beecee

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/10/how-large-is-the-observable-universe/ extract: "Interestingly, as the universe expands, the size of the observable portion will grow—but only up to a point. Gott and his colleagues showed that eventually there will be a limit to the observable universe’s radius: 62 billion light-years. Because of the accelerating expansion of the universe, galaxies are fleeing from us (and each other) at an ever-hastening pace. Consequently, over time, more and more galaxies will move beyond the observable horizon. Turning once again to our relay race analogy, we imagine that if the players get faster and faster as the race goes on, there will be more and more who were so far away when they first threw the ball that the light would never have had time to reach us". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/106042-philosophy-science-reality/page-7 A: "Not like “winking out of existence as you watch”, but yes - in the long run (very long run - billions of years), distant galaxies that we can see now will become undetectable, because the light from them will be unable to reach us. Actually, some of the galaxies we can still see are probably already “out of range”, it's just that the light that left them back when they were still “in range” is still making it's way towards us. But the last light we'll ever see from those galaxies is already “in flight”, and once the last of that light reaches us, there will never be any more. Eventually, everything except the “local cluster” of galaxies (our milky way, Andromeda, and a few more) will be out of range. The universe will be a lonely place. But that's not going to happen for trillions of years, so it's nothing to worry about - odds are we'll be long dead from any of a million other fates long before that happens".

And again just quickly, the universal speed limit, "c" applies only to anything with mass: Spacetime is not curtailed by this limit. Quite possible with regards to myself...But I aint a professional, and neither are you...Professor Krauss and most mainstream cosmologists/astrophysicists are though. As I said somewhere else, these people are at the coal face everyday, studying many aspects of observational evidence from many state of the art probes such as Planck, WMAP, etc etc, as opposed to lay people like you and I that frequent science forums, open to any Tom, Dick and Harry, speculating all we like, sometimes in ignorance.

No, again the Professor is correct. While over time the CMBR will certainly approach absolute zero, the universe is also accelerating in its expansion rate. Galaxies beyond our observational horizon are apparently moving away at FTL. As galaxies approach this horizon where recessional speeds approach and exceed "c" galaxies will be shifted beyond our viewing capabilities. This is what Professor Krauss is referring to. According to current cosmology and GR, there is no center, no edges, and no universal horizons to speak of, other then those centered about us here on Earth and our observable/particle horizon centered about us, and the fact that the same situation/s would be evident for any other beings anywhere in the universe.

Gravity and expansion are shaping our Universe.....as ignorant as we are to the exact causes of both, we do know what the results are. Over large scales, expansion will as Professor Krauss has noted, see distant galaxies move beyond our observable universe. Gravity over smaller scales will see the MW and Andromeda and our local group and beyond merge. Large scale maps of the universe, formulated by info from WMAP and other probes tell us this. What the Professor says is that the evidence we currently have for the BB, maybe largely unobservable in 600 billion years. Do you have any other explanation? We are also pretty certain that our solar system only has another 5 billion years left. Are you arguing against that diagnosis also? As a lay person, I'm reasonably confident that our cosmologists are not dragging theories out of their butt...they observe, they experiment, they then theorise.....they continually test those theories...they test them again, and again.....GR for example has made predictions that have finally been verified. Again, any "reality" or "truth" that philosophers may be obsessed with, is not really the goal of science....if by chance they stumble on truth, then all well and good. Theories and models based on experiment and observation, are tested all the time.....they also gain in certainty over time.

In my experience with science forums, those that continually raise the "proven" aspect of science, are eventually shown to have an agenda of sorts. And while science forums such as this and others remain open to any and all Tom, Dick, and Harry's. [as they should] that will always be the case. Those that matter, those that spend a good proportion of their lives studying cosmology/astrophysics, with their heads down and arses up, at the coal face, will always be the ones that advance all scientific disciplines, as opposed to idle conversations/debates on public forums. Let me add......If I really had any question re the validity or otherwise of current scientific theory, based on current observation, or if I had formulated another hypothetical model that imo was superior, I would be doing my best to brush up on all current cosmology/astrophysics, [i don't believe anyone can have a genuine theory if they are ignorant on what the current incumbent models claim] and then going through the proper circles and submitting a paper for appropriate peer review. We do not have complete knowledge of the universe as yet, but what we have achieved since the beginning of the 20th century, up to today, is extraordinary imo. Arguing against current knowledge and how we observe the universe, because of any personal agenda, or because of some philosophical reality, is not really going to achieve anything.

Can't really comment on what your wife thought she experienced, but rogue waves can happen anywhere, and are not peculiar to the so called Bermuda Triangle.

Yes certainly in both cases, but again, taking into account, the near infinite nature of the universe in extent and content, plus the fact that the stuff of life is everywhere we look, if we were it, many many more questions would be raised. The god botherers would have a field day!

No he tells us what the Universe will probably look like, based on past observational and present data, and extrapolating that forward...as these theories stand the test of time, they become "more certain" but never really proven, a word you seem preoccupied with. eg: Before the advent of the HST, scientists theorised that the probable formation of the solar system was caused by a cloud of gas and dust in space, that started to collapse.....With the HST, we have now seen this methodology in action in other distant solar systems.....so our theory has gained in certainty.....we are also pretty certain that the mechanism for stars is nuclear fusion, but we have not really ventured to the surface of star, taken a sample and tested it.

In my experience with science forums, those that continually raise the "proven" aspect of science, are eventually shown to have an agenda of sorts. And while science forums such as this and others remain open to any and all Tom, Dick, and Harry's. [as they should] that will always be the case. Those that matter, those that spend a good proportion of their lives studying cosmology/astrophysics, with their heads down and arses up, at the coal face, will always be the ones that advance all scientific disciplines, as opposed to idle conversations/debates on public forums.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of most scientists, life would certainly exist elsewhere in the Universe. In saying that though, we must also accept the fact that as yet, [other then for "the stuff of life"being everywhere we look] we have no evidence at all for that. Contact between "Intelligent species"? May happen one day, but two distinct barriers do make that hard....time and distance. If by any long stretch of the Imagination, we on Earth were it, [the only life in the universe] then it would certainly raise far many more questions then the more obvious answer.

Bingo! Abiogenisis is really the only scientific answer available to explain the origins of life in the Universe. I favour Panspermia for the seeding of life on Earth, even though as yet we do not have evidence supporting this.

I suggest you read the link I gave..... Again, there was nothing really mysterious about the so called Bermuda Triangle, that would have it stand out from other areas around the world's Oceans: What's to stop hexagon clouds from forming elsewhere....Even Saturn has them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_Triangle Sometimes one needs to consider the reputable nature of the link given. I certainly have not seen anything pertaining to the link in the OP, on any other science news site. In fact a quick search by myself found this...................... https://www.livescience.com/56622-bermuda-triangle-air-bombs-not-likely.html No, 'Honeycomb' Clouds Don't Explain Bermuda Triangle Mystery The article concludes thus......... "Equipment failure and human error are less dramatic explanations for vanished vessels in the Bermuda Triangle, but they are the most likely ones, experts say. "There is no evidence that mysterious disappearances occur with any greater frequency in the Bermuda Triangle than in any other large, well-traveled area of the ocean," the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said in a statement."

Yup....Alex Filippenko was one, and I suspect many others...... https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

OK, as a lay person, this is what I do know about BH's..... [1]Once the Schwarzchild radius is reached for any mass, further collapse is compulsory......hence the BH aspect. [2]Most scientists worth their salt, do not believe any point singularity exists, with infinite quantities such as spacetime curvature and density [3] GR fails at the quantum/Planck level, so in essence we should be able to conclude based on GR success and incredible predictability, that the "compulsory collapse"mentioned in [1] should apply at least up to the quantum/Planck realm. [4] Noting that probably point singularities do not exist, and accepting that collapse occurs at least up to the quantum/Planck level, we can imo, speculate a surface of sorts at or below that level, being obviously of incredible density and mass, and along with spacetime at those levels, possibly in some unknown form.

The so called mystery of the "Bermuda Triangle" is in effect no real mystery at all, and more often then not, just sensationalistic media hype over the years. Some facts...... Media hype and sensationalistic reporting.... Some of the so called disappearances, occurred outside the "designated" Bermuda Triangle..... It is also one of the most heavily used shipping lanes in the world..... The so called area in question, is frequented by cyclones and hurricanes..... What it is not, is some mystic supernatural, paranormal, Alien induced phenomena..... More on the Bermuda Triangle here............................. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_Triangle

No one is imposing anything on anyone, other then the application of the scientific method. While we all certainly can be "scientists" by adhering to the scientific method, the lack of "proper learning" and ignorance of the laws of physics, may lead some of us normal lay folk up the proverbial garden path, ignorant of science and the scientific method and embracing "superstition" instead. As Professor Krauss intimated, the Philosophy of science, while indispensable many centuries ago, and still the basis of the scientific method, seems now to have reached a stalemate so to speak. The "reality" or "truth" as I have said, maybe unobtainable, if it really at all exists. You, the Oak tree, Me, are star stuff as the great educator Carl Sagan said many times. That star stuff can be traced back to our first fundamentals and even spacetime. Here is a nice little video explaining the "nothing" concept and the Universe arising from that same nothing...the video is only a few short minutes and is about half way down the page: Other appropriate and relevant articles on the same page.............. https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/reality/

To add to what I said above, here is a lengthy interview with Lawrence Krauss on the criticism by Philosophers of his book, and his elaboration of his view on science, philosophy, reality/nothing........ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-consolation-of-philos/ A real good read.

I generally try and avoid pure philosophical takes on life, the universe and everything, but what the heck.... A few quotes I have come across in my time......... 'Science is the systematic classification of experience" "Science is the antidote to the poison of superstition" "Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know." "Science is not belief, but the will to find out" I see those quotes as summing up the discipline of science adequately. My own addition is that science is a discipline in continued progress. Science is not interested in reality per se, but to explain the universe around us by the construction of models: If by chance one of those models hits on this "reality"or "truth" then all well and good. On Philosophy I am generally far more ignorant: but I am aware of another quote attributed to Richard Feynman...it went something like this.... "Scientists are explorers: Philosophers are tourists" Feynman was generally dismissive of pure philosophical thought....... Someone [obviously a philosopher enraged by Feynman's dismissiveness] describes Feynamn as follows........ https://philosophynow.org/issues/114/Richard_Feynmans_Philosophy_of_Science Ben Trubody finds that philosophy-phobic physicist Feynman is an unacknowledged philosopher of science. "Richard Feynman (1918-88) was one of the greatest physicists of the twentieth century, contributing, among other things, to Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED), for which he won a Nobel Prize. His popular portrayal is of a buffooning genius with a preference for no-nonsense thinking – the sort that by his reckoning seemed in short supply within philosophy. He is noted, and quoted, for his dislike of philosophy, and in particular of the philosophy of science. Any quick trawl of the Internet will bring up quotes attributed to him on the absurdities of philosophy, no doubt informed by his brief flirtation with it at Princeton. Feynman would parody what he saw as ‘dopey’ exercises in linguistic sophistry. As he remarks in a famous lecture series, “We can’t define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers… one saying to the other: you don’t know what you are talking about! The second one says: what do you mean by ‘talking’? What do you mean by ‘you’? What do you mean by ‘know’?” (The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol.1, 1963)." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hold onto Feynman's views basically, and in my own amateurish way see science is the top rung of a ladder, leading up from religion and philosophy.....truth and reality I see as incidental and maybe unknowable at the depths that philosophical jargon go on about and as illustrated by Richard Feynman. Apologies to all philosophers out there......

Bingo! Obviously he was rightly reinforcing the importance of imagination along with knowledge: Some though with agendas, like to interpret that as having what they see as a totally open mind, and accepting the nonsense of pseudoscience, paranormal/supernatural activity and other forms of crackpottery. I found that attitude rife on another forum. While imagination and an open mind is important along with knowledge, let it not be so open that ones brains fall out.

Hmmmm...That's a sticky one......I would say he would see his image blueshifted and that of his mate speeded up, as it was reflected back towards a stronger gravitational potential, but he would also cross the EH in pretty quick time I imagine. Looking outside from inside the EH, he would see the whole universe focused in front of him due to incredible gravitational lensing. The meeting with the singularity would be in even quicker time, and when he is spaghetiffied and torn apart, depends on the size of the BH....a stellar mass BH, would have him possibly torn apart even before he crossed the EH...A SMBH like Sagitarius A, would see the tidal effects not evident until he was well on the way to the singularity.

Thanks Imatfall....I did a search myself and my memory was immediately jogged!...not bad for an old bloke! This was what I was trying to recall....... https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9704065 Detection of Lense-Thirring Effect Due to Earth's Spin I. Ciufolini, D. Lucchesi, F. Vespe, F. Chieppa (Submitted on 23 Apr 1997) Rotation of a body, according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, generates a "force" on other matter; in Newton's gravitational theory only the mass of a body produces a force. This phenomenon, due to currents of mass, is known as gravitomagnetism owing to its formal analogies with magnetism due to currents of electric charge. Therefore, according to general relativity, Earth's rotation should influence the motion of its orbiting satellites. Indeed, we analysed the laser ranging observations of the orbits of the satellites LAGEOS and LAGEOS II, using a program developed at NASA/GSFC, and obtained the first direct measurement of the gravitomagnetic orbital perturbation due to the Earth's rotation, known as the Lense-Thirring effect. The accuracy of our measurement is about 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [highlight by me] GP-B of course put the icing on the cake.

I'm sure I have read somewhere from a reputable source, that the Lense Thirring effect was detected by a Satellite of sorts before the highly precise GP-B confirmation.

ELVIS PRESLEY With The ROYAL PHILHARMONIC ORCHESTRA The Wonder Of You CD Andre Rieu & Carmen Monarcha - O Mio Babbino Caro

Great! If I'm not mistaken, that's from a concert in LA: I have it also on cd. Zubhan Metha being the conductor

The following is a track from a new cd I have purchased of the King and a lesser known German singer named Helene Fischer, backed by the London Symphony Orchestra. Wow!!! Wonderful!!!!