beecee

Bingo! It is and was simply an expansion of space and time itself, from an extremely hot, dense state from t+10-43 seconds.

Noted......Sometimes running the gauntlet can and does take some time....and with something as successful as GR has been, and if this V4 does have anything going for it, it will also probably take some time. But by the same token, if it is as ground breaking as its proposers say, I'm sure there would be plenty of young up and coming scientists/physicists that would like to show that it is superior to GR and be open to the huge accolades he would benefit from.

From Kip Thorne's book, Black Holes and Time Warps, and from memory, as a BH spins, its outer horizon is elongated until a point is reached where the outer horizon region, will coincide with the static BH EH at the polar regions. This is what limits the angular momentum, again from memory. Also speaking theoretically, we or some advanced civilisation could possibly extract energy from the region between the outer horizon and the static horizon, which is called the "ergosphere"

No .. anti gravity expansion is a valid scientific theory. Published and peer reviewed. Explains why our galaxy or group is moving in a certain way. Is it? Hmmmm...Maybe you mean that this so called "anti gravity"is an explanation as to why the expansion rate is accelerating. Why the universe is expanding is an entirely different question, and probably explained as due to momentum, as created in the first moments of the BB itself. The universal expansion is seen over large scales. Over smaller scales like our local group of galaxies and even larger, gravity decouples us from any expansion. The same way the EMF, and strong and weak nuclear forces prevent planets, you and me from flying apart. I'm not a RC. I'm not a Protestant. I'm not a JW. I believe and think as I understand the bible, not according to what someone tells me. And if you take a thing like BB and Evolution as your whole opinion of the bible you're missing out on what I estimate roughly to be 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of what it's all about. I don't believe I am missing out on anything, since the bible itself is myth.

Yep, that's the thing....The BB and GR actually compliment each other and go together like a hand in a glove. [I was actually going to use a more crass analogy but gave myself an uppercut instead ]

I didn't say that. I said the edict from the Catholic church re the BB and evolution of life, being compatible with the church's teachings, makes the bible a book of fairy tales. [well I didn't exactly say that, but that is what I meant in different words.] You need to concern yourself with why the Catholic church finds no conflict with both the evolution of life and the BB. And when it is shown to be wrong, science and scientists move on.

It certainly makes a mockery of the bible. The simple fact is that they rightly realise that the BB theory of the evolution of the universe, along with the evolution of life, has so much going for them, and so much overwhelmingly loads of evidence supporting both theories, that in reality, it would be absurd to deny or reject either. But then obviously they insert the old "god of the gaps" to explain the "before the BB" and/or whatever the true definition of "nothing" is.

yeah, when I was a young bloke, I would roll them into little round balls and flick them at my mate.

Me too...But again, let me reiterate that aLIGO and other scientific orginizations are well aware of it, and it is damn well near certain, that if it was/is as good as its authors and formulators claim, why it hasn't started a revolution and displace GR? Anyone proposing any theory, treats that theory as his baby...much as a Mother would with a new born child. It would be rare for that proposer to completely look at his own workings/ideas in an 100% objective manner. "IF" true, if it does all that is claimed it does do, "IF"....it would replace GR as our utmost accurate theory of gravity. "IF" all the maths is correct, if the assumptions made are valid, if all its other claims are shown to be valid. Let me finish by saying, that if it does pass muster, and successfully runs the gauntlet unscathed, then it will certainly be proclaimed as GR's successor, and be a "shoe in" for the Nobel prize for Physics. At present though, I don't see any indication of that.

Your "a star can be made from nothing if the star`s negative gravitational energy balances its positive rest mass energy." is actually in reference to the universe, not any single stellar object as far as I am aware.` The singularity as I have said is now accepted as being non existent for the reasons and manner I have described, while of course irrespective of any quantum fluctuations, which is speculated as how the universe arose from the quantum foam, it is still just speculation at this stage of the game. The BB is overwhelmingly supported due to the preponderance of evidence, as opposed to any other hypothetical. To say that his membership of the Nazi party and the fact that he was German, is the reason his hypothetical is not known, is simply indulging in rumour mongering and conspiracy nonsense, as is the now often critical appraisal of our Mods when anyone is asked or forced to tow the line and the rules of the site. Mainstream history is not condemned here, only pseudo nonsense, and/or alternative hypotheticals being pushed in the mainstream sections. I have discussed at times the great Freddy Hoyle and his alternative model, as a part of scientific history......If I chose though to add support for his discarded SS hypothetical, I would do it in the alternative/speculation section.

You can believe what you like...Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny if you wish. But basically speaking, the theory of evolution is near certain and actually says we all, Humans, Apes etc, all evolved from the first primitive life form. The BB evolution of space and time is also overwhelmingly supported, so much so that the Catholic church sees no conflict or objection in accepting both. So yes, one probably could believe in the BB, the evolution of life and some deity or other that was the cause of the BB. This sthough is simply installing the old god of the gaps scenario, while science works objectively on how and why the BB banged, and any empirical evidence to indicate the why and how..

We just don't know. This is all fun speculation, and filling in the gaps of regions that science has no knowledge of...before the BB, at the core of BH's where GR fails us....No harm in speculation though.

There are many theories of gravity including MOND...The theory as evidenced by GR remains superior in the views of most experts and has been extensively tested time and time again, with its latest prdictions of gravitational radiation confirmed numerous times.

There is only one fool debating in this thread...I'll leave you to your fantasies, as it is obvious as to what will happen. Have a good day!

I don't need to call anyone, and once again, you have avoided through ignorance and/or obtuseness the fact that parts of Australia are in drought. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/ and as long as you keep arguing and debating so dishonestly, this thread will probably also be closed, or your worthless pots extracted. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/archive/20181003.archive.shtml September was Australia's driest on record Rainfall was very much below average nationally, and particularly low across the southern mainland Rainfall deficiencies have increased across eastern Australia and southern coastal areas of Western Australia at each of the 6-, 9- and 18-month timescales Lower-level soil moisture was below average for September across eastern and northern Australia, and parts of inland and southern Western Australia. The BoM is the Bureau of Meteorology

All well established and valid points. It's good enough for our friend obviously, as evidenced in the obnoxious way he answered your thread...or should I say didn't answer your thread.

Don't be so obtuse and naive...Your why "isn't it raining in California"among many many others in many threads illustrate your lack of real knowledge on the subject. You know the difference between climate change and weather? Your claim that Australia was not under drought conditions was another wild arse guess/denial/ignorance. I'm sure there are many others of which at this time I'm too lazy to look for, but hey! its here for all to see!

My irony meter has just blown up!!!!

http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~bwrobert/teaching/einstein/pdf/Laudan.pdf

Nonsense, the problem is not so much climate change, its human induced climate change. And really your threads that are closed are because debate with you is impossible, because of your total childish behaviour in not debating in good faith. Evidenced in the following weird question.....

That's so absurd. What hypotheticals have been accepted as theories without experimental evidence? Which one's are these? I believe we should be able to read it in context with the whole subject...you know, taking things out of context and all that. Gravitational waves off the top of my head. The "too good not to be true" aspect probably applies to string and/or its derivitives. Yep, I have heard similar, but once again, the majority of physicists are well aware that it has not as yet been validated via observation, hence why we are still searching for a QGT that can be validated. I see nothing wrong in any individual believing a hypothetical is beautiful and as such probably has some validity. I don't accept that they automatically claim them as legit theories.

Of course they are! That is common everyday observation, pseudo-philosophy not withstanding..The undetermination philosophy of science, as projected by Zosimus, is again hairy fairy philosophical rhetoric, and is neither all inclusive nor all exclusive. It in many cases is irrelevant to the real world, as are many other philosophical concepts. [see my previous links] The obvious continued philosphy being projected by Reg and Zosimus, are impractical thoughts in many cases. I found the following interesting, although not in entire agreement with...... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569498/ The Medawar Lecture 2004 The truth about science: ABSTRACT The attitudes of scientists towards the philosophy of science is mixed and includes considerable indifference and some hostility. This may be due in part to unrealistic expectation and to misunderstanding. Philosophy is unlikely directly to improve scientific practices, but scientists may find the attempt to explain how science works and what it achieves of considerable interest nevertheless. The present state of the philosophy of science is illustrated by recent work on the ‘truth hypothesis’, according to which, science is generating increasingly accurate representations of a mind-independent and largely unobservable world. According to Karl Popper, although truth is the aim of science, it is impossible to justify the truth hypothesis. According to Thomas Kuhn, the truth hypothesis is false, because scientists can only describe a world that is partially constituted by their own theories and hence not mind-independent. The failure of past scientific theories has been used to argue against the truth hypothesis; the success of the best current theories has been used to argue for it. Neither argument is sound. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: If this "Underdetermination in Science" is valid absolutely, and if any of the other philosophical points raised by Reg or Zosimus are valid, it would mean that science and the scientific method is nonsense, and in reality should be scrapped. So I ask then, what would my two friends substitute in its place....preferable something that is going to do and benefit mankind at least as much as science most certainly has. There is no substitution and nor should there be. What this "undetermination" is, is unrealistic at best and does not apply as a blanket statement with regards to science, never has and never will.

No one's head is being cut off. This though is primarily a science forum, and any claim/thought needs to be scrutinised and put to the test, continually. Your philosophy of undeterministic and the obvious inferences made, has failed that test.