beecee

Great Aussie group! Shame I'm not into there type of music or anything post '80's. My Son has told me I'm stuck in a time warp from '50's/60's music Here's an old Aussie rock n roll singer: One I actually went to school with, and who like me got sacked from the Altar boys union after being caught drinking the Altar wine.

Like I said, I'm ignorant on this subject, and if my thoughts are wrong, then can you basically describe in words of simplicity [as much as possible] as to what is actually going on?

Now why the hell would you raise a book based on ancient myths, written by obscure men in an obscure age, when we are discussing the facts and logic of SR?

I would certainly assume that when most cosmologists say that a physics singularity should not exist, they would certainly be saying that some mechanism at the quantum/Planck level would stop further collapse. Yes, obviously we have no idea what that is at this time. That's the way I see it. GR tells us that when the Schwarzchild radius is reached then an EH is formed, and further collapse up to the quantum/Planck level is compulsory. There GR fails us and probably then some mechanism should stop further collapse and prevent any singularity and associated infinities. But that's just our best guess. Whatever happens, we have no reason to assume that somehow matter changes its nature. That's how I see it anyway from where I'm sitting.

The calcs and figures on the acceleration rate from GR, are far more accurate and precise then Newtonian under "normal" gravitational situations, but entails more complicated maths, which is why we rarely use GR on Earth based problems and even with regards to most space endeavours...plus of course Newtonian tolerances do suffice. Near the EH of a BH though, Newtonian tolerances literally fails us and the precision of GR is needed.

My ignorance of this is extreme! My guess rightly or wrongly was in relation to basic simple life forms, creating and/or evolving into more complicated life forms.

Let me first apologise for the "muddled" comment, on the grounds that obviously English is not your first language. My "arrogance" comment though was more to do with your comment directed at Strange in his attempt to help you, thus...... But perhaps this could also be explained by the obvious that English is not your first language. What I will say at this time is that I believe the first requirement of anyone with criticism of the incumbent model, or the mainstream view, is to make sure they fully understand the mainstream view. I would also add that your criticism of "coming from nothing" with regards to virtual particles is somewhat askew. Our best reasonings and thoughts at this time are that our very first fundamental particles arose from the decoupling of the Superforce at a short instant after the BB. My apologies again if I have not been of assistance, and my only excuse is that like you, I am also only an interested amateur. PS: Also evidence for virtual particles popping into and out of existence from "nothing" would be the Casimir Effect, although I'm willing to be corrected on that score.

Which in reality and logically, adds some reasonable validity to Hawking Radiation, despite the fact that actually detecting it [HR} is near impossible as it is drowned out by the background. Correct?

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-bone-trove-denmark-story-barbarian.html Bone trove in Denmark tells story of 'Barbarian' battle May 22, 2018 Find assemblages of femur, tibia and fibula, and two small stones. Credit: PNAS Thousands of bones from boys and men likely killed in a ferocious battle 2,000 years ago have been unearthed from a bog in Denmark, researchers said Monday. Without local written records to explain, or a battlefield to scour for evidence, experts are nevertheless piecing together a story of the Germanic people, often described by the Romans as "barbarians" for their violent nature. Four pelvic bones strung on a stick were among the remains of at least 82 people found during archaeological excavations at Alken Enge, on Denmark's Jutland peninsula, indicating an organized and ritual clearing of a battlefield, said the report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-bone-trove-denmark-story-barbarian.html#jCp ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/05/15/1721372115 Direct evidence of a large Northern European Roman period martial event and post-battle corpse manipulation Abstract: New archaeological excavations at Alken Enge, Jutland, Denmark, have revealed a comprehensive assemblage of disarticulated human remains within a 75-ha wetland area. A minimum of 82 individuals have been uncovered. Based on the distribution, the total population is estimated to be greater than 380 individuals, exclusively male and predominantly adult. The chronological radiocarbon evidence of the human bones indicates that they belong to a single, large event in the early first century AD. The bones show a high frequency of unhealed trauma from sharp-edged weapons, which, together with finds of military equipment, suggests that the find is of martial character. Taphonomic traces indicate that the bones were exposed to animal gnawing for a period of between 6 mo and 1 y before being deposited in the lake. Furthermore, the find situations, including collections of bones, ossa coxae threaded onto a stick, and cuts and scraping marks, provide evidence of the systematic treatment of the human corpses after the time of exposure. The finds are interpreted as the remains of an organized and possibly ritually embedded clearing of a battlefield, including the physical manipulation of the partly skeletonized bones of the deceased fighters and subsequent deposition in the lake. The date places the finds in the context of the Germanic region at the peak of the Roman expansion northward and provides the earliest direct archaeological evidence of large-scale conflict among the Germanic populations and a demonstration of hitherto unrecognized postbattle practices.

Let me first say that I really on face value find your posts as rather garbled and muddled. Let me say secondly, I also find them tinged with unecessary arrogance, haughtiness and a probable underlying agenda.

But as the CMBR continues to drop, a stage will be reached where the CMBR is lower then Hawking radiation and then any size BH, many many of trillions of years hence, will evaporate. The universe of course will be long dead by this stage, BH's being the last to go...

https://mobile.the-scientist.com/article/53504/image-of-the-day-bacterial-flagella http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/4/eaao7054 Insight into structural remodeling of the FlhA ring responsible for bacterial flagellar type III protein export Abstract The bacterial flagellum is a supramolecular motility machine. Flagellar assembly begins with the basal body, followed by the hook and finally the filament. A carboxyl-terminal cytoplasmic domain of FlhA (FlhAC) forms a nonameric ring structure in the flagellar type III protein export apparatus and coordinates flagellar protein export with assembly. However, the mechanism of this process remains unknown. We report that a flexible linker of FlhAC (FlhAL) is required not only for FlhAC ring formation but also for substrate specificity switching of the protein export apparatus from the hook protein to the filament protein upon completion of the hook structure. FlhAL was required for cooperative ring formation of FlhAC. Alanine substitutions of residues involved in FlhAC ring formation interfered with the substrate specificity switching, thereby inhibiting filament assembly at the hook tip. These observations lead us to propose a mechanistic model for export switching involving structural remodeling of FlhAC. OK, I'm not sure if I understand properly what is happening here...Can someone enlighten?

Is there a relationship between the temperature of the CMBR and the theoretical application of Hawking radiation?

.....But certainly the far far greater quality of reason exists with science. Ancient man being ignorant saw gods in the Sun, Moon, rivers, mountains etc. But with the advent of science and accompanying reason and logic, we now see the stupidity and futility of such beliefs. No the comparison is invalid and farcical at best. Sure you put some faith in your surgeon, but that faith is based on the knowledge that your surgeon, has studied and trained for a decade or more, is employed by a Hospital, and has probably done the operation countless times before with great success. Whilst your Faith in Christianity is based on tradition, a personal warm inner glow and comfort you derive from such myth and a promise of eternity in Paradise, 42 virgins or some other mythical story line that began before science chose reason, logic, the scientific methodology to overcome such gullible unscientific beliefs, based on faith alone. If your God was reasonable, he would then give everyone this same personal experience that he exists.

From the article and paper, the strong nuclear force and gluons that transmit that force.

I'll add a third point. As has been pointed out, you certainly are proposing something contradictory to the overwhelmingly, evidenced based incumbent model: That something is an unsupported and contradicted hypothetical. You do mot have a model. Oh, and really, the "sir" bit and over used formality is really unnecessary. Call me beecee.

There are just two points I would like to make: The speed of light in a vacuum is "c" not "C"...this may seem pedantic, but it is pretty important, since you have submitted a paper. The second point is that before any person can claim to have any theory over riding any incumbent model/theory, they most certainly need to understand thouroughly the theory they are claiming to replace.

Here is there first public TV appearance ever on Australian Bandstand in the year of 1963....

Apologies, I'm not Mordred, but pretty sure I suggest....Cygnus X1: We literally see matter disappearing into what we determine as a BH......The template model of gravitational waves based on GR type BH's and what that entails, that has now been verified 5 times. by aLIGO. Just me again, not Mordred.....what kind of matter? matter that has been broken down into its most fundamental parts via tidal gravitational effects...quarks etc. It's something that originated from matter in an as yet unknown state....While GR predicts its own downfall at the quantum/Planck level, and the subsequent singularity, that singularity need not be infinite, in fact most now don't believe it is....so a surface of sorts, composed of free quarks and other fundamentals. At least that's my take on it. And of course DM may also be the cause of part of the mass of a BH.

Again I'm at a total loss how anyone can claim that BH's are not made of anything in the standard model, if that is what is being suggested. eg: The star Betelgeuse is a normal standard red giant star that may become a BH. How does that align with any claim that BH's are not made of normal every day SM matter? Sure, while there is much more DM in the universe, and DM only interacting gravitationally with normal SM matter, means that BH's can and probably do contain some DM, again how can anyone conclude a BH does not consist of matter as per the SM? And again while we have no evidence as to what is inside a BH, or what is happening inside a BH, we do know that GR tells us that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory at least up to the quantum/Planck level, and the fact that tidal gravitational effects will see matter ultimately being torn asunder into its most basic components which are a part of the SM. Are there any errors in the above? I see it as reasonably logical and in line with what we already know.

There is no problem. Universal abiogenesis is actually the only scientific answer available for the appearance of life in the universe and/or on Earth. As yet of course, we are unable to actually replicate or find evidence of abiogenesis except we do know it has had ample plenty of time to take place. Evolution of life on Earth though is indisputable and would require someone totally blinded to science to ever deny it, noting of course that even the Catholic church accepts it.

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-subatomic-particle-mechanical-property-reveals.html First measurement of subatomic particle's mechanical property reveals distribution of pressure inside proton May 16, 2018, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility: "Nuclear physicists have found that the proton's building blocks, the quarks, are subjected to a pressure of 100 decillion Pascal (1035) near the center of a proton, which is about 10 times greater than the pressure in the heart of a neutron star. Credit: DOE's Jefferson Lab" Inside every proton in every atom in the universe is a pressure cooker environment that surpasses the atom-crushing heart of a neutron star. That's according to the first measurement of a mechanical property of subatomic particles, the pressure distribution inside the proton, which was carried out by scientists at the Department of Energy's Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. The nuclear physicists found that the proton's building blocks, the quarks, are subjected to a pressure of 100 decillion Pascal (1035) near the center of a proton, which is about 10 times greater than the pressure in the heart of a neutron star. The result was recently published in the journal Nature. "We found an extremely high outward-directed pressure from the center of the proton, and a much lower and more extended inward-directed pressure near the proton's periphery," explains Volker Burkert, Jefferson Lab Hall B Leader and a co-author on the paper. Burkert says that the distribution of pressure inside the proton is dictated by the strong force, the force that binds three quarks together to make a proton. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-subatomic-particle-mechanical-property-reveals.html#jCp ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0060-z The pressure distribution inside the proton: Abstract: The proton, one of the components of atomic nuclei, is composed of fundamental particles called quarks and gluons. Gluons are the carriers of the force that binds quarks together, and free quarks are never found in isolation—that is, they are confined within the composite particles in which they reside. The origin of quark confinement is one of the most important questions in modern particle and nuclear physics because confinement is at the core of what makes the proton a stable particle and thus provides stability to the Universe. The internal quark structure of the proton is revealed by deeply virtual Compton scattering1,2, a process in which electrons are scattered off quarks inside the protons, which subsequently emit high-energy photons, which are detected in coincidence with the scattered electrons and recoil protons. Here we report a measurement of the pressure distribution experienced by the quarks in the proton. We find a strong repulsive pressure near the centre of the proton (up to 0.6 femtometres) and a binding pressure at greater distances. The average peak pressure near the centre is about 1035 pascals, which exceeds the pressure estimated for the most densely packed known objects in the Universe, neutron stars3. This work opens up a new area of research on the fundamental gravitational properties of protons, neutrons and nuclei, which can provide access to their physical radii, the internal shear forces acting on the quarks and their pressure distributions. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Question.... Does the above say anything about or throw any light on the subject in the following thread, re gravity overcoming all forces inside a BH, and as matter approaches the singularity region? here....https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/114754-surviving-in-a-black-hole/ This also dictates that gravity at extreme levels will overcome all other forces. The high pressures that exhibit themselves as gravity increases, are also responsible for EDP and NDP......Obviously the gravity resulting from a BH even overcomes NDP: Cannot we then reasonably assume that even the strong force is overcome near or at the singularity? GR also tells us that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse "is compulsory" which afterall is the defining aspect of a BH under GR.

Perhaps the answer in this link I posted in another thread may clear this up....... and from https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-general-theory-of-relativity-break-down-at-the-center-of-a-black-hole extract: "Although general relativity has no upper limit on how much you can compress matter, theories of quantum gravity might say that it cannot be compressed beyond the Planck Density. It proposes that rather than collapsing into a singularity, the matter within a black hole will collapse until it is about a trillionth of a meter in size. At that point its density would be on the order of the Planck density".

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-alma-most-distant-oxygen-universe.html Astronomers find evidence for stars forming just 250 million years after Big Bang May 16, 2018, National Radio Astronomy Observatory Not long after the Big Bang, the first generations of stars began altering the chemical make-up of primitive galaxies, slowly enriching the interstellar medium with basic elements such as oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen. Finding the earliest traces of these common elements would shed important light on the chemical evolution of galaxies, including our own. New observations with the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) reveal the faint, telltale signature of oxygen coming from a galaxy at a record-setting distance of 13.28 billion light-years from Earth, meaning we are observing this object it as it appeared when the universe was only 500 million years old, or less than 4 percent its current age. For such a young galaxy, known as MACS1149-JD1, to contain detectable traces of oxygen, it must have begun forging stars even earlier: a scant 250 million years after the Big Bang. This is exceptionally early in the history of the universe and suggests that rich chemical environments evolved quickly. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-alma-most-distant-oxygen-universe.html#jCp ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0117-z The onset of star formation 250 million years after the Big Bang: Abstract: 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 Bang1,2,3. 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 report 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 that it may be possible to detect such early episodes of star formation in similar galaxies with future telescopes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Hmm, interesting in as much as would or could it be suggested that extrapolating the evidence for early star and element formation, one could reasonably suggest that life via abiogenesis may have also arisen early? Obviously not life on Earth but an early form of universal life and abiogenesis. Perhaps the foundation of another discussion/debate in another more appropriate forum?