beecee

Time travel to the future has been shown to be well within the realms of reality and possibility. https://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed My question to you is why do you pretentiously post such anti mainstream stuff ( this one and elsewhere) in the mainstream sections, when it is obviously anti mainstream speculative pseudoscience? It smells of preaching to me, besides being dishonest.

Some people also still believe the Earth is flat; or that the Earth is only 10,000 years old. That's pseudoscience and nonsensical and going totally against all that has been scientifically evidenced. Newton also developed his own understandings by standing on the shoulders of giants of the past.

Funny, I was going to ask you the same question. Science by the way is not a religion, as you probably already know...it's a body of aquired knowledge and the effort/s to aquiring new knowledge. We can't do without science...Fact: We can do without religion...Fact: Curie is a scientist: Freddy is a Philosopher.

You've got arse up matey. The only so called"answers" I am not considering are the unscientific, unevidenced, myths, that some need to maintain that warm inner glow.

Bump from the article....Black holes grow along with the expansion of the universe. Hence my question.

Start explaining. Start by explaining to me why we need to plug in SR with regards to GPS satellites, and then the muon effect. "c" is actually the speed of light in a vacuum and is obviously constant. It has been shown irrefutably [not withstanding your yet to be announced examples to the contrary] that it is space/length and time that are invariant. And of course, at least in my puny mind, as we go faster, time slows down [dilates] while "c" is constant. Just as space and time are interchangeable, so to is length contraction and time dilation. No it doesn't. You can never be sure that the next pulse will ever happen. We see Alpha Centauri tonight in our now. That "now" happened 4.3 years ago from the FoR of Centauri. There are many many nows that will see different things. My "now" when I see Alpha Centauri tonight is not the "now" of any planet orbiting Alpha Centauri, because that "now" does not exist as far as I am aware, until I receive information [light] about it. How can you know you will see them later? Well the correct part is that yes, everytime we look into the night sky, we are looking into the past. That literally means that it may not actually be there. We have no information about their "now".

Which is ? I accept that there are those that exist, that exhibit undesirable, immoral behaviour that we determine as evil. I am 100% sure of that. Fact. I repeat....The Catholic church accepts and/or recognises the BB and theory of evolution of life, because deep down they know that those evidenced based supported theories, still do not tell us, or explain to us, how the universe began, and how life first arose. There is still (in the church's opinion) doors open where they can still insert their preferred deity to explain those gaps where science as yet have no answers, as unscientific as such supernatural and/or paranormal speculations or answers are. Is that pretending? Is that having an agenda? The God of the gaps comes to mind. Investigating objectively, and arriving at an objectively orientated solution, isn't always possible when saddled with religious baggage. I can't imagine life without science.

Found this article............. https://phys.org/news/2021-11-expansion-universe-impacts-black-hole.html New study proposes expansion of the universe directly impacts black hole growth: the paper here.... https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ac2fad :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: My question is why isn't any BH gravitationally decoupled from the large scale expansion rate, in the same way our solar system/galaxy /local group is also decoupled from the large scale expansion rate? Or am I missing something? Yes I understand that this is hypothetical at this time, but why havn't those proposing this hypothesis, not seen it as I have?

present your's No, the preferred word is doctrine...or perhaps myth. I accept that there are those that exist, that exhibit undesirable, immoral behaviour that we determine as evil. I am 100% sure of that.

If those personal beliefs are to do with supernatural and/or paranormal non scientific answers, then your results would I suggest, not be terribly objective, as iNow has mentioned. and as I inferred here.......

Some excellent videos illustrating the validity of length contraction, including the repeat of one already given, which it seems (as with all the answers to your quandary) you have missed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Poz_95_0RA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NN_m2yKAAk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPzGAksFCbs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxW6_E3uLuo They are all relatively short videos...

That's a disguised way of saying, that the first example given re Muons, totally and completely invalidate my thoughts/beliefs. Your question has been answered and refuted. SR remains valid and by extentsion, GR.

What I said is that there is no universal now...universal meaning a "now" for everyone in the universe including my cousin in Andromeda. The universal speed limit assures that everyone's "now" is different. You are actually agreeing with me with your Mars Rover example. SR/GR are probably the most tested theories of all time, and keep coming up trumps. The many examples of that, by many physicists around the world assures that we have no confirmation bias. It does not have to do with light travel per se, as it does with it being a universal physical constant, at a universal finite speed we define as "c". But hey! I'm only a poor old retired tradesman, that is echoing the many reputable books and the many irrefutable experiments that continually support the most complete theory of gravity that we have. (SR of course being a subset of GR) The first order of business is for you to acknowledge your fundamental errors.

I believe you have an agenda to be able to sit there and tell such bald face nonsense, when the scientific evidence for evolution is beyond question...so much so that it can now be defined as fact, evidenced of course by even the Catholic church recognising it. And if we need to talk about the origin of life, so far I have only heard of one scientific hypothesis with that regard...its called Abiogenesis.

The Catholic church accepts and/or recognises the BB and theory of evolution of life, because deep down they know that those evidenced based supported theories, still do not tell us, or explain to us, how the universe began, and how life first arose. There is still (in the church's opinion) doors open where they can still insert their preferred deity to explain those gaps where science as yet have no answers, as unscientific as such supernatural and/or paranormal speculations or answers are. Is that pretending? Is that having an agenda?

Yeah agreed, and I'm beginnning to smell an agenda of sorts also.

Having just attended a funeral on Friday, which included a "requium mass" I can say that actually applied. An old school mate, of Maltese extraction and strictly very religious. Worth noting in the eulogy by his family, I was mentioned by name, when the Son said that his Father would love attending our reunions, and would love debating with *me* with regards to the BB...a moment that brought a muffled murmer of laughter from the congregation.

I wish I could have said it in as beautiful a manner as you have...well put!

Havn't participated here for a while, and I may give it a miss after this post. Yesterday I attended a funeral of an old school mate. Anyway a couple of instances occured later at the pub five of us adjourned to...The barmaid that was looking after us five old bastards was a young [early 20's] very pretty blonde who kept our table filled with chips and chicken wing snacks as well as schooners of our preferred beer. She was jovial, friendly, and was addressing us as "sweeties" and we were all harmlessly and playfully flirting with her as she was with us...obviously we all in our mid/late 70's and her early 20's, it was nothing more then that and simply banter to lighten the moment and for amusement. After a few schooners under our belt, I decided to tell a joke, so I asked her, "why don't blind people bungee jump?" She smiled and said I dunno, why? I replied, "because it scares the fuck out of the dog!" She doubled over with laughter and after regaining her composure, told us her brother would love that joke, as he was blind and had a guide dog! Again the point I make is "intent". None of us objected to being called sweety, she didn't object being called "love" by us, and obviously she thought her brother would also love that joke, despite he himself being blind. Let me say catagorically, if she had objected to being addressed as "love" we all would have ceased immediatley and apologised. She took everything in her stride as we did, because we all understood that there was absolutely no intent in any of our banter towards each other. We all understood that and it went without saying. I would never have told that joke to a blind person...NEVER, because I understand that it maybe taken as discriminatory, offensive and/or insulting and I wouldn't want to ever chance of insulting anyone with that serious predicament. There is a comedian that once done the rounds of the clubs and pubs in Sydney....He calls himself "Steady Eddie" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_Eddy While I still would not go as far with regards to Steady Eddie's take on PC, I would love to meet the man! A great example of the ability to being able to laugh at one's self, even with the sad predicament he is in.

But GR fails us at both those regions. It tells us nothing prior to 10-35th second, or at the core of BH's where the singularity resides...a singularity defined by the failure of GR, not as defined by infinite qualities, which as I said, scientists now reject. Much has progressed and been learnt about GR, since the time Einstein formulated it...gravitational waves being one. Gravity has at its source, the geometry of spacetime.

The onus is actually on you to show that your hypothesis, does more and predicts better than the incumbent model. I don't beleieve you have got close to achieving that. That is false.

And obviously if one wants to argue against some of the most tested theories in history, one should know all there is about such theories. I certainly don't and I doubt that our doubter in this thread does...why even some scientists fail to understand it properly. The point is that the experimentally shown interchangeability of space [length] and time, means that if one is affected then the other is also. My interval of time and space is your space...your space and time, is my time. In essence, they are the same thing...one cannot exist without the other. Agreed, your first example was convincing as I did mention earlier...our "doubting Thomas" appears to have overlooked it though. https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_relativity_spacetime.html#:~:text=Thus%2C space and time are,approaching the speed of light.

Of course, and there is no big deal, other then discussion/s on your thoughts and hypothesis, and your apparent refusal to accept that you are wrong. That's good. It's called DE for a reason. If you can show the mechanism behind the expansion, then obviously we will see you in Stockholm next year for the Nobel presentations. Logical deductions are logical, but you are taking things to the nth degree just to re-enforce your hypothetical thoughts. Plus it does not alter the fact that we cannot ascertain whether the universe is finite or infinite, other then very, very big. Not according to the miles and miles of evidence we have indicating with certainty that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. If we have a topologically closed universe, then we have no wall or barrier. The indications that the universe/space/time is flat within small error bars, may simply be that smaller part of a much much larger closed universe. And then we also have the possibilities of other exotic topologies/shapes. There is nothing wrong with admitting that science doesn't as yet know. GR as great a scientific theory as it is, also allows for wormholes and ERB's, but they have never been seen and probably do not exist. Also while GR predicts a singularity as defined by infinite spacetime curvature and density, most all physicists and cosmologists reject such infinites. Plus of course the important point that GR fails us at the quantum/Planck region anyway so logically, we are unable to assume anything, other then the likelyhood that infinite spacetime curvature and densities do not exist, which means that at or below that quantum/Planck level, matter/energy resides in an unknown state, probably a state similar to when space and time evolved from the BB and at around t+10-35th seconds. We could even hypothesise a surface of sorts. So why post it in the sciences, when it is obvious tou are just speculating. Then when a mod reminds you of this fact and rule, you disagree. In my opinion, before you or anyone attemps to claim they know the secrets of the universe, over and above what the mainstream scientific community accepts, you should first understand and be thoroughly aware of what mainstream cosmology is all about and every known detail.

So have many scientists/physicists over a 100 years and more. The BB says nothing about how the universe began, only how it evolved from t+10-35th seconds or thereabouts. Secondly the BB applies to the observable universe. Keep working on it. There is no universal now, sorry.