BJC

Yes - every lecture i have heard or read emphasizes your point regarding the "singularity" However, I was asking if there could be similarities outside the event horizon of a black hole.

The statement in the original topic "Why not just take a logical step back and conclude that a black hole, and its core, is simply a very large, dense neutron star!" deserves a better answer than "we need quantum gravity". While it is true that no one knows "for certain" what occurs behind the event horizon of a black hole surely what happens some distance from the event horizon must be gravitationally similar to what happens to any object at the same distance (and equal mass). Say we are a distance 200 million km. from a mass of about 3 solar masses. Would it matter gravitationally whether that mass was a gas, star, neutron star or a black hole? Now consider the mass to be a black hole and we slowly decrease our distance to about the same distance as the radius of a similar mass neutron star. Wouldn't we experience the same gravitational forces as an object on the surface of a same mass neutron star? Is there a distance from the black hole where the protons and electrons form neutrons? Why is a Black Hole considered "cold" when in-falling objects must be heated by gravitational tidal forces? Wouldn't those same forces cause the temperature to be very high very close to the black hole?

some questions: 1) If the information is not lost but stored on the event horizon surface of the Black Hole --- then what is falling into the black hole? 2) As an object falls gravitationally that object becomes squeezed and accelerated. Both effects cause the object to increase in temperature. Since a Black Hole is aa massive gravitational object then objects should heat up , the Black Hole should heat up --- so why is a Black Hole so "cold" or more precisely why is the Hawking temperature so low. Susskind discussed this in his Topics in String Theory (lecture 5 and 6) but i am still unclear on the negative gravitational energy. I also assume Susskind discussed this in his lectures on Black Holes and Holography (Perimeter Institute, Lecture Series C07003) in addition to his popular book "The Black Hole Wars"

I think all (most?) physics theories do not define time or space - only whether time & space can be measured. For us to measure time or space matter is required. I am unsure of what you mean by "logically allow" As the Big Bang makes no statement about what existed prior to the "zero point" there cannot be a "logically derivation" of anything prior to that point.

Interesting - i would assume the "simplest but not too simple" would apply to the Big Bang model (+roll inflation). I read a pro-con about "galactic strings" but it was in relation to the red-shift expansion not the CMBR. Without expansion from the Big Bang it is very difficult to explain the very close fit to a black body - we will see when data from Planck is complete. BTW - i am trying to find info on early star formation and the Cosmic Infra-red background - any hints???

This was what i was referring to when i asked about "Do you deliberately vary the alignment". The reference to the "PACS Observer's Manual" is very helpful - answers many of my questions. Similar to eliminating power line (60 hertz) interference in seismic processing???

Hi Pantheory Does the current interpretation of the CMBR anisotropies "shed any light (sic)" on this topic? Our Universe May Be a 'Multiverse Probably not as this refers to the Inflation bubbles not to the pre-Big Bang interpretation given by Penrose. Interesting to speculate "Will the Planck results resolve the various interpretations of the anisotropies - or just further entrench opinions?" Edited to correct spelling.

Thank You - you are replying to my ill-formed questions with well-formed answers. I like the page Herschel First Results Symposium The Hershel site contains a lot of data - perhaps too much detail for me. Difficult to find answers to questions such as: "Is there earlier limits on initial star formation?" ; "Cosmic Infra-red Background"; etc. Again Thank You for your explanations. BTW - How do they eliminate the effect of the mirror?

Good grief - what garbage!!!!!!!!!!! What physics course did you learn this stuff from??? - You should ask for your money back.

Yes, the alignment of three instruments - but more the alignments of a single instrument for a time exposure on a specific target. A very good answer, Thank You. Explains why there is such a long "processing time" :) I suppose the raw images are not particularly useful for cosmological interpretations - which means that data processing is not only necessary but can affect theories. The process seems similar to the problems we encountered with processing 3-D geophysical seismic off-shore surveys - although i suspect we relied more on data redundancy. Do you deliberately vary the alignment to allow the processing to identify and eliminate local (solar and galaxy) rotational and movement variations?

Interesting study: On page 6: "Order of Magnitude Estimates" the authors give an estimate of gravitational attraction to expansion. Inside Solar system 1040 higher; inside a galaxy is 1011 times stronger, between galaxy clusters is still 107 times stronger than expansion. Could mean one of two things: (1)expansion occurs even in galaxy clusters but is far too small to detect (likely) or (2)expansion occurs in space quanta (unlikely - but more interesting).

I think Rolando is referring to this paper; found on the website ( http://www.marmet.org/louis/ ) This is the title and abstract taken from the "mechanisms.pdf" Looks, at first glance, to be well written. Each of the 52 "mechanisms" is briefly discussed with the mathematics and limitations. edited to add: the PDF is difficult to search - i would have preferred to have the .ps file. Marmet appears to have used fixed font spacing to align sentences which makes searching difficult: viz. "cosmic" could be "co smic" or "cosm ic", etc.

What are the technical problems (overview) of alignment that allows images from the various cameras to be synchronized? With the Hubble i had listened to a brief talk on the "dither and drizzle" problems encountered when they obtained their million second exposure for the Hubble Deep Sky survey. Is there problems matching the infrared frequencies? To other telescope images? Sorry for the rather general question - i do not know enough about the operations of telescopes to ask specific questions.

Backreaction Running Coupling Constants is one of the easiest explanations of running coupling constants, super symmetry, etc. Also i think the SUSY Unification scale is several orders larger than the Planck scale.

This is not the link to the Italian DAMA/LIBRA experiment but this link provides a possible verification of the result Dark Energy There is also the possibility that ordinary gravity repels antimatter. This could possible be tested at the CERN ALPHA experiment: