementary description to GR cosmology and in no way invalidates the established explanation – we are merely claiming GR cosmology is not the only explanation for observational data. SR already deals nicely with concepts like the stretching of supernovae light curves and apparent superluminal motion, but there are certain problems in supernovae data that need to be investigated, but it must be remembered that the SR description can be adapted in various ways to deal with this. Of course, by reverting to SR, we have in some ways taken a retrograde step as the Universe becomes even more mysterious to us. This is a heavy price to pay for the restoration of the principle of energy conservation. At least with the GR model, there was something that could be visualised: SR is a descriptive framework of rules, not a model. SR explains how the Universe is, but not why it is. We have no idea even about the basics - why must the speed of light be constant in each inertial frame in the absence of gravitation? Now we are claiming as an additional rule that the Universe will not permit space-time discontinuities. Why not? Any answer would merely be philosophical speculation, but it is hard to get away from the notion that the Universe is a unified structure in space and time and our problems in comprehension arise because the photon exchange mechanism grants us limited access to the Whole, much less that is necessary to understand the dynamics of the Universe. Our theories and equations are then simply an expression of our limited vision 8 .

OK, I'll have an attempt at this, and am open to possible correction....[1] The Doppler shift is dwarfed in comparison to the Cosmological redshift, due to spacetime expansion...[2] and light/photons, all follow geodesic paths in that spacetime...[3] All frames of references are as valid as each other, that is the frame with relation to the detectors, and the frame with relation to the photons. So in any selective frame, the conservation of energy is not broken. But I would wait for a more professional answer.

The supernatural is unscientific and unevidenced.

Bloody excellent point, and speaks volumes as to who is confused and has his wires crossed re some claims in this thread. Speaking of a BH density is near absurd, based on what GR tells us re the compulsory collapse of mass, once the Schwarzchild radius is reached/breached. In essence, a BH that is dormant, can be reasonably thought to be no more then a volume containing critically curved spacetime, with nothing else, until we arrive at a point where GR fails us and we can assume exists the mass, with a finite surface of sorts, at or just below the quantum/Planck level...ignoring the now generally invalid concept of a mathematical singularity with infinite density and spacetime curvature.

For anyone to say scientists do not have verifiable evidence, is rather clownish at best, and insidious at worst. Speaking of clowns in denial......... .https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/13/antarctic-ice-melting-faster-than-ever-studies-show https://chasingice.com/ Bingo!

Did someone say that Endercreeper01 did not mention the supernatural? He certainly inferred it, and did not protest or back away when it was raised. Sometimes, some things are pretty obvious.

They don't violate anything because they are virtual particles and only exist for less then a Planck instant the way I understand it. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/14/17119320/stephen-hawking-hawking-radiation-explained Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion, but BH's for example, Bugger! this tells it far better then I here....https://www.google.com.au/search?q=do+black+holes+vilate+conservation+of+energy+laws%3F&oq=do+black+holes+vilate+conservation+of+energy+laws%3F&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64l2.16975j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 "Neither the existence nor the behavior of black holes violates conservation laws. ... The eventual 'evaporation' of black holes via the emission of so called Hawking radiation reverses the process, changing mass into energy, but the total mass andenergy of the system is still conserved". and.... "In classical mechanics (in the sense of non-quantum) physics, there is no mechanism to allow for non-conservation for energy. ... In other words, violationof conservation of energy can occur if and only if the violation can not be observed due to the uncertainty principle". I for one, being only a retired maintenance Fitter/Machinist/Welder, generally take care in what I read and link to on the net....WIKI gives generally good accounts, but there are certainly more reputable outlets. Perhaps you yourself need to review what you think you have learnt....we all make errors.

Something having verifiable existence and not an illusion. Something dreamed up in the mind, or imagined to explain something with absolutely no evidence as to its existence. As per Q1 As per Q2 10/10 I await with bated breath! Let me add clarification for my answers with some examples...Is space real? Of course! It is what exists between me and you....Is time real? Again, I believe it does...it is what stops everything from happening together at the same instant. Is spacetime real? Certainly, just as real as a magnetic field is real....we see the geometry of spacetime affected and reflected in the presence of mass/energy and the maths of GR. In reality, something need not be physical to be real, as long as convincing evidence exists to support the concept.

No probs, and the bit I highlighted is certainly obvious.

And like I said, it's a pointless observation. These things explain the past in a coherent logical and evidence based manner. We no longer have to invent superstitious stories about big ghostly men in the sky making everything in seven days. Increasing understanding IS a practical use, in my book, and to me, all of biology is applied biology, because biology's main application has always been to understand the living world. And there's been nothing in the history of biology to remotely match Darwin's origin of species in explaining and understanding that. Of course, Darwin's tree can't explain talking snakes and women made from ribs. Or people living to 1,000 years old, or how eating one apple curses the human race for the next six thousand years. It DOES explain why we find simpler fossils in older layers of the Earth though. Explains it all perfectly well. To anyone who actually WANTS to know. Yes, well said and great analogy.

No reputable scientists has denied that climate change is a normal process due to irregularities etc in its orbital and rotational process. The facts are that human activity is adding to it. That is what we as a species is trying to lessen. It's becoming quite common this sort of pretentious bravado from those that set out to invalidate science, with the usual dismal success..

It also seems you are posting your gibberish texts, word for word, on other forums too. And these exact texts and your erroneous conclusions thus, "The tides are the result of the rotation of the Earth and the whirlpools" are patently wrong and actually pseudo nonsense, as has been pointed out to you elsewhere.

? Hmmm, I thought I made that pretty clear..... And the following assertion is absurd.

If you are speaking of your post here re a tap being on or off, then yes...... My argument is with those that are trying to bring science down to the level of a mythical religious belief, by whatever foul means necessary, including philosophical misinterpretations and pedantry.

I see that as nonsensical philosophy to say the least...... http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-knowledge-and-truth "Knowledge is the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. Truth is defined as “the true or actual state of a matter.’ It is generally considered to be the same as fact or reality. Many people may not have knowledge of the truth, while knowing something does not necessarily make it true". It seems you practise this "absolute truth" yourself when needed, and as is evident in your claim I have highlighted... Would you like to try again?

Interesting what you say....I actually found Hawking Radiation a difficult scenario to contemplate many years ago. But gradually realised that while even today, we have yet to actually validate any Hawking Radiation, it is logically mathematically consistent and makes sense. here is a simplified explanation and other consequences of Hawking Radiation. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/14/17119320/stephen-hawking-hawking-radiation-explained

Apologies if I misinterpret any of your rambling long post.....OK, the Moon of course is not the only satellite that is tidally locked to its mother planet...Charon is another and if I am not mistaken, so to some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. In fact with Charon, both bodies, that is Charon and Pluto are tidally locked to each other, which incidentally will also occur with the Earth/Moon system in around 5 billion years or so.....a scenario that will see an Earth day equal to the present Lunar month! [if we are still around to observe it] Gravity falls off proportionally with regards to the mases of the bodies involved, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, so theoretically, yes it is infinite, but practically that Newtonian model, like all models have limitations and zones of applicability, so practically I would say, no gravity is not really infinite. Huh??? In perusing your lengthy posts, you seem to be asserting some form of pseudo alternative with regards to tidal gravitation. Can you please sum up in a sentence what you are claiming/asking or inferring? In the mean time here is some reputable material on tidal gravitation. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0736467995800131 http://web.science.mq.edu.au/~zucker/Astronomy_170_files/ASTR170_DZ_Lecture4.pdf http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/36/6/065012/meta Weight, gravitation, inertia, and tides: Abstract: This paper deals with the factors that influence the weight of an object near the Earth's surface. They are: (1) the Earth's gravitational force, (2) the centrifugal force due to the Earth's diurnal rotation, and (3) tidal forces due to the gravitational field of the Moon and Sun, and other solar system bodies to a lesser extent. Each of these three contributions is discussed and expressions are derived. The relationship between weight and gravitation is thus established in a direct and pedagogical manner readily understandable by undergraduate students. The analysis applies to the Newtonian limit of gravitation. The derivation is based on an experimental (or operational) definition of weight, and it is shown that it coincides with the Earth's gravitational force modified by diurnal rotation around a polar axis and non-uniformity of external gravitational bodies (tidal term). Two examples illustrate and quantify these modifications, respectively the Eötvös effect and the oceanic tides; tidal forces due to differential gravitation on a spacecraft and an asteroid are also proposed as examples. Considerations about inertia are also given and some comments are made about a widespread, yet confusing, explanation of tides based on a centrifugal force. Finally, the expression of the potential energy of the tide-generating force is established rigorously in the appendix. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_tides/tides02_cause.html "Tidal forces are based on the gravitational attractive force. With regard to tidal forces on the Earth, the distance between two objects usually is more critical than their masses. Tidal generating forces vary inversely as the cube of the distance from the tide generating object. Gravitational attractive forces only vary inversely to the square of the distance between the objects (Thurman, H.V., 1994). The effect of distance on tidal forces is seen in the relationship between the sun, the moon, and the Earth’s waters. Our sun is 27 million times larger than our moon. Based on its mass, the sun's gravitational attraction to the Earth is more than 177 times greater than that of the moon to the Earth. If tidal forces were based solely on comparative masses, the sun should have a tide-generating force that is 27 million times greater than that of the moon. However, the sun is 390 times further from the Earth than is the moon. Thus, its tide-generating force is reduced by 3903, or about 59 million times less than the moon. Because of these conditions, the sun’s tide-generating force is about half that of the moon (Thurman, H.V., 1994)".

It needn't be......The particle that escapes becomes real, and to conserve the law of conservation of energy and matter, the particle falling in assumes negative status and subtracts from the BH's mass. I am open to correction on that interpretation, but it was explained to me that way.

Pretty sure, he has in different posts claim no absolute truth and then elsewhere claims he has never inferred any absolute truth. If the facts and his methodology be known, he is too fanatical in simply being contrary for contrariness sake, and wrong in the process, rather then address the real issues at hand. It keeps popping up because it is basically correct, although I'm sure Russell was probably referring to bad philosophical statements from poor philosophers. You of course while pretending to ignore me, seem to forget thatyour outrageous statements, claims, interpretions etc, are just part of a science forum, open to any Tom, Dick, Harry or Reg, and will in time be lost forever in cyber space. Don't take them too seriously...no one else does.

Similar line of argument and attempted exclusions often made by our poor philosopher....I call it attempted cop outs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_evolution Applications of evolution: Evolutionary biology, in particular the understanding of how organisms evolve through natural selection, is an area of science with many practical applications.[1][2]Creationists often claim that the theory of evolution lacks any practical applications; however, this claim has been refuted by scientists. https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Are+there+any+practical+uses+for+Darwin's+tree+in+applied+biology&oq=Are+there+any+practical+uses+for+Darwin's+tree+in+applied+biology&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3.1765j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions. Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionarytheory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001). ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: And as you start your inference with the above of not being an expert, Içhose to take the view of a reputable reasonable source.

Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know. Bertrand Russell: English philosopher, mathematician.

Calm down Reg! What I will advise you to do [no thanks necessary] is to take some notice of what another philosopher has said, and his criticism of you and your claims and style.