MigL

"Where is the black hole in the above image" ??????????? I don't think you have any ide what a black hole is if you expect to see it.

EMfield, the number of quasars, or active galaxies, is much higher at distances of 10 Gly ( 10 billion yrs ago ). There is probably very few if any within a couple of hundred million light years, and if there are they are probably due to galactic collisions or other abnormalities which awaken the dormant central black hole. Maybe you should do a search for quasars and active galaxies on Wiki rather than looking up pretty pictures.

Outside the observable universe spaces between galaxies/clusters is expanding faster than light can cross it. In effect it is expanding faster than c. This is not a technological limitation but a physical limitation. The observable universe is also the limit of causality since any signal that tranmits information ( all forces and effects ) is limited to c.

There is no actual 'bang'. It was a term coined by Hoyle, a detractor of the theory. The modern inflationary big bang theory has certain energy thresholds where particles are created according to their masses. Some aspects are unproven. An example being the use of GUT and axiom particles ( both un-proven ) to account for proton decay and the matter/ anti-matter asymmetry of the universe. But it is the best we have at the moment. Incidentally, didn't you ever see the movie ALIEN ? "In space, no-one can hear you scream". They can't hear a 'bang' either. Sound waves are just compression/rarefaction of the medium that carries them. I don't really know what that medium ( depending on the temperature ) would do to your eardrums.

The growing sphere you are seeing is the universe. How did you get to be outside the universe ?? Are you God ( sorry don't mean to offend religious people ) ??

Really ? Far away 'young' galaxies are the same as nearby "older' galaxies ??? So show me a nearby quasar, just one, that's all. Or were younger galaxies more active than they are today ?? By the way I didn't want to read your first link and the second concerned the distribution of red giants in our galaxy, no comparison was made to other galaxies.

If you look up active galaxies or active black holes you'll get an explanation for these axial jets of particles and radiation due to the spiralling accretion discs surrounding the black holes. Tunneling accurately predicts radioactive decay and various other quantum mechanical effects. The only apprehension is the crude 'marriage' of QM and GR to explain Hawking radiation. By the way, I can't show you an image of air either. Do you doubt its existenc ?? Or are the effects it produces enough to satisfy you ??

First of all, there is no such thing as a rest frame. All uniformly ( ie non accelerating ) moving frames can be considered as if at rest. Second, all motion is relative ( hence the name relativity ). If one frame is moving relative to another, observers in each ftame will see the other frame's time slow down, and even stop if it were possible to have a relative speed between frames equal to c. You can call it suspended animation or what ever you want, but the time dilation is only visible to the observer in the other frame. In your own frame everything happens as normal to the observer. If you don't want me to complicate matters with acceleration, then don't bring up the twin paradox. If one twin leaves earth, he has to accelerate to relativistic speed, then decelerate, turn around ( angular acceleration ), accelerate back to relativistic seped and then decelerate once reaching earth. It is only then that he can compare ages with his twin who stayed behind and find the age discrepancy. Until that point things have proceeded as normal for both twins. So you tell me, how do you disregard acceleration ??

The 'metallicity' does not indicate age in the simplistic manner you describe. Slow burning red giants with lifetimes much higher than our sun ( about 10 billion yrs ), were formed of the primordial 75% hydrogen / 25% Helium. Blue stars burn much hotter and faster, in the hundreds of millions of yrs. The first generation has already formed and died by the violent process which creates the heavier elements, novas and supernovas. These violent events trigger compression waves in surrounding gas clouds and 'seed' new stars which have a higher metallicity. How does that fit into your theory ???

The 'continuous streams of ejected matter' do not originate from inside the event horizon. No, Hawking radiation has never been observed, but it is on pretty firm grounding. Any particle can cross a potential barrier of higher energy than it possesses. In quantum mechanics it is called tunneling.

Its been almost 90 yrs and people still try to analyse quantum situations by comparing then to everyday situations or objects like decks of cards ( although I thought Bill's example was an excellent interpretation ).

That kind of speculation has no scientific basis. But if I was to guess, the situation you describe might result in the death of all unicorns, I joke, but a non-sensical question usually gets a non-sensical answer.

Your whole premise makes very little sense. The builders of this spaceship have technology which permits relativistic speeds, yet have no knowledge of relativity ??? And stop confusing special and general relativity. Special relativity involves uniform motion. Accelerated motion as is the case with the twin paradox, is more the realm of General relativity. Acceleration is basically equivalent to a gravitational field.So how would you explain to laymen the time difference ( very slight, I admit ) between someone who lives at sea level and someone who lives at 10000ft, assuming their 'watches' are initially synchronized ???

As Uncool has stated, the space-time interval, a kind of four dimensional distance between events, is measured the same for all observers.

"Going around a distant star and back to earth" is NOT uniform motion. It involves accelerations and so there is no doubt to the occupants of the spaceship that they are moving. And when they return to their original ( take-off ) frame, much less time will have elapsed for them than for the observers who stayed behind on earth. Uniform motion means no acceleration and so even if you are moving at close to light speed, you cannot tell since there is no preferred frame. Any frame which you consider to be at rest may in fact, be moving.

A variation ( precursor ) that applies to massless particles only, is Fermats principle of least time. I first understood both, least time and least action, by the analysis of the path taken by light as it travels through two mediums with different refractive indices ( like water and air ) and the path taken minimises the travel time by going through the media at different angles. Of course this was thirty years ago, but it may be helpful to people.

Didn't Ernest Mach propose that inertia is simply the additive gravitational potential of everything else in the universe ( observable ?? ) on any one particular object ? This then accounts for GR's equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass.

It is not a plot of the gravitational potential, note where the lowest point is, 'below' ( or is that above ?? ) the earth. It is also not a representation of frame dragging as the plot would then be twisted counter clockwise due to the earth's rotation. It is a two dimensional representation of the three dimensional space foliation of space-time. In this representation ( 2d space plus time ) the time dimension would be more foliations stacked on top of the one shown, representing future instants, along with more foliations below the one shown, representing past instants. Anyone with even a little understanding of GR will know that this representation is not exactly accurate, but suffices for simple explanation. It is analogous to the 'bowling ball on the rubber sheet' diagram which is used to illustrate black holes. For obvious resons, the 3d space plus time representation would be impossible to draw.

If you were moving uniformly at 99.9% of the speed of light in intergalactic space, ie. with no reference points such as stars or planets for your motion, you would not be able to tell that you are moving at all ( again motion is relative ). So why would you NOT expect the normal passage of time, ronians 1 ????

If you are looking at a spaceship travelling by at relativistic uniform speed, you will see the cloocks and movements in/on the spaceship to be slowed down by the amount predicted by the Lorentz-Fitzgerald expression for time dilation. The occupants of the spaceship will see you and your clock to be slowed by the same amount. Neither one sees their own time slowed or is in 'suspended animation' (?). This is because there is no concensus on who is moving and who isn't, as all motion is relative. Hence the name of the theory RELATIVITY. If there is an acceleration involved such as in the twin 'paradox', where one twin travels away, slows down reverses, and comes back, we know who moved at relativistic speed. The moving frame can now be discerned and there is an actual age difference between the twins.

The HUP doesn't say its difficult to know exact values of both conjugate observables simultaneously. It says it is impossible !

David, the moon is slowly moving away from the earth. You can look this fact up. Does that prove that new matter is being created in the centre of the earth ? Or is the simpler explanation due to tidal forces the cause ?

David Levy do you know the difference in meaning between causality and co-relation ? The fact that stars are moving outward ( or not ) does not provide 'a full proof for the steady state theory'. You have not shown that the creation of new matter in the galactic centre would cause the outward shifting of stars in the spiral arms, tens of thousands of light years away. What is the mechanism by which this happens ? Is the galactic core also getting larger ? Is this new matter created inside or outside the central black hole, as this would result in very different effects ? And all sorts of other questions you just ignore. If ACG52 is asking 'difficult' questions, maybe he is not nit-picking or being closed minded, but maybe you haven't thought out your idea fully. He sees the 'holes' in it, you don't seem to. And by trying to exclude his criticism, you are being close minded.

I stand corrected Ophiolite. Maybe I should start using spell-check.

Not necessaril, the universe has always encompassed everything there is, even at t=0, so it has always been unbounded. In effect it may also be finite or infinite, but a finite time need not mean a finite size.