beecee

From your own link in the OP.... "The atmosphere of the Moon is a very scant presence of gases surrounding the Moon. For most practical purposes, the Moon is considered to be surrounded by vacuum. The elevated presence of atomic and molecular particles in its vicinity compared to interplanetary medium, referred to as "lunar atmosphere" for scientific objectives, is negligible in comparison with the gaseous envelopes surrounding Earthand most planets of the Solar System. The pressure of this small mass is around 3×10−15 atm (0.3 nPa), varying throughout the day, and in total weighs less than 10 metric tonnes.[2][3] Otherwise, the Moon is considered not to have an atmosphere because it cannot absorb measurable quantities of radiation, does not appear layered or self-circulating, and requires constant replenishment due to the high rate at which its gases are lost to space".

I'm ready to have the experts jump down my throat, but that as far as I know, is the mathematical singularity...The singularity also can be defined as where our theories, models and laws break down, and that's at the quantum/Planck level, which is not the theoretical point singularity as defined mathematically. I believe most physicists do not believe the mathematical singularity point is ever reached...rather a surface of sorts at or "below" the quantum/Planck level.

As informed by a noted astronomer at one time, a singularity need not be infinite, simply may lead to infinity, with the great percentage of beliefs being that the "infinite singularity" and as a result infinite spacetime curvature and density, stop somewhere at the quantum/Planck level.

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-physicists-demystify-einstein-spooky-science.html Physicists race to demystify Einstein's 'spooky' science August 27, 2018 by Cynthia Dillon, University of California - San Diego Schematic of the 2018 “Cosmic Bell” experiment at the Roque de Los Muchachos Observatory in the Canary Islands, where two large telescopes observed the fluctuating color of light from distant quasars (red and blue galaxies). The green beams indicate polarization-entangled photons sent through the open air between stations separated by about one kilometer. Credit: Andrew S. Friedman and Dominik Rauch When it comes to fundamental physics, things can get spooky. At least that's what Albert Einstein said when describing the phenomenon of quantum entanglement—the linkage of particles in such a way that measurements performed on one particle seem to affect the other, even when separated by great distances. "Spooky action at a distance" is how Einstein described what he couldn't explain. While quantum mechanics includes many mysterious phenomena like entanglement, it remains the best fundamental physical theory describing how matter and light behave at the smallest scales. Quantum theory has survived numerous experimental tests in the past century while enabling many advanced technologies: modern computers, digital cameras and the displays of TVs, laptops and smartphones. Quantum entanglement itself is also the key to several next-generation technologies in computing, encryption and telecommunications. Yet, there is no clear consensus on how to interpret what quantum theory says about the true nature of reality at the subatomic level, or to definitively explain how entanglement actually works. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-physicists-demystify-einstein-spooky-science.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.060401 Cosmic Bell Test: Measurement Settings from Milky Way Stars: ABSTRACT: Bell’s theorem states that some predictions of quantum mechanics cannot be reproduced by a local-realist theory. That conflict is expressed by Bell’s inequality, which is usually derived under the assumption that there are no statistical correlations between the choices of measurement settings and anything else that can causally affect the measurement outcomes. In previous experiments, this “freedom of choice” was addressed by ensuring that selection of measurement settings via conventional “quantum random number generators” was spacelike separated from the entangled particle creation. This, however, left open the possibility that an unknown cause affected both the setting choices and measurement outcomes as recently as mere microseconds before each experimental trial. Here we report on a new experimental test of Bell’s inequality that, for the first time, uses distant astronomical sources as “cosmic setting generators.” In our tests with polarization-entangled photons, measurement settings were chosen using real-time observations of Milky Way stars while simultaneously ensuring locality. Assuming fair sampling for all detected photons, and that each stellar photon’s color was set at emission, we observe statistically significant ≳7.31σ and ≳11.93σ violations of Bell’s inequality with estimated pvalues of ≲1.8×10−13 and ≲4.0×10−33, respectively, thereby pushing back by ∼600  years the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have engineered the observed Bell violation.

For obvious reasons. The atmospheric layers of any star consists of the photosphere, chromosphere and the corona itself...plasma type matter where the existence of anything else is hard to imagine. When we speak of BH's the closest orbit about any Schwarzchild BH is at 1.5 Schwarzchild radius and is known as the photon sphere. With the more realistic solution, the Kerr BH, there are two photon spheres, and surprisingly they orbit in opposite directions. Speaking of any DM darkmosphere closer then the photon sphere is crazy. The accretion disk is around 3 Schwarzchild radius, and matter, mostly plasma, then spirals in. If your hypothetical makes anymore valid predictions then GR, then we'll be seeing you in Stockholm this year...That I doubt though as so far you have not explained suficiently clear enough time dilation, length contraction and of course gravitational radiation. Of course it is! Any gravitational lensing calculations would always make allowances for any Newtonian refraction and such is easily recognised by the fact that refraction is chromatic and Gravitational lensing is achromatic. The halo of DM around galaxies is not in question. And certainly adds nothing to your claims about atmospheric like gathering of DM around BH's or stars, at least within certain ranges. DM density certainly increases towards the galactic center as evidenced, but in no way analogous to an atmosphere.

I didn't get that feeling at all. I am waiting for my questions though to be answered by our god fearing member.

For our two rather mixed up members with regards to the BB. The evidence for the BB. [1] We observe expansion: Mentally reversing that we obviously arrive at a universe/spacetime in a far hotter, denser state. ]2] The CMBR at 2.7K [3] The abundance of the lighter elements like hydrogen and helium. The BB describes the evolution of the universe/spacetime from t+10-43 seconds. It says nothing about the how, or why, much as the theory of the evolution of life says nothing about how life first started within Earth or the Universe.

Again at best any hypothetical that explains what the incumbent model does, particularly when that incumbent model is overwhelmingly successful, will not displace said model. To do so, it needs to invalidate the said model or explain more. The small effect of refraction with regards to gravitational lensing is already taken into consideration I'm pretty sure. No it shouldn't. If it doesnt have EMFs to help it accrete.

Yes each individual stellar system moves around the galactic center at variable speeds. Where does that bring us? Actually to the conclusion as shown by many repeated M/M type experiments, that the ether does not exist.

Yep, so? It ends up swallowed by the BH and any darkmosphere of the type you seem to be projecting would also have a hard job forming around the plasma state of a star's atmosphere I suggest. Be that, or be that not the case, there would be no DM type atmosphere around a BH Baryonic matter accretion disks form at about 3 Schwarzchild radius from memory and even at this distance, is glowing and mostly in a plasma state [depending on BH size] Again a BH would sweep out an area devoid of matter around the EH and like our own SMBH be largely dormant.

Perhasp some knowledge of physics and everyday observation of say a passenger jet going at 600 kms/hr, and stellar aberration and paralex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light https://www.google.com.au/search?q=stellar+paralex&oq=stellar+paralex&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.7327j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

We don't need any darkmpsphere when the fact is that light travels in geodesics through curved spacetime. Sure, so? Because it would fall into the BH. So does baryonic matter of all persuasions including stars, and the halo of DM you speak of is surrounding the galaxy as a whole, not the BH. Any BH and probably the SMBH at our own galactic center will sweep out an area devoid of matter and become essentially dormant which our own is...at least in comparison to AGN and Quasars.

Speculate all you want, just make sure you are able to back your claims up and that they are in the appropriate section.

The ultimate evidence against any ether is the continued failure of ever more accurate experiments failing to detect any.

You DON'T make non mainstream claims in the mainstream sections...PERIOD, particularly hypothetical unsupported nonsense which you have appeared to have done so far. Read the rules.

Why would I do that? This is a public forum for discussion. Either put up or you know what.

We do not know whether the universe is finite or infinite, but the overwhelmingly supported BB model describes from t+10-43 seconds how spacetime evolved into what we see today. We can speculate as to where the BB came from and while at it, define what we mean by nothing. If the BB arose due to a fluctuation in the quantum foam, perhaps this 'quantum foam"is as close to nothing as it can possibly get. https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ From the link.... If space is infinte, so to is time and as a consequence spacetime/universe. Spacetime is the universe. ps: It really amazes me how so many newbies with non mainstream hypotheticals, inevitable make the mistake of posting in the mainstream sections.

Of course not! How naive of me!

I don't see it that way I'm afraid....Normal baryonic matter in the form of stars or other objects are ripped asunder to form accretion disks that gradually spiral into the BH. DM since it doesn't interact electromagnetically, does not congregate to form stars and/or planets as far as we know, so would be more directly and easily swallowed by the BH. I don't accept that any DM atmosphere is going to form. Also most BH's would have angular momentum which also would not be any reason for any DM to congregate in an atmospheric like manner.

Perhasp some knowledge of physics and everyday observation of say a passenger jet going at 600 kms/hr, and stellar aberration and paralex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light https://www.google.com.au/search?q=stellar+paralex&oq=stellar+paralex&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.7327j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The ball's in your court, though all that is evident so far is empty rhetorical claims that any Tom, Dick or Harry can make.

Certainly without any doubt spacetime in the presence of mass, is the best way to describe gravity, be it warped, curved, twisted or in the form of GWs. We also of course see that spacetime curvature evidenced by gravitational lensing. At best your hypothetical just appears to possibily mirror that of GR spacetime...on other words superfluous.

Bingo! They would certainly love to dismantle Medicare, but obviously are also aware of the backlash if they ever did. Gough's greatest achievement.

My choice would have been Anthony Albanese, but I'm prepared to give Shorten a go. This recent turmoil of course [at least in my opinion] stems from Abbott seeking revenge and not caring how he went about it. Many years ago, I had the pleasure of meeting both Jim Cairns and Gough Whitlam who I believe to have been our greatest PM. My problem with the LNP is that over the years [and highlighted with the stopping of supply in the Whitlam government is that they seem to have the attitude that they have a god given right to govern Speaking of Australian PM,s here's a great video of the most popular PM ever.....

Why? Why then is the universe so vast with so many stars and planets? If we were it on planet Earth, why then are we not at the core/center of the solar system/galaxy/universe? Why do we exist the third rock from a dwarf star in the outskirts of s humdrum galaxy, with many billions of other galaxies?