beecee

No, it is right and for the reasons stated in the post just above yours. Gravity due to heavy matter/energy densities regions, literally overcome the expansion, including BH's.eg: again as per Andromeda and our local group and even far beyond.

Yep, along with many other alternative hypotheticals that all will simply fade into oblivion. You had the last word??? So this is simply a game to you? Yep, you have done OK, but what was your objective? Overthrowing GR? Sorry, many try, and many fail, thus far. All the best. When I wake up in the morning and find you have overthrown GR, I'll give you my own Nobel!

Space and time in many aspects are interchangeable. The faster you move through space, the slower you move through time. And of course as from Einstein and relativity, his teacher modified as follows....."The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."— Hermann Minkowski Another point you touched on with some truth in it, is that the expansion of spacetime and the universe, is only apparent over large scales: Over smaller galactic and galactic group scales, the ensuing gravity, sees those regions decoupled from the overall expansion. eg: M31 [Andromeda] and galaxies in our local group and beyond, are gravitationally bound to the Milky Way and will, one day in the future, merge with us.

Simple; Place holders for what exactly we are not sure of or ignorant of. The majority of cosmologists today reject the singularity as defined by infinite spacetime curvature and density, rather just the acceptance of a singularity as defined by where our theories break down or are not applicable. Obviously wrong...we have some answers, and no answers as yet to other scenarios like DE and DM, with regards to the true nature of. ??? Who ever said GR was complete? It is a theory that reigns supreme within its known zones of applicability, and being a classical theory, is non applicable at the quantum/Planck level. Not as far as I can see. But I'll check the scientific outlets in the morning, and review whether your claims have been accepted or not again. No, we are looking at one hypothetical interpretation, among many many interpretations and models, and that will in time be lost in cyber space, never to be heard of again. Plus of course if all that you claim was valid, you would not just be pushing it here: You would be out making a name for yourself and preparing for possible Nobel prize nominations.

Or perhaps you are simply fooling yourself? You know, every Mother, believes her baby to be the cutest. And of course most theories accepted by mainstream, all at one time were simply hypothetical and speculative....It took weight of observational and experimental evidence to prompt mainstream into accepting such models.

I repeat..... Of course all possibilities need to be considered, but just as obviously the overwhelmingly likelyhood that measurement methodologies, and aging processes methods and entailed precisions, appear to be the problem, and that is shown by the fact that the so called "discrepancy" is continually being diminished as already shown. As shown in earlier posts, what seems to be amiss, is most probably simply a result of inaccuracies, error bars, and lack of precision...all of which are continued to be refined, resulting in what seems to be amiss, to be ever increasingly less and less amiss.

Of course all possibilities need to be considered, but just as obviously the overwhelmingly likelyhood that measurement methodologies, and aging processes methods and entailed precisions, appear to be the problem, shown of course by the fact that the so called "discrepancy" is continually being diminished as already shown. Great stuff! And coupled with the SKA, LISA, and the JWST, the future would appear to be quite exciting.

That makes about as much sense as asking how dense is a BH!

Agreed, its a shame people get so blase about science and scientific endeavours so much and so quickly. Reminds me of the Moon landings...Apollo 11 big big news!!!! Apollo 12...yeah, so here we go again. It took a near disaster in Apollo 13 to revive interest!

https://phys.org/news/2019-08-evidence-cloaked-black-hole-early.htmlEvidence found for cloaked black hole in early universe: A group of astronomers, including Penn State scientists, has announced the likely discovery of a highly obscured black hole existing only 850 million years after the Big Bang, using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory. This is the first evidence for a cloaked black hole at such an early time. Supermassive black holes typically grow by pulling in material from a disk of surrounding matter. For the most rapid growth, this process generates prodigious amounts of radiation in a very small region around the black hole, and produces an extremely bright, compact source called a quasar. Theoretical calculations indicate that most of the early growth of black holes occurs while the black hole and disk are surrounded by a dense cloud of gas that feeds material into the disk. As the black hole grows, the gas in the cloud is depleted until the black hole and its bright disk are uncovered. more at link..... the paper: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2019/08/aa35924-19.pdf Discovery of the first heavily obscured QSO candidate at z > 6 in a close galaxy pair: ABSTRACT: While theoretical arguments predict that most of the early growth of supermassive black holes (SMBHs) happened during heavily obscured phases of accretion, current methods used for selecting z > 6 quasars (QSOs) are strongly biased against obscured QSOs, thus considerably limiting our understanding of accreting SMBHs during the first gigayear of the Universe from an observational point of view. We report the Chandra discovery of the first heavily obscured QSO candidate in the early universe, hosted by a close (≈5 kpc) galaxy pair at z = 6.515. One of the members is an optically classified type-1 QSO, PSO167–13. The companion galaxy was first detected as a [C II] emitter by Atacama large millimeter array (ALMA). An X-ray source is significantly (P = 0.9996) detected by Chandra in the 2–5 keV band, with < 1.14 net counts in the 0.5–2 keV band, although the current positional uncertainty does not allow a conclusive association with either PSO167–13 or its companion galaxy. From X-ray photometry and hardness-ratio arguments, we estimated an obscuring column density of NH > 2 × 1024 cm−2 and NH > 6 × 1023 cm−2 at 68% and 90% confidence levels, respectively. Thus, regardless of which of the two galaxies is associated with the X-ray emission, this source is the first heavily obscured QSO candidate at z > 6. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: This seems to me to also support the notion that the first stars formed much earlier then thought, and as indicated in the thread......https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/119767-star-thats-nearly-as-old-as-the-universe/The incredible discovery of gravitational waves as predicted by GR, may throw more light on these latest discoveries, and certainly refine the error bars in such measurements. Also possibly other "soon to be launched" scientific instruments such as JWST and the LISA, as well as the finished SKA. The mind boggles at the potential discoveries and knowledge to be gained by such endeavours Any errors, alterations or corrections needed above?

Just as GR is continually confirmed every day. I could ask what are diquarks, but I'll google instead. Otherwise we'll be entering the off topic domain!

Well gee whiz, someone of your apparent caliber, I thought would have known that. We have plenty of evidence for both DM and DE, but as yet we simply do not know exactly what they are. I understand one sees the need to argue and support their very own alternative hypothetical, and as I have already informed you, there are literally thousands of scientific papers based on nothing more then hypotheticals, just as we have many many papers on alternative models of gravity, some will never see the light of day, others are bound to fade into obscurity.

GR works perfectly well with DM and DE as far as I am aware. It also predicted BHs which was a small part of the apparent missing matter. Plus of course Einstein's CC could be DE. The evidence for both at this time is substantial. Mordred appears to have done an excellent job in actual fact. And that is just as it should be. Again there are many alternative hypotheticals with regards to gravity....vector gravity is another, whose initiators hold just as much faith in as yours, and also continually claim that no one has ever found a flaw in their preferred model.

I certainly do not want to butt in on the excellent review that Mordred has done [and of course I am not qualified to do so] but the facts are that we have many alternatives of gravity that have all been published, and most will simply fade into oblivion and eventually lost in cyber space. The issue in my mind that says a lot about your attitude, is that usual silly claim that many half arsed alternative theorists like putting....that mainstream is too recalcitrant in its approach to other hypotheticals for the many fabricated reasons you have given. The real facts are that most mainstream theories were all at one time outside looking in, and needed to "run the gauntlet" so to speak, to gain acceptance, based of course on the supporting evidence. The other point is that GR is being tested everyday and has passed those tests with flying colours, and many many young physicists would early love to actually invalidate GR and get a Nobel. Them are the facts.

? Gravity is spacetime geometry.

Another Interesting article..... https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1815/ ALMA and VLT Find Evidence for Stars Forming Just 250 Million Years After Big Bang Astronomers have used observations from the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) and ESO’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) to determine that star formation in the very distant galaxy MACS1149-JD1 started at an unexpectedly early stage, only 250 million years after the Big Bang. This discovery also represents the most distant oxygen ever detected in the Universe and the most distant galaxy ever observed by ALMA or the VLT. The results will appear in the journal Nature on 17 May 2018. the paper: https://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/eso1815/eso1815a.pdf A fundamental quest of modern astronomy is to locate the earliest galaxies and study how they influenced the intergalactic medium a few hundred million years after the Big Bang1–3 . The abundance of star-forming galaxies is known to decline4, 5 from redshifts of about 6 to 10, but a key question is the extent of star formation at even earlier times, corresponding to the period when the first galaxies might have emerged. Here we present spectroscopic observations of MACS1149-JD16 , a gravitationally lensed galaxy observed when the Universe was less than four per cent of its present age. We detect an emission line of doubly ionized oxygen at a redshift of 9.1096±0.0006, with an uncertainty of one standard deviation. This precisely determined redshift indicates that the red rest-frame optical colour arises from a dominant stellar component that formed about 250 million years after the Big Bang, corresponding to a redshift of about 15. Our results indicate the it may be possible to detect such early episodes of star formation in similar galaxies with future telescopes.

Obviously no star is older then the BB and the universe. The BB of course has itsef been subject to increasing precisions as to how far back it occurred. When I was as kid it was 15 billion years...that has been refined somewhat to 13.83 billion years. The error range with regards to distance and age and methodologies used in measuring distances of stars is also open to refinement...... https://www.space.com/20112-oldest-known-star-universe.html Scientists have known about HD 140283 for more than 100 years, since it cruises across the sky at a relatively rapid clip. The star moves at about 800,000 mph (1.3 million km/h) and covers the width of the full moon in the sky every 1,500 years or so, researchers said. The star is just passing through the Earth's neck of the galactic woods and will eventually rocket back out to the Milky Way's halo, a population of ancient stars that surrounds the galaxy's familiar spiral disk. The Methuselah star, which is just now bloating into a red giant, was probably born in a dwarf galaxy that the nascent Milky Way gobbled up more than 12 billion years ago, researchers said. The star's long, looping orbit is likely a residue of that dramatic act of cannibalism. Distance makes the difference Hubble's measurements allowed the astronomers to refine the distance to HD 140283 using the principle of parallax, in which a change in an observers' position — in this case, Hubble's varying position in Earth orbit — translates into a shift in the apparent position of an object. They found that Methuselah lies 190.1 light-years away. With the star's distance known more precisely, the team was able to work out Methuselah's intrinsic brightness, a necessity for determining its age. The scientists also applied current theory to learn more about the Methuselah star's burn rate, composition and internal structure, which also shed light on its likely age. For example, HD 140283 has a relatively high oxygen-to-iron ratio, which brings the star's age down from some of the earlier predictions, researchers said. In the end, the astronomers estimated that HD 140283 was born 14.5 billion years ago, plus or minus 800 million years. Further observations could help bring the Methuselah star's age down even further, making it unequivocally younger than the universe, researchers said. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Add that to the fact that the universe's age as I mentioned previously, also has an error range of about 800 million years, and the so called mystery diminishes somewhat. And of course it also would bring Einstein's GR into question, one of the 20th century's greatest models and highly successful. Perhaps as the original article mentions, gravitational waves may bring these margins for errors down further. In the end, the paradox will be shown, not to be a paradox, one way or the other.

https://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-have-found-a-record-breaking-star-that-s-nearly-as-old-as-the-universe Astronomers Have Found a Record-Breaking Star That's Nearly as Old as The Universe MICHELLE STARR 5 AUG 2019 Another ancient star has been found lurking in the Milky Way. Around 35,000 light-years away, a red giant star named SMSS J160540.18–144323.1 was found to have the lowest iron levels of any star yet analysed in the galaxy. This means that it's one of the oldest stars in the Universe, probably belonging to the second generation of stars after the Universe burst into existence 13.8 billion years ago. "This incredibly anaemic star, which likely formed just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang, has iron levels 1.5 million times lower than that of the Sun," explained astronomer Thomas Nordlander of the ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions and the Australian National University. "That's like one drop of water in an Olympic swimming pool." And that's how we can tell how old the star is, because the very early Universe had no metals at all. The first stars were made up primarily of hydrogen and helium, and were thought to be very massive, very hot, and very short-lived. These stars are called Population III, and we've never seen them. more at link..... the paper: https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article-abstract/488/1/L109/5533336?redirectedFrom=fulltext The lowest detected stellar Fe abundance: the halo star SMSS J160540.18−144323.1: ABSTRACT: We report the discovery of SMSS J160540.18−144323.1, a new ultra metal-poor halo star discovered with the SkyMapper telescope. We measure [Fe/H]=−6.2±0.2[Fe/H]=−6.2±0.2 (1D LTE), the lowest ever detected abundance of iron in a star. The star is strongly carbon-enhanced, [C/Fe]=3.9±0.2[C/Fe]=3.9±0.2⁠, while other abundances are compatible with an α-enhanced solar-like pattern with [Ca/Fe]=0.4±0.2[Ca/Fe]=0.4±0.2⁠, [Mg/Fe]=0.6±0.2[Mg/Fe]=0.6±0.2⁠, [Ti/Fe]=0.8±0.2[Ti/Fe]=0.8±0.2⁠, and no significant s- or r-process enrichment, [Sr/Fe]<0.2[Sr/Fe]<0.2 and [Ba/Fe]<1.0[Ba/Fe]<1.0 (3σ limits). Population III stars exploding as fallback supernovae may explain both the strong carbon enhancement and the apparent lack of enhancement of odd-Z and neutron-capture element abundances. Grids of supernova models computed for metal-free progenitor stars yield good matches for stars of about 10M⊙10M⊙ imparting a low kinetic energy on the supernova ejecta, while models for stars more massive than roughly 20M⊙20M⊙ are incompatible with the observed abundance pattern.

Spacetime manipulation? It's not anti gravity nor looks like anti gravity. Why pretend? Why the apparent arrogance?

What makes you believe that it is possible? Talk is cheap, and forum's making nonsensical claims are open to all and sundry. You need to go back to the fundamentals as I suggested.

First you need to go back to the fundamentals of the scientific methodology and understand that a scientific theory is as good as it gets...it is always open for improvement, modification or scrapping. Proof does not come into it. On your claim....no you can't.

I've heard a bit about the Mirror universe hypothesis, and like any "other universes" hypotheticals, are speculated to attempt explanations of supposed universal anomalies. One I recall was to explain why gravitation was so weak in our universe....this Mirror universe, had something to do with the arrow of time and why it always points in the same direction. I found this....https://www.sciencealert.com/new-theory-suggests-that-two-parallel-universes-were-produced-by-the-big-bang and.... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2-futures-can-explain-time-s-mysterious-past/ I don't put too much hope or faith in this for what it is worth. Speculation and hypotheticals are part and parcel of science and the scientific methodology. As apparently far fetched as some may seem, it should be remembered that 110 years ago, it was also far fetched to believe that time and space are variable concepts. And of course as any scientist will tell you, that is all they are, and will remain so until supported by evidence, and no unmovable faith like belief is entailed with them unlike some other mythical concepts.

The universe back to t+10-43 seconds can be explained with reasonable confidence as evolving through known physical and natural means. The universe and us exist and are simply a chance happening...nothing more, nothing less.

Just the usual as per the deity thread...hand waving and rhetorical nonsense.

So is Santa and the easter Bunny for little children! I also get a warm inner fuzzy feeling with some cinnamon apple pie and ice cream!