beecee

Why? I fail to see your reasoning. The universe after Inflation and the BB, has been in a deaccelerated state up until around 5 billion years ago if I recall correctly...then acceleration took hold, as the gravity of the energy/density of the mass in the universe/spacetime grew less dense, as opposed to the constant component driving the expansion...Acceleration is/was a natural occurrence. The mystery is of course what this component force we call DE is.

Ultra-scepticism, seems a nice way of putting it. Again, my statement re fairy tales refers to the apparent anti belief that he proposes, which in my view is contradicted every day by every person on this planet...at least from my layman's position. Let me add also for your clarification, that I also have a certain faith: As a retired Maintenance Fitter and Turner, I have faith that my local GP will direct me to whatever cure that ails me...I also have faith that cosmology today, as accepted by the professionals like Carroll, De-Grasse Tyson, Suskind and the many professional greats of the past, are infinitely more likely to be correct, then the local Minister, preaching fire and brimstone on a Sunday. As a lay person, I have faith in plenty, but that faith or belief is not blindly accepted, and is always open to change, as new observations and experiments dictate, and I am able to move on if required. Everyone on Earth has some belief...everyone on Earth has some faith.

The gist of the OP seems to be that any belief is essentially wrong or invalid: I find that rather weird to put it mildly. I believe and accept the scientific method: I base that belief on observation and history. How can one lack belief in all things? All three are of course correct, and I'm at a loss to understand what you are actually trying to propose. I don't believe I am wrong, and far more importantly and far more qualified then I, I do not accept that Krauss or Hawking are wrong. The 20th century has seen cosmology and astronomy come along in leaps and bounds, as our technology enables us to see further and further....We have deduced via observational evidence that the universe is expanding...we have discovered the CMBR and through tiny variations in that otherwise constant temperature, deduced the formation of galaxies...we can reasonably go back in time to t+10-43 seconds and deduce the evolution of space and time,(spacetime) and project a trillion years into the future with reasonable confidence and see the demise of the universe as we know it today. We understand these things due to observational and experimental data. And of course I have not yet mentioned quantum physics and the predictive powers that we have at our disposal through that. Professor Krauss's book, "A Universe from Nothing" illustrates how we can even go beyond that t+10-43 seconds within reason. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo here is another that I have posted before..... https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/ A Universe from Nothing by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff

Take it easy...Like I said, I agree with Krauss and Hawking and others who also are of that general opinion. But hey, as I did say earlier, I raised the issue fully aware it would upset some of our philosophical friends. I havn't seen you yet comment on the subject of the thread though?

Thoughts? How about some evidence supporting your mythical story line in this thread. It didn't need to: It adequately explained some well known observational anomalies and drew together the works of other great scientists such as Lorentz, Planck, Michelson and Morley and others. Obviously not even close and adequately supported by the following nonsense..... Yes, your opinion worth absolutely nothing in the greater scheme of things. You obviously suffer from delusions of grandeur. Depends on what model you use. Perhaps you need to research science in general, along with what a scientific theory is and how scientific models work to avoid such a lengthy post full nonsense. You can contend whatever you like, as this is a public forum open to any Tom, Dick and Harry and also anonymous participant, and it doesn't change the fact that it is all simply hot air, probably driven by a couple of factors, one being delusions of grandeur, the other "tall poppy syndrome" Or possibly even that you are simply trolling and trying to get a raise out of people...a rather childish action though if it is. Or a fourth possibility could be a religious agenda, driven by the fact that science has made the need for any deity obsolete. Which one suits you the best? That's all with your collective gripe, getting late here and I have a big day tomorrow.

No, just as I said, nothing but philosophical musings, and fairy tale ones at that.

Don't tell me, tell Stephen Hawking or Laurence Krauss, they are the professionals: I just happened to agree with them. Not really...that's how science works and what the meaning of a scientific theory entails and how they may change with further extensive observations. And of course Newton was not wrong as such, after all we still use his model on near all Earth based measurements and even most space missions. His model is simply less accurate but suffice more most circumstances. You are speaking of the 1700's of course and times have changed. It was physics, based on observation. You think so? No more than I can elaborate on your own rather weird philosophical musings.

I believe you are totally wrong, despite your own beliefs that you are right. Getting down to the nitty gritty and at the risk of offending some philosophers, philosophy while being at its basic level, the foundation on which science is built, has had its day. Practical sciences like cosmology rule our understandings at this time, based mostly on what we observe and the results of our experiments. Physics and cosmology seems to have made philosophy redundant. I will refer you to the following to elaborate further on what I am trying to say..... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.html https://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Hawking_contra_Philosophy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjkkJYQnZtY https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/ Finally... Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know. Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) English philosopher, mathematician. Does that explain what I think about what you think? In that your philosophical stance on thinking is crazy? The same obviously goes for our friend called Sam.

Not really true in this day and age. Most of what you personally may see as a plethora of evidence for god, can be explained by science: Even prior to t+10-43 seconds, we have educated scientific speculation. Jesus may have existed as a person, but any so called evidence of him being god is really non existent...perhaps he was a magician similar to Merlin. Hear say and accounts of aspects of history do get blown out of proportion...people can also be delusional and imagine something that does not or did not exist. Some supposed first hand observations of UFO's for example, even though these incidents happened relatively recently and not 2000 years ago.

And a thousand years ago, we were unable to explain weather systems on Earth, what made the Sun shine, what the stars were, how the solar system came to be, and much much more. In the intervening time we have pushed the need for any deity back to that t+10-43 seconds: That's called scientific advancement and progress...but obviously we still have a way to go to explain other phenomena, which some speculative scientific ideas ideas exist for anyway, and of course also the non scientific idea of a deity. So why pray tell, do you see it as reasonable to slot in some god? That's similar in many ways to gullible, impressionable people that see a UFO [emphasis on the U for unidentified] and immediatley invoke Aliens or ET's.

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-distant-galaxy-high-energy-radio.html Distant galaxy sends out 15 high-energy radio bursts August 30, 2017 by Robert Sanders A sequence of 14 of the 15 detected bursts illustrate their dispersed spectrum and extreme variability. The streaks across the colored energy plot are the bursts appearing at different times and different energies because of dispersion caused by 3 billion years of travel through intergalactic space. In the top frequency spectrum, the dispersion has been removed to show the 300 microsecond pulse spike. Capturing this diverse set of bursts was made possible by the broad bandwidth that can be processed by the Breakthrough Listen backend at the Green Bank Telescope. Credit: University of California - Berkeley Breakthrough Listen, an initiative to find signs of intelligent life in the universe, has detected 15 brief but powerful radio pulses emanating from a mysterious and repeating source – FRB 121102 – far across the universe. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-08-distant-galaxy-high-energy-radio.html#jCp

Australia probably not, and closer to certainly not. On the rest of your statement, I would just say, let's hope wiser heads prevail and what you predict will prove to be wrong.

I do not see anything in the abstract with regards to forcing people to take this drug. Oh, OK, perhaps I read to much in your first quoted statement. My opinion? Xenophobia is a prime cause of war, fighting, persecution and unjust prejudices against other races or people. As such it is without doubt an undesirable criminal quality of human kind. I certainly am not saying that this drug should be forced on Xenophobics and racists, but it certainly is worth noting that in many parts of the world, irrevocable male sex offenders that have rejected all normal attempts at reforming their criminality, are forcibly, chemically castrated. In saying that, I'm still [as it appears do others] uncertain of your question or stance on this issue. On another forum I once participated in, we had many anti science, fanatical IDers, xenophobics, YEC's and such that would try and bull doze their general nonsense onto the rest of the forum, without any scientific evidence to support their stance. They were easy to deal with obviously. But then again we also had the more insideous closeted anti science dudes, IDers, that would pretend to ask questions while at the same time no intention of really accepting any answer. I would certainly hope that given your uncertain stance on your thread, that you are not likewise a closeted xenophobic or racist, with no intention of really accepting any answer that will rightly criticise any and all forms of xenophobia and racism. I'm sure you are not. I'm sure you agree that this world would be far better off, if all forms of xenophobia and racism, whether religion driven or for any other reason, is eliminated.

yeah, that plonker in his wheel chair, should be someone in whose book you need to take a leaf out of...as should most of us, considering that most of us in his position and informed at 21 years of age, he had a severe form of ALS and he only had 2 years to live, would have withered up and died achieving SFA. ps: and its Hawking btw.

I see that as a reasonably valid assumption...analogous to a water wave hitting a pier leg, and traversing around it.

As per what I said and which you quoted..... It is still conceivable that a flat universe need not be infinite [a possible torus shape] Either way try thinking of infinity as simply being beyond our ability to measure within any degree of accuracy. Again we really are unable to determine whether the universe is finite or infinite, but again we can say that the universe, the whole universe, is somewhere between humongously big and infinite in size and extent...either way, too big for us simple humans to make any real measurable quantities, if even we were able to. Also again, the BB is not a model of how the universe started or was created....It is a descriptive model of how space and time [as we know them] henceforth known as spacetime/universe evolved from a hotter, denser state beginning at around 10-43 seconds after any proposed event. The rest of the universe beyond the observable universe, as Strange has said, is beyond any causal effect and can have no known effect on our observable sphere.

Let's remember that a BH is just critically curved spacetime, with the mass in some unknown state at the core. Let's also remember that when two BH's collide/merge, the spacetime enveloped by their respective EH's would initially form a dumb bell like shape [depending on angle of trajectory] with much ringing down [similar to a bowl of jelly when shaken] until they settled into one larger BH, creating gravitational waves also, and as has been recently discovered. Considering the above, I would guess that any gravitational wave from another source that meets a BH, would be partially absorbed by the BH, while the rest of the gravitational wave travelled merrily on its way. The following link may give you an answer....http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/home.html In the meantime, don't forget to publish any answers/replies you receive from LIGO.

What anomalies do you see with GR? Considering that in recent times, it has become even more entrenched as its predictions are verified.eg: Gravitational waves, orbital motions of stars orbiting close to Sagitarius A. Of course GR has limited parameters and is non applicable at the quantum scale, just as any scientific theory has zones of applicability. DM of course is necessary to explain anomalous rotation of stars in outer galaxies and was certainly originally a fudge factor: Since then of course more evidence has been forthcoming to support its existence.....http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_082106.html To say that DM "disqualifies GR is like throwing the baby out with the bath water......GR is overwhelmingly supported by experimental and observational evidence, including what I have already detailed........DM works with GR and all we need to do is put an actual finger on it along with the observational evidence so far. DE is certainly a mystery as yet, but could possibly be the cosmological constant of Einstein fame, Again though it will take observational and experimental evidence to over throw GR and/or having it falsified: Making claims with limited credentials in a book is not evidence. Again I'm pretty sure if there was any validity to what you seem to be claiming or this Beckmann blokes claims, the there would be a hoard of fully qualified physicists, conducting experiments, making observations, and doing tests for any real evidence of errors/anomalies in GR. And then of course as I have seen before, also many unqualified with various agendas also for whatever reasons trying to also unseat Einstein and SR/GR. http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gravitating_misconceptions.html It's also worth remembering the rushed mistaken claims of BICEP2, and who showed it to be wanting and the published findings questionable...It wasn't anyone writing a book, or claims on an open public forum, It was other professional scientists, physicists and cosmologists that showed it to be possibly false.

Nothing is perfect, including science and the scientific methodology, but it is by far the best we have. While to some extent, sometimes alternative approaches,(particularly alternative to GR or the BB) are hard to get to see the light of day, that stems from the fact that theories such as GR have continually made successful predictions such as gravitational waves and even more recently, the orbital parameters of stars orbiting close to the Milky Way's SMBH. But again with the number of ongoing tests of our incumbent theories, and the number of young up and coming physicists that would dearly love to extend the parameters of the BB and/or GR, if anything was to surface and really shown to be more accurate then the incumbent, no amount of pedestalization, or stone walling, or attempts at shutting down, will ever be maintained for too long. String theory and/or any of its derivitives are in my opinion just in a hiatus, due to the fact that their validity is impossible to verify as we as yet do not have the technology to observe and/or measure at such scales....whether one of them proves to be a QGT remains to be seen. I see Beckmann is an electrical engineer, and while that does not disqualify him, it still puts him behind the eight ball so to speak. At this time the holy grail of physics is a validated TOE/QGT: A TOE/QGT that by definition will be more accurate then Einsteins GR, but you can also bet your short n curlies that it will also encompass GR and the BB itself.

Of course, and by the way Einstein is questioned every day by the experts in the field, which obviously Beckmann is not. As has already been conveyed to you, if anyone did have a hypothesis that either invalidated an incumbent theory, or explained more then the incumbent theory, that "anyone" would not be publishing it in a book...If he seriously had a workable hypothesis that did what he claimed, he would proceed by writing a proper scientific paper, for proper professional peer review. I mentioned it the other day in another thread, that in my time on another forum, we had over a couple of years , four "would be's if they could be's" each claiming to have overthrown Einstein's GR, and each after much questioning and probing by other members, were found to have agendas...in three of those it was a closeted ID/religious agenda that finally surfaced. The impetus that drives these type is the fact that science has pushed back any need for any deity into near oblivion, and they are driven to try and expose the science, particularly SR,GR and general cosmology as in error. The fourth was just a down and out anti science nut. You may not have an ulterior motive, but as you have been informed, there is a proper procedure for anyone to go through, if they had anything of any consequence and were fair dinkum. Let me say that I see that chance as vanishingly small, as relativity and the mathematical validation that goes with it, is rather complicated.

Agreed it is as yet just a theoretical construct. But theoretical cosmologists are still looking for a complete scenario to explain some of the heavy elements that we do see. Also promordial BH's are themselves still theoretical, although many believe that they would have abounded at and just after the BB. And there still are other scenarios that are being investigated, such as hypernova ect. The point is of course we do have these heavy elements and we are still trying to find out the exact mechanism of how they were forged. We also have observed binary Neutron star combinations, Neutron star/BH binary systems, or Neutron star/White Dwarf, and even binary BH's as detailed with recent discoveries of gravitational waves. So no, interactions with Neutron stars and BH's is not any fanciful situation. With the new physics/cosmology of GW's, more hard evidence for explaining fully the heavy element observations, may be forthcoming in the course of time.

Apologies first up: It seems I posted reference to this a couple of weeks ago at http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/108564-r-process-nucleosynthesis/#comment-1005697 Off goes my head, on goes a pumpkin! Perhaps a mod might like to merge? or delete one or the other?

Da, da, da! Anna Netrebko - Meine Lippen sie Kussen so heiss

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-theory-heavy-elements-primordial-black.html New theory suggests heavy elements created when primordial black holes eat neutron stars from within (Phys.org)—A team of researchers at the University of California has come up with a new theory to explain how heavy elements such as metals came to exist. The group explains their theory in a paper published in the journal Physical Review Letters—it involves the idea of primordial black holes (PBHs) infesting the centers of neutron stars and eating them from the inside out. https://phys.org/news/2017-08-theory-heavy-elements-primordial-black.html :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The paper: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.061101 Primordial Black Holes and r-Process Nucleosynthesis ABSTRACT We show that some or all of the inventory of r-process nucleosynthesis can be produced in interactions of primordial black holes (PBHs) with neutron stars (NSs) if PBHs with masses 10−14  M⊙<MPBH<10−8  M⊙ make up a few percent or more of dark matter. A PBH captured by a NS sinks to the center of the NS and consumes it from the inside. When this occurs in a rotating millisecond-period NS, the resulting spin-up ejects ∼0.1  M⊙–0.5  M⊙ of relatively cold neutron-rich material. This ejection process and the accompanying decompression and decay of nuclear matter can produce electromagnetic transients, such as a kilonova-type afterglow and fast radio bursts. These transients are not accompanied by significant gravitational radiation or neutrinos, allowing such events to be differentiated from compact object mergers occurring within the distance sensitivity limits of gravitational-wave observatories. The PBH-NS destruction scenario is consistent with pulsar and NS statistics, the dark-matter content, and spatial distributions in the Galaxy and ultrafaint dwarfs, as well as with the r-process content and evolution histories in these sites. Ejected matter is heated by beta decay, which leads to emission of positrons in an amount consistent with the observed 511-keV line from the Galactic center.

I already have made reference to that finding at another thread entitled. "More Confirmation of GR" http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/108872-more-confirmation-of-gr/#comment-1009127 Gravitational lensing of course is an effect predicted by GR. It is simply the effect of gravity (warped spacetime) on light from a more distant object by intervening object/s, including DM. The distant object appears distorted and in many cases multiple images of it are observed. The Einstein Cross effect is a great example. The straightest path taken by light through warped/curved spacetime is called geodsics. Einstein predicted a number of effects that would follow from GR, the first being his successful prediction of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbital parameter, and the apparent deflection of light as it passes near the gravitational field of another body. This was confirmed by Eddington during a total solar eclipse in 1919, when the light from a distant star was seen to be shifted from its position when viewed at night without the Sun's intervening effects. In this relevant case it is the effects of the gravity and warping spacetime from a SMBH on the orbital parameters of a close orbiting star.