beecee

The following was an Andre Rieu concert I attended in Melbourne 2008....... A beautiful Aussie Angel singing an old Australian favourite about Botany Bay, where I live on the shores of...... Enjoy! You don't believe in Angels???? Here's another of the Greek variety....... One of the biggest selling female recording artists ever......and didn't need to get here gear off to achieve it!

Here is a short video by one that some would call great: I encourage all to watch it...only around 8 minutes long......

As a lay person I certainly am not qualified nor knowledgable enough to argue against some of the points you have made, other then again to refer you to Professor Hamilton's link. What I will do though is E-Mail him expressing your points of view, if that's OK with you. He, [Professor Hamilton] has been gracious enough to answer in the past. I also found this........................... https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82984/photon-stuck-on-the-event-horizon-of-a-black-hole Q: According to what I've read on special relativity, cc is the speed limit for every object in the universe, and according to Einstein, an object's speed through the three spatial dimensions plus its speed through the fourth temporal dimension always sums to cc. I once watched a video demonstrating what it would be like to fall into a black hole. At one point the author stated that if a photon was emitted directly away from the singularity and at a distance equal to the Schwarzschild radius, the photon would hover there for eternity. My question is based on these assumptions so please let me know if either is incorrect. With its motion through the spatial dimensions halted, will the photon in question not experience time at roughly the same rate we do? Will it decay? A: First, a couple things: photons do not "experience" time in general, precisely because they always travel at cc. because of the above point, photons do not decay, either. To better visualize what's happening, consider that the event horizon is a place where spacetime itself is "falling" into the black hole at the speed of light. So, if you emit a photon precisely as you pass the event horizon, the photon's physical motion through space would be exactly counteracted by the spacetime curvature at the horizon, and it would effectively "hover" at that location. However, the way that this photon would be observed is very different for different observers: The in-falling observer, who emits the photon just as she passes the event horizon, will believe that the photon is traveling away from her (at cc, as usual). However, a distant observer (far from the black hole) will never see the photon at all. Or rather, to the distant observer, the photon will appear to be infinitely redshifted. An observer who falls into the black hole after the first in-falling observer still has a chance to observe the photon (not redshifted). But more practically speaking, this kind of "equilibrium" would be highly unstable (the photon would not be able to "hover" for very long). This is because the black hole's Schwarzschild radius is always changing slightly, whether it's due to the black hole absorbing CMB radiation, or emitting Hawking radiation. So, the photon will eventually either escape, or be dragged deeper into the black hole. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Taking into account the BH consuming more matter and the EH getting bigger, or the possibility of HR evaporating the BH over time, the statement of mine about hovering "forever" early in the thread, does appear to be in error. I do see the answer as supplied, a valid response with no anomalies, but will still E-Mail Professor Hamilton:

Damned if they do, damned if they don't

I totally agree, and as I was reiterating here.... I gave an example of invalid premature announcements with the BICEP2 experiment: It was other scientists involved with another experiment, that showed them to be in error. Science is always self correcting. The gravitational wave discoveries were announced 6 months or so after their actual sightings....In the meantime checks were being put into place, to eliminate any similar error to BICEP2. I would bet my house we now have professional experimentors, still trying to find any fault with these three findings so far, and that will continue....the same way that other theories are continued to be tested. It's what happens at the coal face that counts.

Anything actually crossing the EH, could emit a photon directly radially away: A valid point though made by another, is that we cannot see this from a remote frame of reference...In fact we see nothing cross the BH EH...We don't even see a BH form! as far as I know for the same reasons.

The special case of a photon emitted directly radially away, occurs just on the EH..... http://casa.colorado...isappearingview As far as I know HR as generally accepted, occurs just this side of the EH, in particle pair creation event, where the negative falls in and the positive escapes to become real. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation extract: Hawking-Zel'dovich radiation[1] is blackbody radiation that is predicted to be released by black holes, due to quantum effects near the event horizon. It is named after the physicist Stephen Hawking, I would guess that the orientation of the particle pair creation would be crucial also.....

I'm reasonably sure that the expert and professionals involved in the detection of gravitational radiation, have allowed for all reasonable contingencies. If you have any reasonable assertion, supported by at least some evidence to show they have not allowed for all reasonable contingencies, then I would write up a scientific paper stating your case and showing by your "evidence" why their GR gravitational wave result maybe false, and submit it for appropriate professional peer review. Let us know how you go.

What a great question! One I myself asked around 12 years ago, on another now defunct forum. Firstly, a Neutron Star is not just entirely neutrons. What percentage of other particles such as protons and electrons it contains, would produce a magnetic field. It is more complicated then that though, and the following links may help explain..... https://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/questions/neutron.html https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_origin_of_the_magnetic_field_of_a_neutron_star

Logically, unless the BH is in a feeding frenzy, all we have is critically curved spacetime..up to the Singularity.

Agreed. Which brings up the interesting scenario of the photon spheres travelling in opposite directions! https://universe-review.ca/R15-17-relativity04.htm And of course the interesting concept concerning some advanced civilisation extracting useful energy from within the Ergosphere!

My point though is as I have said and referenced.....a photon emitted just on the EH, directly radially away, will never be swallowed and never get away. http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/singularity.html#disappearingview Obviously I speak of the simple garden variety of Schwarzchild BH.

That's OK and certainly correct, but also every frame of reference is as valid as any other frame.

That was my mistake.... I should have said light directed radially away on the EH. Here is a link from that other thread. http://casa.colorado...isappearingview Photons do not orbit in circles at the horizon, just skimming the surface. The place where photons orbit in circles is the photon sphere, at 1.5 Schwarzschild radii. Photons emitted at the horizon fall in; except that if a photon is emitted exactly vertically outward exactly at the horizon, then it will hover at the horizon, not moving at all. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Just to add...It mentions also the photon sphere: If you could exist there and shone a torch directly in front of you, the light would go in a circle and be reflected off the back of your head.

Our overwhelmingly best modelling of gravity, tells us that it is the warping/bending/twisting of spacetime. We can send craft to anywhere within the solar system and even beyond, we can predict with 100% accuracy any extraordinary events in the solar system controlled by gravity such as planetary alignments etc But why gravity exhibits itself when spacetime is warped/bent/twisted is as yet unknown.... The same applies to the BB/Inflationary theory of the evolution of the universe....We can reasonably discuss that evolution from t+10-43 seconds up to today with great accuracy. But as to why and how the BB took place, as yet we can only speculate. Herd prejudices are often initiated by despotic cranks, nuts, religious ratbags, pseudoscientists, and those with other agendas, that have an unhealthy rabid extreme hatred of science and scientists, for unknown reasons. In Australia we sometimes call it "Tall Poppy Syndrome" .

I see plenty of logic in what he says when taken in context with the full statement thus..... "We have several methods to make quantitative statements about the agreement between the GR prediction and the signals we measure, but I won't describe them here in detail. Note that in order to find signals in the detector noise we use templates that tell us what the waves look like, and those templates are the output of highly–advanced super-computer simulations of GR dynamics; this means that the signal cannot be too different from the GR prediction or we wouldn't have seen it at all"! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Putting it again in simple layman's terms of which I am an expert [ ] the detectors are designed to detect GW's aligning with highly advanced templates like BH/BH collisions as distinct from NS/NS collisions or NS/BH collisions as well as probably others. Worth remembering I think the BICEP2 experiment and the pre announcement from that. Later experiments by a different group of scientists showed their conclusions to be less then probably accurate and the large possibility of dust being the cause. The Professionals at aLIGO and elsewhere I'm sure would not be making the same mistake, considering the chances other ambitious scientists could pick up,if they were really mistaken. Talk and debate on science forums such as this are just that. Those at the coal face and with their heads down and collective arses up, are doing/done the hard yards. The over riding, irrefutable point is, the measured waveform agrees beautifully with the predictions of GR for a BH hole binary on now three occasions.

I don't believe there is any reasonable doubt that gravitational waves were detected...three times! On another forum I once participated in, two or three anti GR people we had were also "questioning" the aLIGO results and many questions were raised. I E-Mailed one of the Professors involved with aLIGO itself and here was his reply...... Dear Barry, My name is Maximiliano Isi and I am a member of the LIGO Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology. I also happen to be the author of one of the papers cited at the end of your message. Thank you for your interesting email and apologies for the belated reply. It is absolutely true that our observations do not allow us to fully rule out the existence of non-GR physics. This is just a consequence of the fact that experimental observations have the power to disprove theories, but not to prove them: scientific theories are falsifiable, but not demonstrable. The best we can do is to say that our measurements agree with GR up to some (high) confidence level. It is in that precise sense that we mean "Einstein was right" (a misleading phrase: we don't know whether GR is fully accurate, we just cannot prove it wrong with what we have seen). We have several methods to make quantitative statements about the agreement between the GR prediction and the signals we measure, but I won't describe them here in detail. Note that in order to find signals in the detector noise we use templates that tell us what the waves look like, and those templates are the output of highly–advanced super-computer simulations of GR dynamics; this means that the signal cannot be too different from the GR prediction or we wouldn't have seen it at all! Now, agreement with GR is not exclusive: an alternative theory might explain our observation just as well as GR or even better. Given any two competing theories (with different predictions), we can always ask which one is favored by our data, and we have well-established statistical methods to make quantitative statements to answer. Unfortunately, however, the mathematics of GW emission and propagation has only been worked out for very few of the viable alternatives to GR and in most of those cases the theories are similar enough to GR that the signals we'd expect to see are practically indistinguishable. The reason for this is that computing GW waveforms for interesting sources is an extremely complicated mathematical problem and (as mentioned above) it takes super-computers to do it even in GR, the theory we know best (and most alternatives are intrinsically more complicated). So far this has all been about the relation between theory and experiment. However, most of the text in your message alluded to potential logical inconsistencies within GR itself. Since the main point relies on a thought experiment, let me begin to address this by clarifying that, although thought experiments can be a very useful tool, they are not proper logical arguments in themselves and do not formally tell us anything about the the validity of a theory. This is because natural language is too ambiguous to express formal statements: GR (as every other physical theory) is a mathematical framework and we need mathematics to discuss it properly. This is evident when you consider how both quantum mechanics and special relativity are full of paradoxes that seem to point to contradictions that go away when expressed mathematically. Paradoxes point to the inadequacies of our intuitions, not to those of the theory. That said, I'd like to point out a few potential flaws in the argument presented in your email, without actually going into mathematical detail: First, Feynman's sticky bead argument played an important role in re-igniting interest in GWs at a point in history when it wasn't clear whether they were real at all; however, the argument is not a core part of the GR framework and is usually not even referred to in modern treatments of the topic—our understanding of GR has come a long way since the 50's! Second, our intuitions about space and time do not jive well with GR. Because spacetime can be curved, the fact that circumference of the loop in the example decreases does not say much about the radius. For example, imagine you went in a circle around a massive object (say, Sun) and measured the distance travelled (call it c, for circumference), and then travelled radially inwards towards the center and measured that distance too (call it r, for radius), then you would find that c < 2*pi*r because the massive body curve the spacetime around it. This is all to say that a shrinking circumference does not imply a shrinking radius (at least not in all frames). Third and last, it seems to be implied in the text you quote that the existence of longitudinal gravitational waves would be in conflict with GR; however, this is only true in a narrow sense that needs to be explained. According to GR, at any point in space-time one should be able to find a particular form of the GW equations (the technical term for this freedom in the eqs. is gauge, think of it as a frame of reference though it's not the same) in which the wave can be expressed as the combination of two independent polarizations transverse to the direction of propagation. Notice some key aspects of this statement: there is a specific choice of gauge (or frame of reference, if you wish) in which the equations take this particularly nice form, and that choice can only be defined locally (i.e. a choice that works nicely in one point in space, will be bad somewhere else). This means that if you choose an arbitrary frame of reference, chances are the wave will not look transverse, though you could always switch to the specific frame and gauge which will make the waves look nice at that point (this is the so called transverse-traceless gauge). The bottom line is that you might think that you have longitudinal waves, but you can always explain that as a combination of independent, transverse waves. Finally, I would like to add a few words about Carver Mead's G4v theory. Unlike most alternatives to GR, Carver's theory makes markedly different predictions than GR with respect to the polarization content of GWs. However, the relative orientation of our detectors makes LIGO not really good at distinguishing different polarizations in transient (short-lived) signals like the ones we have observed so far. Furthermore, we don't have a full prediction of what the GW trace of the merger of two compact objects would look like in G4v (Carver is working on it), so we cannot make a statement about which theory, if any, is favored by the data. So we will have to wait for more detections and more theoretical work until we are able to make a statement about G4v. Once again, thank you very much for a very thought-provoking email and for your interest in LIGO and gravitational waves in general. By all means, do let me know if you would like me to clarify any of the points above or if you have any questions. Best, Maximiliano Isi -------------------- California Institute of Technology LIGO Laboratory, MC 100-36 Pasadena, CA 91125

Gravitational waves from the BB itself! That would be great! From previous links I have given, as an amateur I see the "universe from nothing" or the "ultimate free lunch" as easier to understand then any infinite quantities, but that's just a subjective opinion at this time. BTW, the astronomer that "took me under his wing" so to speak, was a fella called Geraint Lewis from Sydney University.

I came across the following article.....comments appreciated....... https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-big.html No Universe without Big Bang June 15, 2017 According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the curvature of spacetime was infinite at the big bang. In fact, at this point all mathematical tools fail, and the theory breaks down. However, there remained the notion that perhaps the beginning of the universe could be treated in a simpler manner, and that the infinities of the big bang might be avoided. This has indeed been the hope expressed since the 1980s by the well-known cosmologists James Hartle and Stephen Hawking with their "no-boundary proposal", and by Alexander Vilenkin with his "tunnelling proposal". Now scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute/AEI) in Potsdam and at the Perimeter Institute in Canada have been able to use better mathematical methods to show that these ideas cannot work. The big bang, in its complicated glory, retains all its mystery. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-big.html#jCp https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.103508 ABSTRACT "We argue that the Lorentzian path integral is a better starting point for quantum cosmology than its Euclidean counterpart. In particular, we revisit the minisuperspace calculation of the Feynman path integral for quantum gravity with a positive cosmological constant. Instead of rotating to Euclidean time, we deform the contour of integration over metrics into the complex plane, exploiting Picard-Lefschetz theory to transform the path integral from a conditionally convergent integral into an absolutely convergent one. We show that this procedure unambiguously determines which semiclassical saddle point solutions are relevant to the quantum mechanical amplitude. Imposing “no-boundary” initial conditions, i.e., restricting attention to regular, complex metrics with no initial boundary, we find that the dominant saddle contributes a semiclassical exponential factor which is precisely the inverse of the famous Hartle-Hawking result". :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I was once told by an Astronomer that any future QGT will most likely still encompass the BB/Inflationary model that is generally supported today. By the same token, Newtonian gravity is still mostly used in space endeavours within our solar system, being accurate enough to achieve the desired results, albeit less accurate then GR. The first sentence of the article has me somewhat bemused. "According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the curvature of spacetime was infinite at the big bang" As an amateur, my Astronomer friend, along with a GR theorist, pumped into me the fact that the BB was an evolution of space and time, [spacetime] from the first 10-43 seconds after the event. Personally I always encompass the evolution of spacetime with spacetime, as we know it. I also like the "Superforce" scenario as put by Paul Davis in his book of the same name......that is that all the four forces were at the precise moment of the BB, united as per the holy grail of astronomy the sort after "Theory of Everything" or TOE. Questions: Is the BB as secure and as certain as the article says? Personally, as an amateur, I would agree understanding that a scientific theory is never certain, and always open for modification etc, but also obviously scientific theories do grow in certainty over time and as they continue to match observational and experimental results... eg: The theory of evolution, and GR. Will a future QGT entail the BB model as I was told a few years ago? I am not that well informed at this time re string theory and its many derivitives, including LQG, but do any of them support the "Superforce" concept and TOE? How will the recent discovery of gravitational waves help in this regard? Any other comments on the article and paper also encouraged.

Again, point taken, and obviously correct and edited to reflect that..

Good point! Off goes my head and on goes a pumpkin! The photon though emitted directly radially away, just on the EH, will certainly appear to "hover," never escaping and never falling in. http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/singularity.html#disappearingview Photons do not orbit in circles at the horizon, just skimming the surface. The place where photons orbit in circles is the photon sphere, at 1.5 Schwarzschild radii. Photons emitted at the horizon fall in; except that if a photon is emitted exactly vertically outward exactly at the horizon, then it will hover at the horizon, not moving at all.

From any local frame associated with any photon that is directed radially away from just this side of the EH, within that frame, that photon will appear to "hover"never quite escaping, and never falling in. From a remote frame of reference, that photon will be gradually redshifted beyond view.

I came across this article...... http://newatlas.com/wiper-elephant-collar/49962/ Sensor sounds alert when elephants are shot at Ben Coxworth June 8, 2017 A radio-collared elephant in India (Credit: Narotham.r) Many wild elephants already wear GPS-equipped collars, which let wildlife officials track their whereabouts via radio signals. A hardware upgrade to those collars, however, could soon allow those officials to instantly know when poachers are shooting at the elephants, along with the location where it's occurring. Known as WIPER, the technology was developed in a collaboration between Vanderbilt University and Colorado State University. It consists of a sensor which detects the acoustic shockwave that's produced when a high-powered weapon is fired. That shockwave occurs even if a silencer is being used. more at link..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should the same type of technology be used for preservation of rhinos, Gorillas, and maybe Tigers also.

What I do know for certain is that once inside the EH of any BH, all paths lead to the singularity and doom. Also photons/light always move at "c". On the FTL aspect, I came across a model of a BH a while ago called the waterfall or river model. here it is....... https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411060 Andrew J. S. Hamilton, Jason P. Lisle (JILA, U. Colorado) Abstract: "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. %that can by 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". Here is Professor Hamilton's web page where he discusses it further...... http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html Personally I like the model and its ability to explain simply. What do others think?

A BH is the result of any mass being squeezed up to and beyond its Schwarzchild limit. From that point, GR tells us that further collapse is compulsory, at least up to and including the Singularity at the quantum/Planck level where GR fails us. The way I understand it, the singularity need not be an infinite state of density and spacetime curvature, but it may lead to such infinite quantities. Most cosmologists though from my understanding do not believe the singularity of infinite quantities exists. In effect any BH is simply critically curved spacetime from the EH and up to the singularity according to GR although the exact state of that critically curved spacetime is unobserved..