beecee

As a lay person, I included the paper Abstract simply to elaborate on the article itself, so I would say that it adds validity and reputability to that article, remembering that sometimes "pop science articles" can sometimes be misleading, in their efforts to simplify. I believe the following would some up the abstract and paper...... In essence, the data simply again reinforced the accuracy of GR, and its correctness within its zone of applicability. I once was a part of another forum, where at least four "would be's if they could be's" all claimed to different degrees that GR was wrong, and yet all they were proficient in doing was spreading their agenda laden anti Einstein nonsense on public forums and insidiously avoiding proper publication and proper professional peer review.

The observable universe is simply that part of the universe that EMR from distant regions has had time to reach us: If the universe is infinite, then by definition it stretches far beyond anything we can or will ever be able to measure. The evidence so far tells us that the universe/spacetime is isotropic and homogeneous, at least for the observable universe and we (scientists that is) have no reason to believe that would not extend everywhere. The CMBR would be the same over there as it is here. Logically the universe as a whole, extends beyond our observable horizon in all directions, and probably to infinite quantities. There are no edges or centers to any reasonable current model of the universe/spacetime, either finite or infinite. Our assumptions on the isotropic and homogeneous nature of the universe tells us that they should be the same. Analogies while certainly being useful, all have limitations. Your second question is simply physics and as Strange has said, is just the relationship between volume, pressure and temperatures and is evidenced in many ways in our general day to day living.. I must admit my understanding of infinite and infinite quantities is lacking somewhat and I was advised back in the thread to read up on this topic which I intend to do. In the meantime my limited research so far tells me that infinity exist when relevant quantities are stretched far beyond what we will ever be capable of measuring and/or knowing: I am certainly more comfortable with that definition so far. Remember even when cosmologists speak of a physical BH singularity, or the BB singularity, they are not automatically inferring infinite quantities, although such singularities may lead to infinite quantities. I welcome any comment from any reputable source as to the validity or otherwise of what I have posted above...any errors, alterations and/or corrections?

The Universe, and us are the best examples of coincidences...if things had not been exactly as they are, (universal constants) we would not be here...And even more importantly () if the Sun was not approximately 400 times further away then the Moon, and if it was not approximately 400 times diametrically bigger, those lucky people in the US would not have had the awesome experience of viewing a total eclipse the other day. eg: in the far distant future, solar eclipses will be impossible, as the Moon drifts further away from Earth and only Annular eclipses possible.

Again, the BB applies to the observable universe, and the observable universe is then logically a spherical shell encompassing all that we are able to see from our vantage point on Earth, and is governed by the speed of light that has had the time to reach us since the evolution/expansion of the universe/spacetime, Likewise if we could magically transport ourselves to a galaxy near the edge of our observable universe, any prospective beings in that galaxy would also have their own spherical observational universe that would encompass us in one direction. The expansion of the universe/spacetime is of course equal in all directions.

Funny thing,(that's funny peculiar, not funny ha ha) that the OP author has never bothered to return to support his speculative nonsense with evidence, and yet lo and behold we just happen to have another pop up out of nowhere singing its praises.

No it is not necessary...It is simply one speculative answer and a non scientific answer as well. Scientists continue to explore, experiment, observe, and just as we now know [without ever being there] that the distant twinkles we see in the night sky are just other stars similar more or less to our Sun, so to in time, we may know more detail of the evolution of the Universe. Again, reasonable speculation tells us the Universe arose from nothing...https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/ I see far more logic in that explanation, rather then clinging to mythical beliefs about some magic being/deity. Ancient man may have needed such myths even to explain the natural cycles of day and night, but we now know better.

You've asked some difficult questions, which I am unable to explain any better then the link I gave at......http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Perhaps some confusion again is our understanding of "infinite" and that certainly applies to your's truly! ....Does it really mean something with no ending and no beginning, or is it simply something whose boundaries are unknown and can never be known? The BB is not a theory of the creation of the universe: It is a theory of how the universe/spacetime evolved from t+10-43 seconds, from a hotter, denser state. It is also a theory pertaining to the observable universe. Again the BB describes the observable universe or that part of the universe contained by the speed of light and the time it has taken to reach us since the BB. I also believe your question re the infinite universe is explained in the link. It doesn't. It describes the evolution of spacetime from 10-43 seconds post t, to what we are able to observe today. If the Universe is infinite, it would always have had to be infinite, and going back in time would just shorten the distances between any two points, up to around t+10-43 seconds. Also the singularity from whence the BB arose, does not necessarily invoke a dimensionless point in spacetime...It is simply where quantities such as density and temperatures have merged. I hope that makes some sense. Other then the links I have given, I'm not able to explain it any better, as a lay person. Perhaps one of our more professional members are able to elaborate on what I have said and what the links you yourself have given and the two of mine.

It was certainly eerie to say the least! My only question is while I am able to understand the apparent sudden temperature drop, why the sudden, seemingly pick up of wind or breeze? An Annular eclipse occurs when the Moon is at apogee which would give a full view of the Sun's corona and surface, while blocking out the vast majority of the Sun....I reckon that would be spectacular.

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-dino-killing-asteroid-earth-years-darkness.html Tremendous amounts of soot, lofted into the air from global wildfires following a massive asteroid strike 66 million years ago, would have plunged Earth into darkness for nearly two years, new research finds. This would have shut down photosynthesis, drastically cooled the planet, and contributed to the mass extinction that marked the end of the age of dinosaurs. extract: Scientists also calculate that the force of the impact would have launched vaporized rock high above Earth's surface, where it would have condensed into small particles known as spherules. As the spherules fell back to Earth, they would have been heated by friction to temperatures high enough to spark global fires and broil Earth's surface. A thin layer of spherules can be found worldwide in the geologic record.Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-08-dino-killing-asteroid-earth-years-darkness.html#jCp the paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/08/15/1708980114 On transient climate change at the Cretaceous−Paleogene boundary due to atmospheric soot injections: Significance A mass extinction occurred at the Cretaceous−Paleogene boundary coincident with the impact of a 10-km asteroid in the Yucatán peninsula. A worldwide layer of soot found at the boundary is consistent with global fires. Using a modern climate model, we explore the effects of this soot and find that it causes near-total darkness that shuts down photosynthesis, produces severe cooling at the surface and in the oceans, and leads to moistening and warming of the stratosphere that drives extreme ozone destruction. These conditions last for several years, would have caused a collapse of the global food chain, and would have contributed to the extinction of species that survived the immediate effects of the asteroid impact. Abstract Climate simulations that consider injection into the atmosphere of 15,000 Tg of soot, the amount estimated to be present at the Cretaceous−Paleogene boundary, produce what might have been one of the largest episodes of transient climate change in Earth history. The observed soot is believed to originate from global wildfires ignited after the impact of a 10-km-diameter asteroid on the Yucatán Peninsula 66 million y ago. Following injection into the atmosphere, the soot is heated by sunlight and lofted to great heights, resulting in a worldwide soot aerosol layer that lasts several years. As a result, little or no sunlight reaches the surface for over a year, such that photosynthesis is impossible and continents and oceans cool by as much as 28 °C and 11 °C, respectively. The absorption of light by the soot heats the upper atmosphere by hundreds of degrees. These high temperatures, together with a massive injection of water, which is a source of odd-hydrogen radicals, destroy the stratospheric ozone layer, such that Earth’s surface receives high doses of UV radiation for about a year once the soot clears, five years after the impact. Temperatures remain above freezing in the oceans, coastal areas, and parts of the Tropics, but photosynthesis is severely inhibited for the first 1 y to 2 y, and freezing temperatures persist at middle latitudes for 3 y to 4 y. Refugia from these effects would have been very limited. The transient climate perturbation ends abruptly as the stratosphere cools and becomes supersaturated, causing rapid dehydration that removes all remaining soot via wet deposition. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Probably a well known occurrence, so why did I post it? I believe it shows the power of science, the scientific method, and logical reasoning.

Which was what I was trying to say, albeit rather poorly. My apologies Airbrush, as Mordred has said, that is an older definition that has not been updated. What Strange and Mordred say is correct...It depends on non trivial topology such as torus shape. More detailed answers given here.... https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/123674/why-does-a-flat-universe-imply-an-infinite-universe

Abiogenesis of course is really the only scientific answer as to explaining life...My question would be did it occur more then once throughout the universe, and on which you touched. And was Earth a cradle for it? Or did and does Panspermia play a part? I would explain the Fermi paradox by simply invoking the two great barriers inhibiting the discovery of ETL, time and distance...

While it is perfectly true that scientists have not proven the non existence of any deity, isn't it also true that ID and deities are non scientific solutions to any questions? Which supports your first statement thus........ And of course nothing is really proven in science, a fact that some of our more ignorant fundamentalists will always hang their hat on.

Hi jimmy...Comments are of course welcome from anyone...I specifically mentioned experts because I'm only an amateur lay person myself.

Quite possible. I certainly have not read it all. I have been busy over the last few days...Most of my comments were simply elaborating on certain excerpts. Your above for instance is certainly something I can live with.

I didn't say you had. In fact I'm agreeing with you. I'm simply pointing out that extreme views either side of the political/religious spectrum are inevitably dangerous, and is why I don't like labels.

The results from the WMAP show the universe/spacetime to be very nearly flat, at least within very small error bars. A flat universe denotes an infinite universe. Of course it is also possible that an even more accurate methodology may see that flatness as simply the small part of a much larger curvature. https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html The BB applies to the observable universe and the evolution of spacetime as we know it. The 13.83 billion years is the age of the observable universe. The BB again was the evolution of space and time ( as we know them) from a hotter, denser state, which we now see at a 2.7K temperature. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

I may just give that a go. In the meantime do you (or anyone else) accept that as per the "nothing" definition, we just do not yet have a good handle of what infinity means and entails.

There are radical elements on either side of the political/religious and any other spectrum. Both extremities are undoubtedly wrong. If it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck.......Let me elaborate. I don't believe we need religion to tell how to behave, how to treat others, how murder is wrong, how taking what I know to belong to another is wrong....and by the same token, I do not accept being labelled a lefty or leaning to the left, because I accept that all people are basically equal, or that the President of the USA is a liar, or that the President of North Korea is a nut and that the North Korean population are hidden from the truth, or that the KKK are an evil abomination. To me at least, all that is painfully obvious and I do not need to put political spin on it. And of course the Catholic church now has legitimized the acceptance of the BB and also the theory of Evolution of life. They did that because the evidence supporting both concepts is overwhelming. My Mrs is a true blue dinky di practising Christian, and we have been married now in excess of 40 years. She even has her choir group at our place once a month for practise, [with my OK by the way] and I will welcome them all then proceed to my man cave to watch the football. She tolerates my beliefs or non beliefs, and I tolerate hers...no problems at all. Some of the best people in the world are Christians like her....Some of the worst arseholes in the world are also Christians: Some of the best and most intelligent people in the world are Atheists: Some of the worst most intelligent people in the world are also Atheists.

We once also thought it was necessary as an explanation for the stars, the planets etc...now we know better and science/cosmology has pushed that mythical necessity back to at least 10-43 seconds after the BB. And of course as our friend Carl Sagan said if you watched my video link, logically it is then valid to apply your "necessary entity" to spacetime and the universe itself or that from whence it arose.

Your terminology (aleph-one) did have me scratching my head....I am a strictly amateur and lay person as far as cosmology and the sciences are concerned. All I will add is that according to the BB the universe is not expanding into anything...it is everything. Again I don't believe we are or can be totally familiar with the term "infinite" and that also applies to our definition of "nothing" from whence the BB arose.

No, I'm describing a universe as evidenced, that is expanding over large scales and will continue to expand...at least at this time we have no reason to believe anything contrary, ánd I don't believe the universe being infinite in anyway affects that....as per my reasoning. What I said was it does not compute with me...And any disagreement or debate on the issue is probably a result of our less then positive understanding of infinite and why that would curtail infinite expansion. You imo, seem to be saying that an infinite universe, will not undergo expansion for an infinite time I don't see it that way.

That does not compute with me I'm afraid. If we cut an infinite universe in half, each half is still infinite, correct? So why then cannot an infinite universe not expand or stretch if you will? According to the BB, the universe is all there is...it is expanding into nothing, just as it has no borders or edges. Again I see the fact that the concept of infinity itself is the problem. An infinite universe still expanding/stretching, may seem to be against our intuition, but the universe does not really give a damn about our limited intuition.

http://www.sciencealert.com/stars-orbiting-a-supermassive-black-hole-may-have-finally-confirmed-general-relativity Stars Orbiting a Supermassive Black Hole May Have Finally Confirmed General Relativity: If you really, really want to scrutinise the limits of Einstein's general theory of relativity, there's a unique testing ground you ought to know about, although it's a little out of the way. The galactic centre – the heart of the Milky Way, some 26,000 light-years from Earth – hosts a supermassive black hole with a mass 4 million times that of the Sun. Now, for the first time, scientists have accurately recorded the orbits of stars around this giant void, and the results suggest Einstein was right all along. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< the paper: http://www.eso.org/public/archives/announcements/pdf/ann17051b.pdf Investigating the Relativistic Motion of the Stars Near the Supermassive Black Hole in the Galactic Center. Abstract: The S-star cluster in the Galactic center allows us to study the physics close to a supermassive black hole, including distinctive dynamical tests of general relativity. Our best estimates for the mass of and the distance to Sgr A* using the three stars with the shortest period (S2, S38, and S55/S0-102) and Newtonian models are MBH = (4.15 ± 0.13 ± 0.57) × 106 Me and R0 = 8.19 ± 0.11 ± 0.34 kpc. Additionally, we aim at a new and practical method to investigate the relativistic orbits of stars in the gravitational field near Sgr A* . We use a first-order postNewtonian approximation to calculate the stellar orbits with a broad range of periapse distance rp. We present a method that employs the changes in orbital elements derived from elliptical fits to different sections of the orbit. These changes are correlated with the relativistic parameter defined as ϒ ≡ rs/rp (with rs being the Schwarzschild radius) and can be used to derive ϒ from observational data. For S2 we find a value of ϒ = 0.00088 ± 0.00080, which is consistent, within the uncertainty, with the expected value of ϒ = 0.00065 derived from MBH and the orbit of S2. We argue that the derived quantity is unlikely to be dominated by perturbing influences such as noise on the derived stellar positions, field rotation, and drifts in black hole mass

Cosmologists agree and the BB tells us that the observable universe has no center to speak of,(as all of spacetime was packed within the singularity from whence the BB arose) and also no edge or barrier.....Our spacetime is all their is according to the BB, there is no outside. And while accepting the universe is expanding, I agree that the next intuitive question would be what is it expanding into? But I've also been taught that sometimes the universe does not adhere to what our intuition tells us.....perhaps the question is irrelevant, or invalid as much as the apparent intuitive question re the boundary or edge...I actually believe the problem is more with trying to get our head around what "infinity" means. These seem to me at this time, questions we just do not have a validated scientific answer to at this time. I'm more relaxed with accepting that the universe is finite in extent and content but very very big, and that our spacetime is all there is.

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-atlas-evidence-light-by-light.html ATLAS observes direct evidence of light-by-light scattering: August 15, 2017 by Katarina Anthony Physicists from the ATLAS experiment at CERN have found the first direct evidence of high energy light-by-light scattering, a very rare process in which two photons – particles of light – interact and change direction. The result, published today in Nature Physics, confirms one of the oldest predictions of quantum electrodynamics (QED). "This is a milestone result: the first direct evidence of light interacting with itself at high energy," says Dan Tovey(University of Sheffield), ATLAS Physics Coordinator. "This phenomenon is impossible in classical theories of electromagnetism; hence this result provides a sensitive test of our understanding of QED, the quantum theory of electromagnetism."Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-08-atlas-evidence-light-by-light.html#jCp http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys4208.html?foxtrotcallback=true Evidence for light-by-light scattering in heavy-ion collisions with the ATLAS detector at the LHC Abstract: Light-by-light scattering (γγ γγ) is a quantum-mechanical process that is forbidden in the classical theory of electrodynamics. This reaction is accessible at the Large Hadron Collider thanks to the large electromagnetic field strengths generated by ultra-relativistic colliding lead ions. Using 480 μb−1 of lead–lead collision data recorded at a centre-of-mass energy per nucleon pair of 5.02 TeV by the ATLAS detector, here we report evidence for light-by-light scattering. A total of 13 candidate events were observed with an expected background of 2.6 ± 0.7 events. After background subtraction and analysis corrections, the fiducial cross-section of the process Pb + Pb (γγ) Pb(∗) + Pb(∗)γγ, for photon transverse energy ET > 3 GeV, photon absolute pseudorapidity |η| < 2.4, diphoton invariant mass greater than 6 GeV, diphoton transverse momentum lower than 2 GeV and diphoton acoplanarity below 0.01, is measured to be 70 ± 24 (stat.) ± 17 (syst.) nb, which is in agreement with the standard model predictions.