beecee

Someone talking about being hot? ....... Or perhaps you like your "hot" Russian style......

If any extra dimensions exist, other then the four we are familiar with, are they not necessarily all "curled up" as we are unable to see them? I certainly do not know enough about string and/or its derivatives to criticise them too much, other then repeat what criticism I have heard of them from other quarters...namely that after 3 or so decades, they still are not evidenced despite the apparent mathematic beauty that they contain.

I would imagine that the consequences of SR in 1905 was to have the most momentous impact that we can imagine. I mean the physics at that time was settled that time and space were absolute, and the speed of light essentially variable. Then all that was thrown into chaos. I would see though, his GR in 1916, having far less of an impact. Any reverberation today is non existent, at least in the physics world, and generally taken for granted not withstanding science forum cranks.

Hmmmm, sounds like a "mystical experience" These happen on occasion and is evidence of nothing more then the randomness of one's own subconcious and the brain... We already have a working model of how the universe works from t+10-43 seconds and supported by four pillars of cosmological observations. It's not in the least magic, just gravity as the prime mover. Simply put, the universe is the way it is because we are here to observe it. If it wasn't, we would not have evolved. This is known as "the Anthropic Principle" It can only be seen as powered by magic, if we did not have models/theories that describe what we observe, although certainly there are still questions left to answer.eg: Why do we perceive warped/curved spacetime as gravity? Again, this would get back to the Anthropic Principle. I don't really see any problem or magic...I see some questions that are still to be answered that's all. OK, clearly, what in your opinion is the problem and what is the solution? Beliefs are a personal concept and what people believe is there business, as long as those beliefs don't infringe on my rights . What problem do you find? Considering that the BB is overwhelmingly supported by many observational aspects. Do you know what the BB entails? With evolution and your doubts, on that you are totally wrong. While any theory is always open for modification, addition etc, the theory of evolution is as certain as any theory could ever be. Like you I am not a skilled physicist, but I have read plenty of reputable books by many reputable professionals, and know who the knowledgable people are on forums such as this.

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-gravitational-dose-reality-extra-dimensions.html Gravitational waves provide dose of reality about extra dimensions: September 14, 2018 by Louise Lerner, University of Chicago: While last year's discovery of gravitational waves from colliding neutron stars was earth-shaking, it won't add extra dimensions to our understanding of the universe—not literal ones, at least. University of Chicago astronomers found no evidence for extra spatial dimensions to the universe based on the gravitational wave data. Their research, published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, is one of many papers in the wake of the extraordinary announcement last year that LIGO had detected a neutron star collision. The first-ever detection of gravitational waves in 2015, for which three physicists won the Nobel Prize last year, was the result of two black holes crashing together. Last year, scientists observed two neutron stars collide. The major difference between the two is that astronomers could see the aftermath of the neutron star collision with a conventional telescope, producing two readings that can be compared: one in gravity, and one in electromagnetic (light) waves. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-09-gravitational-dose-reality-extra-dimensions.html#jCp the paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/07/048/meta Limits on the number of spacetime dimensions from GW170817: Abstract: The observation of GW170817 in both gravitational and electromagnetic waves provides a number of unique tests of general relativity. One question we can answer with this event is: do large-wavelength gravitational waves and short-frequency photons experience the same number of spacetime dimensions? In models that include additional non-compact spacetime dimensions, as the gravitational waves propagate, they "leak" into the extra dimensions, leading to a reduction in the amplitude of the observed gravitational waves, and a commensurate systematic error in the inferred distance to the gravitational wave source. Electromagnetic waves would remain unaffected. We compare the inferred distance to GW170817 from the observation of gravitational waves, dLGW, with the inferred distance to the electromagnetic counterpart NGC 4993, dLEM. We constrain dLGW = (dLEM/Mpc)γ with γ = 1.01+0.04−0.05 (for the SHoES value of H0) or γ = 0.99+0.03−0.05 (for the Planck value of H0), where all values are MAP and minimal 68% credible intervals. These constraints imply that gravitational waves propagate in D=3+1spacetime dimensions, as expected in general relativity. In particular, we find that D = 4.02+0.07−0.10 (SHoES) and D = 3.98+0.07−0.09 (Planck). Furthermore, we place limits on the screening scale for theories with D>4 spacetime dimensions, finding that the screening scale must be greater than ~ 20 Mpc. We also place a lower limit on the lifetime of the graviton of t > 4.50 × 108 yr. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

As yet we have absolutely no evidence of any multiverse scenario, none. Theoretically speaking The only limit to the mass of a BH is the mass/energy within the universe....practicaly and realistically speaking that of course would never happen, so the mass of any BH is only governed by the amount of mass that it can swallow.

Does that mean that also at distant points, where there are several planets with huge masses, the greatest contribution to the local form of spacetime corresponds to the Sun? Ok, I'm going to assume you are talking about "hot Jupiters" and extra solar planets with regards to the parts I have highlighted from your post. I believe that most astronomers/cosmologists accept planetary migration as a means of explaining the Jupiter size planets that orbit other stars. This would logically happen due to interactions with smaller debris from the planetary disk, extra densities in the inter stellar gas which would/could act to change orbital parameters to varying extents. This is also hypothesised to have occurred within our own solar system with Jupiter much closer in with the early stages of the solar system, and having migrated outwards. I'm not sure what this has to do with GR as it is explained by Newtonian concepts, but I'am sure that GR does not vary from the conclusions. The spacetime warpage mad by the Sun, keeps all the planets in orbit, while the planets themselves create smaller warpages which keep the moons in orbit about themselves, and any over-lapping of warpages, can also have overall effects on other bodies within the system. Not sure if any of that has covered your query but anyway........

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-magnetic-chaos-star-forming-clouds.html Magnetic waves create chaos in star-forming clouds September 13, 2018, University of Texas McDonald Observatory New research by Stella Offner, assistant professor of astronomy at The University of Texas at Austin, finds that magnetic waves are an important factor driving the process of star formation within the enormous clouds that birth stars. Her research sheds light on the processes that are responsible for setting the properties of stars, which in turn affects the formation of planets orbiting them, and, ultimately, life on those planets. The research is published in the current issue of the journal Nature Astronomy. Offner used a supercomputer to make models of the multitude of processes happening inside a cloud where stars are forming, in an effort to sort out which processes lead to which effects. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-09-magnetic-chaos-star-forming-clouds.html#jCp the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0566-1 Turbulent action at a distance due to stellar feedback in magnetized clouds: Abstract: A fundamental property of molecular clouds is that they are turbulent1, but how this turbulence is generated and maintained is unknown. One possibility is that stars forming within the cloud regenerate turbulence via their outflows, winds and radiation (‘feedback’)2. However, disentangling motions created by feedback from the initial cloud turbulence is challenging. Here, we confront the relationship between stellar feedback and turbulence by identifying and separating the local and global impact of stellar winds. We analyse magnetohydrodynamic simulations in which we track wind material as it interacts with the ambient cloud. By distinguishing between launched material, gas entrained by the wind and pristine gas we show energy is transferred away from the sources via magnetic waves excited by the expanding wind shells. This action at a distance enhances the fraction of stirring motion compared with compressing motion and produces a flatter velocity power spectrum. We conclude that stellar feedback accounts for significant energy transfer within molecular clouds—an impact enhanced by magnetic waves, which have previously been neglected by observations. Overall, stellar feedback can partially offset global turbulence dissipation.

Eloquently put. I can't really say I disagree with anything.

I was in the supermarket the other day, and this little boy around 3 years old was putting on the biggest tantrum one could ever imagine, sitting in the aisle, screaming at the top of his lungs for his Mum to buy him something or other. The Mother simply stood calmly by and told him if he didn't get back in his pram and stop being naughty, he would not be getting any ice-cream that night. In my days.....well I think you can guess what a Mother or Dad in the 50's may have done to the little bloody brat....

Understanding the God concept, is in my opinion, simply is understanding the need for humanity to understand the awe and mystery of the universe of which we are apart. And you touched on that here... Ancient man needed to explain the wonders that he observed, and at those early times, there was little or no science. It is simply a need to explain, and inventing some supernatural deity seemed the easiest way for ancient man, in the absence of science. I don't agree with the following though..... The temples, altars, icons, symbols etc are simply evidence that early man did need to explain the universe around him....That is not evidence for any fabricated god. Interesting concept....Perhaps this is the "Spinoza" god that Einstein often mentioned when asked about his beliefs. I prefer that Nature is real but if people need to call nature god then so be it. It is simply an inert concept and I fail to understand how any god concept can be equated to nature, with utmost apologies to the great man, although in retrospect, I would imagine that he would agree with me. It was once told to me that "god did not invent man, man invented god".

Conspiracy is all you have to justify and support your ridiculous claims. And again while the research may trickle out to a limited few, your misinterpretation /s will be lost forever.

Are you serious??? I mean really, that is totally wrong on at least two aspects. Please, go learn some science and stop dabbling in drug induced mystical experiences, to re-enforce your bias.

Sure they are! The greatest earth shattering news that we could ever hear and this is all you have? Excuses, excuses, more excuses and conspiracy nonsense! Man, the bias is strong in this one!!

Like this thread and like the two you have had justly closed, it will forever be lost in cyber space.

Well again put your money where your mouth is and take this to the world!! You'll be a star!! May even make you the thirteenth Apostle!! Nothing to stop you showing us all that you aint biased.

The perennial philosophy is what it is, philosophy, not evidence for any god and neither is any drug induced mystical experience. That again is your misguided interpretation based on your bias.

The thing is that no matter what size font he uses, it still isn't any evidence for any god! Oh to be saddled with such delusion and bias!!

The questionable perennial philosophy is just that...philosophy. It does not show any evidence for god, and neither does any mystical experience. And while I may not understand all the science, I am not misinterpriting anything, nor am I biased,.

Are you on drugs? Liar, liar, pants on fire! Were you or are you on drugs? I need to ask that as you seem totally bereft of what you have said and claimed over two closed threads and this excuse to again raaaise your pet thingy to continue your crusade. Other then all the mods were mistaken and have unfairly dismissed your claims, and all the members that have participated are atheists despite at least one telling you that wasn;t true, and how this ground breaking, earth shattering news is being hidden etc etc etc

You have no evidence! the perennial Philosophy? How is that evidence? Your so called mystical experience? Again certainly not evidence, other then evidence that drug taking leads to nonsensical behaviour and highlights your bias.

Your whole pretense in rejecting all the forum has told you is one big conspiracy.

Thanks for nothing! Again your bias prevents you from admitting that it does not claim what you claim it claims. You have claimed quite afew but being in denial as a result of your bias, you will always fail to recognise your own short comings and misinterpretations.

And yet this forum has dismissed everything that you arrogantly continue to maintain. Why not put your money where your mouth is and show the forum that you don't just have a religious bias? Why not you take this out to the world at larger...I mean earth shattering news will not stay hidden no matter how you want to dance around that fact. C'mon! manup...take it to the world! If it is as you say you'll be a hero, and all of us here will be ignorant fools in not being able to see it as you do. The balls in your court! No excuses, no conspiracy nonsense.

Any more claims, conspiracies or denial to side step the fact that you are simply horribly delusional due to your bias?