beecee

Interesting article, particularly with regards to the carbon cycle and potential tweaking. the following quote illustrates one of the controversial aspects of this find imo... "Defining a viral “species” is controversial, as viruses reproduce asexually and frequently swap DNA with one another and their hosts. Because viruses don’t contain the necessary machinery to replicate independently, some biologists do not consider viruses even fully “alive.” Hmmmm. Any comments from those educated in this field of study?

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-dark-detector-rarest-event.html Dark matter detector observes rarest event ever recorded by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute: How do you observe a process that takes more than one trillion times longer than the age of the universe? The XENON Collaboration research team did it with an instrument built to find the most elusive particle in the universe—dark matter. In a paper to be published tomorrow in the journal Nature, researchers announce that they have observed the radioactive decay of xenon-124, which has a half-life of 1.8 X 1022 years. "We actually saw this decay happen. It's the longest, slowest process that has ever been directly observed, and our dark matter detectorwas sensitive enough to measure it," more at link...... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1124-4 Observation of two-neutrino double electron capture in 124Xe with XENON1T: Abstract: Two-neutrino double electron capture (2νECEC) is a second-order weak-interaction process with a predicted half-life that surpasses the age of the Universe by many orders of magnitude1. Until now, indications of 2νECEC decays have only been seen for two isotopes2,3,4,5, 78Kr and 130Ba, and instruments with very low background levels are needed to detect them directly with high statistical significance6,7. The 2νECEC half-life is an important observable for nuclear structure models8,9,10,11,12,13,14 and its measurement represents a meaningful step in the search for neutrinoless double electron capture—the detection of which would establish the Majorana nature of the neutrino and would give access to the absolute neutrino mass15,16,17. Here we report the direct observation of 2νECEC in 124Xe with the XENON1T dark-matter detector. The significance of the signal is 4.4 standard deviations and the corresponding half-life of 1.8 × 1022 years (statistical uncertainty, 0.5 × 1022 years; systematic uncertainty, 0.1 × 1022 years) is the longest measured directly so far. This study demonstrates that the low background and large target mass of xenon-based dark-matter detectors make them well suited for measuring rare processes and highlights the broad physics reach of larger next-generation experiments

Again the many observations and model determine that you are wrong. And with regards to time, have you heard of time dilation? Time will run slower wherever gravity caused by spacetime warpage in the present of mass/energy is strongest, as seen in an outside frame of reference..

I have seen nothing in what You have so far said, that shows your hypothetical invalidates GR, or makes verifiable predictions above and beyond GR. Science/cosmology on the other hand, has recently supported two predictions of GR that stems from its equations over the last couple of years...Gravitational waves and BH's. If in your first statement you are somehow inferring that the universe is expanding faster then light [is this what you mean by c2 ?] then that can be explained... ...https://www.space.com/33306-how-does-the-universe-expand-faster-than-light.html and also the universal speed limit of "c" applies to anything with mass.

I certainly have not seen anything that invalidates GR, or anything that makes verifiable predictions beyond GR. GR works, the model is overwhelmingly successful and 100 year old predictions have been validated due to improved technological equipment and research.

The GR model works. Its as simple as that. Gravity is spacetime geometry in the presence of mass/energy. The third point is evidenced by the observational data and success of GR. Who said anything about mass impacting the age of the universe? Ahh, I see what you are getting at. The two can still be considered separately. [2] Intervals of space and time, vary according to different frames of references, but spacetime is invariant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

Perhaps the tidal interactions with the Milky Way galaxy and the SMC have prompted in the past, a period of stellar formation and we now see that with the result of supernova or red giants that have become White Dwarfs after blowing off their outer layers.

Interesting discussion, and while this has got way too philosophical for me, let me make a small offering....... Space is what exists between you and me, and Earth and the Moon. If space did not exist, then everything would be together and we would be as we were before the BB. Time exists to stop everything from happening at the same instant. If there was no time, we wouldn't be here and the same applies that we would be as we were before the BB. Here I submit the following..... "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, Which in my opinion tells me that spacetime is simply the framework against which we locate events an describe them in terms of length. breadth, height and time. Spacetime is also defined by the following facts. [1] the speed of light is invariant. [2] Intervals of space and time, vary according to different frames of references, but spacetime is invariant.[3] Gravity is the geometrical warping/mis-shaping of spacetime in the presence of mass/energy. All are real as I see it, space, time, spacetime, despite not being physical.

My point again is that all observers in as many frames of references as you wish, can all take their frame as valid. Your frame far away watching me get red shifted and fade from view as I approach the EH is real and valid. In my own frame as I cross the EH at a speed approaching "c'" that is just as valid to me. I don't know what you mean with regards to simulations, or any supposed "disproved" GR, but it is wrong and from what I have seen on comments by our former anti GR speculator, based on ignorance. With regards to links, I am at the end of a busy day and about to retire so I suggest you peruse the many many reputable links and scientific papers, some here, others in the other BH and HR threads, that show conclusively that GR and BH's are now overwhelmingly evidenced and generally supported in mainstream science. That fact will never be invalidated by and Tom, Dick or Harry on any science forum, open to the general public.

The various effects of gravitational time dilation with regards to objects/matter/energy approaching an EH, in any frame of reference do nothing to invalidate the overwhelming evidence to support the "Gravitationally Completely Collapsed Object" as defined by GR, or if you like the BH. The evidence supporting them is verifiable.

As I mentioned before to another, all frames of references are as real and as valid as each other....That is another corner stone. Two recent experiments have shown GR flavoured BH's to be now near certain and accepted by most reputable scientists. Even many years ago, the evidence was strong........ I mentioned recently the "Dying Pulse Train" effect. This as far as I know eliminates any possibility of any surface at or below the EH. http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_1/death_spiral.htm And of course as also mentioned earlier, and confirmed by Strange just above, we never actually see anything freeze at or near the EH, rather just gradually red shifted until beyond the viewing range of our equipment.

As per your's, less then pleased. But also tolerant. She always asks me once a year [around Chrissy] to come to church with her. I always promise next year. But she does have her choir group around once a month for singing practise. I always politely join them when they finish and mix a bowl of kava [Yaqona] Some interesting conversations develop.

I highly commend you on the great charitable work you are doing...fantastic stuff nd there should be more like you. But please don't pretend that anything that you face, dangers etc, can be alleviated or helped by praying or any faith. I hate bullies, and I have on at least three occasions in my life [one with relation to my then 6 year old Son] acted against such bullies, twice at my own possible detriment and danger. Let me also say I am married to a true Christian, for 42 years now, both our one and only marriages. Some here may find that hard to believe after noting some of my replies and reactions to god botherers and religious fanaticism I have replied to. The secret? None other then tolerence of each other with of course respect and love. My self and my wife also are sponsoring a child with a reputable orginization from Africa and have done so for the last 20 years or so. There are some great sympathetic people out there that really care for those less fortunate and do something little to try and help out...some are Christian like yourself and my wife, some are agnostic, and others are Atheistic. By the same token there are some despicable so called Chistians out there as well as some despicable so called Atheists.

The general message as I previously mentioned before, is that Hawking Radiation appears to most reputable mainstream scientists, as a viable process that seems likely, albeit described by different methodologies. Analogous experiments as previously detailed also support the reasonable concept of Hawking Radiation. Here's another interesting take and experiment....... https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/first-observation-of-hawking-radiation-9d77fa8c8055 "In 1974, the British physicist Stephen Hawking made a remarkable prediction about black holes. Hawking said these objects, which are so dense that light cannot escape from them, must emit radiation. That was a huge surprise. What kind of radiation could this be? Clearly it could not be produced inside the black hole so where would the emitted particles come from? After much scepticism and intense debate, physicists eventually accepted the idea that black holes probably do emit “Hawking radiation” as it become known. But although astronomers have discovered many black holes since then, nobody has spotted the tell-tale radiation that Hawking says they must emit. Now a group of Canadian physicists say they’ve measured Hawking radiation for the first time, but not from a black hole. Instead these guys have created a “white hole” in their laboratory, the time reversed equivalent of a black hole, and measured the radiation it produces. But is this really Hawking radiation? Today, one of them, Bill Unruh from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, argues that because of the formal mathematical equivalence between white holes and black holes, the answer is yes: they really have seen Hawking radiation for the first time." more at link...... the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.6612.pdf Has Hawking radiation been measured? It is argued that Hawking radiation has indeed been measured and shown to posses a thermal spectrum, as predicted. This contention is based on three separate legs. The first is that the essential physics of the Hawking process for black holes can be modelled in other physical systems. The second is the white hole horizons are the time inverse of black hole horizons, and thus the physics of both is the same. The third is that the quantum emission, which is the Hawking process, is completely determined by measurements of the classical parameters of a linear physical system. The experiment conducted in 2010 fulfils all of these requirements, and is thus a true measurement of Hawking radiation.

Be afraid, be very afraid! [ sorry, couldn't help myself ]

Eloquently put!

While at this time we have never seen or detected worm holes, they are predicted from the equations of GR.......which so far, as we all know, has a pretty good track record. The only possible way that I'm aware of where such a thing could be tested is entering a Kerr metric BH from a trajectory in line with the axis of spin, and passing through the singularity [which would be a ring singularity] exactly central. Such a trajectory would have the effects of gravity equalised on all sides and effectively cancelled out. From memory, that methodology was described and illustrated on Kip Thorne's book, "Black Holes and Time Warps'

No, it follows the first. The EH is simply the parameters of spacetime/gravity around a mass where the escape velocity equals that of the speed of light. If it is as is most likely rotating, then there are two horizons which we won't go into as it isn't really a factor in what you are asking. The only "absolute" is the speed of light in any frame of reference. Add to that its finite speed, and observers in different frames of references, will see different things [each is correct] and conclude differently. eg: You watch me approaching a BH from afar. You will see me gradually further and further redshifted along the spectrum, but never crossing the EH, just fading from view. From my position, I will carry on approaching the EH and cross it as per normal [ignoring tidal gravitational effects] and proceed on to my doom.

There are many reasons, as far as I can tell. [1] Science most assuredly has pushed back the need for any deity or ID factor to near oblivion. If individuals offended by that fact can show that science in any particular sphere is wrong, this is somewhat of a feather in their cap, and [in there eyes] points to some omnipotent all powerful deity that started it. [2] Others are simply enveloped by "delusions of grandeur" and believe they are able to come to a science forum and usurp some aspect of science. [3] Those that see awe and wonder and mystique in conspiracy nonsense and will extend that to science in general. And of course while recognised as probably the greatest, Albert Einstein generally becomes the focus of their intent and the whipping boy and by extension, SR/GR and that which extends from GR. The theory of the Evolution of life is of course another that appeals as being relevant to try and dismember to facilitate personal beliefs. Often those that would push some alternative idea, will automatically do it in the sciences section, irrespective of the rules and glaringly obvious correct place for such ideas. They see that as somewhat analogous in trying to gain some respect for their hypothesis. In saying all that, I believe the mods and admins are sometimes caught between a rock and a hard place, in trying to show even handedness and fairness, and applying the rules correctly. We all are not going to agree when that time comes and personally sometimes I see aspects of alternative and hypothetical aspects drag on too long, and other times there has been scenarios where I dearly would have liked to have said something, but was too late as the thread was closed. That's my 2 cents worth.

Yet there can be any number of different frame of references, and each frame is as valid and as real as the other. Correct. I mentioned recently the "Dying Pulse Train" effect. This as far as I know eliminates any possibility of any surface at or below the EH. http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_1/death_spiral.htm "NASA's Hubble Space Telescope may have, for the first time, provided direct evidence for the existence of black holes by observing the disappearance of matter as it falls beyond the "event horizon."

Here's an interesting paper re Hawking Radiation... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08426-4 Decoherence of black hole superpositions by Hawking radiation: Abstract: An environment interacting with a system acquires information about it, e.g. about its location. The resulting decoherence is thought to be responsible for the emergence of the classical realm of our Universe out of the quantum substrate. However, this view of the emergence of the classical is sometimes dismissed as a consequence of insufficient isolation and, hence, as non-fundamental. In contrast to many other systems, a black hole can never be isolated from its Hawking radiation which carries information about its location, making this lack of isolation fundamental. Here we consider the decoherence of a “black hole Schrödinger cat”—a non-local superposition of a Schwarzschild black hole in two distinct locations—due to its Hawking radiation. The resulting decoherence rate turns out to be given by a surprisingly simple equation. Moreover, and in contrast to known cases of decoherence, this rate does not involve Planck’s constant ħ. and an interesting extract..... "Hawking radiation defies the classical expectation that nothing can be emitted from a black hole. It was initially hoped that this result would pave the way to quantization of gravity. However, Hawking radiation has instead deepened the mystery by implicating entropy (and, hence, information) in questions involving quantum theory and gravity (e.g., the black hole information paradox)." <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

and to again supplement that........ ttps://physicsworld.com/a/physicists-stimulate-hawking-radiation-from-optical-analogue-of-a-black-hole/ https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.010404 https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.00913

A vast number of scientific papers, totally invalidating the emotional nonsense above...... https://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/ppcomm/Papers.html And actually the "ongoing failure [as you sarcastically put it] of LIGO/Virgo to publicly engage in this non event you call a controversy, is akin to them engaging creationists or any number of the many other alternative hypothetical pushers, that claim superiority over GR. Those hypotheticals fall of there own free accord, or die in the course of time simply because they do not predict more the GR, or fail and are falsified in aspects of cosmology that GR passes with flying colours.

Total nonsense! and some advice, if you want to indulge in conspiracy theories, and personal biased opinion, take it to the appropriate section.

The point is that the BB is not a theory of how the universe was created or came into being...a common misconception and pop science inaccuracy. It is a theory of how our universe or space and time as we know them, evolved from a hot dense state, from t+10-43 seconds, or 10-43 seconds after the initial event. Our laws of physics and GR tell us nothing about that first fraction of a second. For that we can only as yet speculate, although some reasonable speculative scenarios, based on current knowledge does exist.....https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ We also are not sure whether the universe is finite or infinite at this time. If the above linked article is correct, the closest thing we get to nothing, is the quantum foam, so maybe we need to redefine that as nothing. That maybe infinite and eternal. If the universe is finite that is best illustrated and described here..... and also I would like to echo the following remarks....