beecee

Like I have said before, science is a discipline in eternal progress, and changes according to new observations, allowed by improved visuals and technology: Your problems imo are twofold....delusions of grandeur and a religious agenda.....that blinds you to the beauty of science and what it has achieved, what will be achieved in the future, and is the impetus for your obviously continued evangelistic mission against anything scientific.

Far closer to the mark then my last post.

No argument there. The elementary particle of EMR, is the photon which includes light. We have absolutely no knowledge of anything before 10-43 seconds after the BB event. We are able to reasonably speculate, sure, but what you speculate does not appear reasonable to me at least...gobbldydook, yes maybe. Fluctuations in the quantum foam from which the BB emerged is far more scientific reasoning.

Bingo!! I have said that many times, that a united International effort will facilitate us finally putting man on Mars and spread the costs. The ISS has shown how that can work. It would also be nice to see the Chinese involved and sharing their obvious expertise with that of the rest of the world.

You do not have a point: Obviously you do though have a somewhat skewed opinion. It was a Catholic Jesuit priest that first deduced the BB based on observational evidence. That immediatley showed the bible as a total book of fiction, myth and fairy tale stories. The Catholic church also now accept the BB and also the evolution of life due to the overwhelming evidence supporting both theories, but likewise they hang their hat on the fact that both theories do not say anything about the origin or the actual how and why, and strangely they use that limitation to invoke a deity. Religion certainly at one time curtailed science, and not only science, it curtailed as a result, the advancement of humanity during what we call the dark ages. Religion may also in isolated cases still curtail science to some small degree, but overall science continues to advance in all areas and pushes any need of any magical Spaghetti monster back into near oblivion. At the stages of science we are at today, no mythical religious matters will ever have any lasting impact on science...In isolated cases, to some small degree, for a limited time, maybe. But we have tasted the fruits of science now, and the incredible benefits it has showered upon us, and that will never be impacted or hindered again to any great degree. As we explore our solar system, as we learn and improve technology, as in time [I believe] it will be shown that life does exist elsewhere in the universe beyond this fart arse little blue orb, religion and any ID concept will vanish into oblivion. Science is a discipline in continued progress, as I have said before...religion is not.

Firstly gravity itself is modeled on spacetime that is warped, curved, or twisted. Your description in part seems similar to the river/waterfall model of BHs as modeled in the following paper....... https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0411060.pdf The river model of black holes Andrew J. S. Hamilton ∗ and Jason P. Lisle JILA and Dept. Astrophysical & Planetary Sciences, Box 440, U. Colorado, Boulder CO 80309, USA "This paper presents an under-appreciated way to conceptualize stationary black holes, which we call the river model. The river model is mathematically sound, yet simple enough that the basic picture can be understood by non-experts. In the river model, space itself flows like a river through a flat background, while objects move through the river according to the rules of special relativity. In a spherical black hole, the river of space falls into the black hole at the Newtonian escape velocity, hitting the speed of light at the horizon. Inside the horizon, the river flows inward faster than light, carrying everything with it. We show that the river model works also for rotating (Kerr-Newman) black holes, though with a surprising twist. As in the spherical case, the river of space can be regarded as moving through a flat background. However, the river does not spiral inward, as one might have anticipated, but rather falls inward with no azimuthal swirl at all. Instead, the river has at each point not only a velocity but also a rotation, or twist. That is, the river has a Lorentz structure, characterized by six numbers (velocity and rotation), not just three (velocity). As an object moves through the river, it changes its velocity and rotation in response to tidal changes in the velocity and twist of the river along its path. An explicit expression is given for the river field, a six-component bivector field that encodes the velocity and twist of the river at each point, and that encapsulates all the properties of a stationary rotating black hole". :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: It is also described at Professor'Hamilton's web site here.... http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html

We were not born to stagnate on this fart arse little blue Orb. And of course Earth does have a "use by date" Not to mention of course applying the same question as to when man first evolved, and why he walked out of Africa, or why he climbed Everest, and why he sailed a largely unknown Ocean to discover the Americas, and why even later sailing south over more unknown Oceans and water ways to discover Australia... In essence, because its there and discover new knowledge.

Couldn't agree more! Obviously this poster has come here with an agenda. Just one question though....What does the "H" stand for in Jesus H Christ? I always thought it was Jesus F Christ.

In actual fact, and certainly closer to the truth, it is you that needs to study astronomy/cosmology from reputable sources, and approach it without your now obvious agenda. You also seem to have that trollish, habit of ignoring all information that others have given you, and continue on with your ranting baseless, nonsensical crusade against science.

No, religion has no bearing on science although both may attempt to answer the same question/s. Science is based on observational and experimental evidence: Religion is based on myth and ignorance, stemming from the earliest evolutionary moments of humanity to try and explain the universe around him. The BB theory is the overwhelming model accepted by most because it matches what we observe and goes hand in glove with GR which also continues to match observational data and make continued successful predictions. In fact in my opinion, it is to the credit of science and scientists, that they still accept the BB, knowing that religious orginizations and people are going to hang their hat on it and claim that as the "beginning of the universe" it is the work of god and irrespective of the fact that it was first formulated by a Jesuit priest. Your other many unsubstantiated ignorant claims have been answered previously. Science in general is a discipline in continued progress, and is not held back by any mythical beliefs including your own.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/schr.html Does it? Putting together a few words that make unsubstantiated claims does not make that claim valid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics Quantum mechanics (QM; also known as quantum physicsor quantum theory), including quantum field theory, is a branch of physics which is the fundamental theory of nature at small scales and low energy levels of atoms and subatomic particles.[1]Classical physics, the physics existing before quantum mechanics, derives from quantum mechanics as an approximation valid only at large (macroscopic[2]) scales. Quantum mechanics differs from classical physics in that energy, momentum and other quantities are often restricted to discrete values (quantization), objects have characteristics of both particlesand waves (wave-particle duality), and there are limits to the precision with which quantities can be known (uncertainty principle). Quantum mechanics gradually arose from Max Planck's solution in 1900 to the black-body radiation problem (reported 1859) and Albert Einstein's 1905 paper which offered a quantum-based theory to explain the photoelectric effect (reported 1887). Early quantum theorywas profoundly reconceived in the mid-1920s. The reconceived theory is formulated in various specially developed mathematical formalisms. In one of them, a mathematical function, the wave function, provides information about the probability amplitude of position, momentum, and other physical properties of a particle. Important applications of quantum theory[3] include quantum chemistry, superconducting magnets, light-emitting diodes, and the laser, the transistor and semiconductors such as the microprocessor, medical and research imaging such as magnetic resonance imagingand electron microscopy, and explanations for many biological and physical phenomena for energy.

Many individuals come to science forums with an agenda or afflictions and will do whatever it takes to try and rubbish science in what ever way that makes sense at least to themselves and their tiny excuse for a brain. Chief among those afflictions are delusions of grandeur and chief among the agendas are often religious in nature.\As others have noted, to try and invalidate such gobbledygook and collections of sciency sounding words is hard. What I would start with is that light itself is just part of the electromagnetic spectrum that humanity has put to good use over the last century and a half. The above diagram from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum The visible part of that spectrum, that we see as light, needs of course to be reflected into our eyes for us to see as light, in relation to his claim of standing in space with your back to the Sun. In reality though, I would bet my house that this joker will not be convinced one way or the other, from his own baseless and stupid "interpretation"as to what only he claims.

While there is some variations for the collapsing accretion disk planetary formation model, [sometimes called the Nebular hypothesis] the basis of it appears now to be well accepted. One such variation is what is known as "planetary migration" of gas giants such as Jupiter. From memory this hypothesis seems to have been born with the relatively large numbers of extra solar "hot Jupiters" that have been discovered.

Thanks fellas, just a thought that popped into my head when I read the articles.....

Vinaka! [Thank you in Fijian ]

Evidence so far supports an acceleration in the expansion rate. Recollapse is unlikely I suggest. In layman's language, as the universe/spacetime expands, density of the universe falls off as the mass/energy remains constant: At the same time the impetus behind the expansion we call DE, is acting over all spacetime and consequently our universe is accelerating in its expansion rate, as the DE component overcomes the gravity of the mass/energy within. I hope that makes sense. So it looks more likely the universe will end in a cold dark lifeless state. A few many trillions of years to go yet.

I just cam across this interesting article....... https://phys.org/news/2017-07-tetrahedron.html extracts: "Thanks to an innovative ring laser design, geophysicists at LMU can now measure and monitor Earth's rotation with unprecedented accuracy. The new instrument in Fürstenfeldbruck will be formally inaugurated this week. Moreover, quantifying the minimal variations in the many different components of the Earth's motions is not solely a matter of academic interest. For example, all GPS-based navigational systems must be periodically recalibrated in order to take account of these variations, which would otherwise give rise to significant errors in determining one's position on the globe". Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-07-tetrahedron.html#jCp The article also further links to the following...... https://phys.org/news/2017-03-deep-earth-rotational-effects.html extract: "A group from the Italian National Institute for Nuclear Physics' (INFN) Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso (LNGS) are working with a research program aimed at measuring the gyroscopic precession Earth undergoes due to a relativistic effect called the Lense-Thirring effect. This program, called Gyroscopes in General Relativity (GINGER), would eventually use an array of such highly sensitive RLGS. For now, they have successfully demonstrated its prototype, GINGERino, and acquired a host of additional seismic measurements necessary in their efforts". Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-03-deep-earth-rotational-effects.html#jCp The second article is detailed in a paper at..... http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4977051 Abstract: GINGERino is a large frame laser gyroscope investigating the ground motion in the most inner part of the underground international laboratory of the Gran Sasso, in central Italy. It consists of a square ring laser with a 3.6 m side. Several days of continuous measurements have been collected, with the apparatus running unattended. The power spectral density in the seismic bandwidth is at the level of 10−10 (rad/s)/Hz⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯√10−10 (rad/s)/Hz. A maximum resolution of 30 prad/s30 prad/s is obtained with an integration time of few hundred seconds. The ring laser routinely detects seismic rotations induced by both regional earthquakes and teleseisms. A broadband seismic station is installed on the same structure of the gyroscope.First analysis of the correlation between the rotational and the translational signal is presented. OK, My question is rather simple...Could either of these highly precised instruments be able to be calibrated to observe or indicate gravitational waves? For that matter, could the GP-B have done or indicated the same thing?

Thanks for that truly in depth rundown Mordred. I would guess that not too many lay people would know about the two facts you have given an explanation of, and the property of nonlinearity. So perhaps the thread has done some good.

I once crossed swords with a person who was obviously a "professional" of sorts [at least he seemed competent in maths] when I made a comment to another that gravity makes more gravity. This is due to the property of nonlinearity of spacetime/gravity. I supported my claim with a link to the "Einstein online"site which at this time appears to be down. His "reputation" though was eventually tarnished with his rather grandiose claim that he had disproved GR and later the recently three GW discoveries did not further validate GR. Can someone give a more complete reasoning as to the question of gravity making more gravity, and the property of nonlinearity?. On another matter, I was confronted rather forcefully [don't be too concerned, I'm a tough old bastard! ] when I made the comment that light/photons exert gravity, albeit by a very small amount: That of course is due to its momentum, which again is evident with the operation of light sails for interplanetary/stellar travel. Further discussion or confirmation on that point is also welcome. Here is that link and a short extract............................. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/107918-gravity-and-all-that/ The gravity of gravity An article by Markus Pössel Contents Adding forces The building blocks of Newtonian gravity Linearity The building blocks of electrodynamics Goodbye to the building blocks: Energy as a source of gravity General relativity: a theory with non-linear laws Further Information One reason why the physics of general relativity is much more difficult than that of Newton's theory of gravity or the theory of electrodynamicsis a property called non-linearity. In short, gravity can beget further gravity - where gravitational systems are concerned, the whole is not the sum of its parts.

Alfen was the formulator of the Plasma/Electric universe hypothesis if I recall correctly, and yes I also read the book based on that by Eric J Lerner called "The BB Never Happened"...the points he raised supposedly discrediting the BB was just fabrication and do not match observations near as well as the standard BB model. The highly educated priest you speak of George LaMaitre was an astronomer and a physicist, and he simply applied the scientific methodology to arrive at the BB: While it certainly left the door open for the Catholic church and other religious sorts to hang their hat on and claim some ID beginning, it is a credit to cosmology that they did not let such unsavoury tactics sway them......They simply followed the line of evidence. Another point you made need to consider is that most physicists today do not accept the mathematical point singularity as valid, but rather just a level where current laws of physics and GR are non applicable. The BB was the evolution of space and time, [as we know them] henceforth known as spacetime, from a hot dense state and 13 .8 billion years later we are left with the fossil heat at 2.73K. It of course is quite admirable to think for ones self and have an open mind, but remember, lay people like you and I do not have access to the Planck satellite, or COBE or WMAP, or any of the other state of the art equipement that the professional cosmologists do. And of course the BB singularity, or where our models break down are at t+10-43 seconds, back from that we are only able to speculate, but in saying that much of the scientific reasoning and logic follows that the BB arose from a fluctuation in the quantum foam>That seems to be the nothingness that they say the BB arose from, certainly far more reasonable and logic then any form of ID.

But zero does not mean the same thing as nothing. Zero is a number while nothing is something that in my opinion has yet to be defined accurately.....eg: Is the vacuum of space nothing:No....I have said it elsewhere that one's definition of nothing, sometimes can be compromised by one's specific beliefs. Are quantum fluctuations nothing? Remembering of course that quantum fluctuations occurred before spacetime [as we know them] came into existence. Maths by the way, while being an abstract quantity, is simply the language of physics/science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy Can I add to my previous post........ Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle would be relevant in my opinion, and remembering that there is a limit to the precision and accuracy with which two aspects of the physical properties of any particle, can be known.

I couldn't agree more with that ultra wise comment. Just for the record, my Mrs [we have been married for 42 years] is very highly religious and a Christian in the true sense of the word.....she mostly tolerates me, and I tolerate her...in fact she even has her choir group around once a month for singing practise......I at that time adjourn to my man cave and watch the match of the day Rugby League. game. I don't mind her saying a prayer for me on occasion. but that's as far as any preaching ever gets. Our only Son, now grown up and married, went to a Catholic school [my decision as I saw the education system in my country apply far more discipline then government run private schools. I also went to a Catholic school and as far as I know, am still in name anyway a Catholic...unless the Pope unbeknowns to me, has excommunicated me.

As I would say, has any area of human discipline and ology. The trick is being able to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

The only book I have read of Paul Davis was "Superforce" : I also remember him receiving the Templeton award later on. As a lay person and certainly not well versed in science, any explanations that I may or have given, that you or other experts deem as wrong, I certainly hope that is brought to my attention. Bringing science to the masses is though important, and the most recognised presenters that I have mentioned, all do a great job in that regard, although I have heard some criticism of Brian Cox [who is now involved with the LHC] and Michio Kaku. One thing that sticks in my mind and was mentioned in the article that I linked to, was the headlines in "pop science" journals that Stephen Hawking had said "BHs do not exist" I mean you could have knocked me over with a feather! As usual and as you and others have indicated, It was nothing more then sensationalistic journalism of the worst kind. After I did my own further research, I was quite relieved to find out that is all it was, and in actual fact all Hawking had said, was in regards to the nature of the EH, quantum aspects and a firewall.

Let me say from the outset, that I am a relative newbie and a lay person to boot, but one that has read up on plenty of cosmology and GR by reputable authors. I also started a thread yesterday on what some refer to as "pop science" and while extolling pop science presenters such as Carl Sagan and Neil De-Grasse Tyson, I also stated that if one is really interested or concerned about any aspects of current cosmology, he then certainly needs a more professional rundown. Now that I have said that, let me answer in my layman's fashion a few of the misconceptions you appear to have. Firstly, how can you sit there with a straight face and say the BB is not or very rarely challenged? That is simply wrong...Back in the early fifties the BB was on level terms with two other hypothesis on how the universe came to be...[1] The Oscillating theory, and [2] The Steady State of Freddy Hoyle notoriety. But guess what? as evidence was gathered the BB was the only one of the three that rose above the pack so to speak, and the other two sunk into oblivion. Then another astronomer proposed a mechanism he called "Electric or Plasma universe" and a book was published called "the BB never happened" by Eric J Lerner. Most of the points in that book that the supporters of this new idea were raising were all explained away and again the BB remained as the accepted mainstream model. It has continued to grow in stature and although some nagging little inconsistencies may remain, overall the evidence supporting the BB is overwhelming. And of course the fact that it and GR are so complimentary of each other, is further evidence of why it remains as overwhelmingly supported. You also mention truth...Science/cosmology constructs models that reflect what we see"and makes successful predictions and matches further observations, irrespective of what you see as truth or for that matter what I see as truth. Your suggestion of ID and a god is nothing more then a superfluous mythical idea that early man in his ignorance proposed, and that now through science, [despite the so called problems that you have raised] has largely been discarded. Plus of course anything supernatural and/or paranormal simply are not science nor align with the scientific methodology. Let me finish with my own personal observation: The stage we are at now, cosmology is able to reasonably paint us a picture of the universe from 10-43 seconds after the actual BB event, with the evolution of spacetime, the decoupling of the "Superforce", the creation of our first fundamental particles, the first element, stars, planets, the rest of the elements, Abiogenesis, and how that life evolved, right up to the present time, and then also predict with confidence what our future solar system's history will entail, merging of our local group of galaxies, and even beyond. I think that is a testament as to how beneficial the sciences particularly cosmology and astronomy are to mankind.