beecee

But GR and any other physical law we are aware of also are non applicable at the quantum/Planck scale...GR tells us that further collapse is compulsory once the Schwarzchild radius is reached. Relying on that then, we can envisage normal matter continuing to collapse and be broken down into its most basic constituent parts, until the quantum/Planck level: Nothing about any change...So I'm at a loss to understand how we can assume BH's are made of anything other then good old normal standard matter. Or am I misunderstanding you?

In GR photons follow geodesics, and the curvature of spacetime: This curvature reaches a critical stage at EH's of BH's where there is no geodesics leading out.

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-scientists-discovery-yellowstone-extremely-relevant.html Scientists' discovery in Yellowstone 'extremely relevant' to origin of life May 15, 2018 by Evelyn Boswell, Montana State University Montana State University scientists have found a new lineage of microbes living in Yellowstone National Park's thermal features that sheds light on the origin of life, the evolution of archaeal life and the importance of iron in early life. Professor William Inskeep and his team of researchers published their findings May 14 in the scientific journal Nature Microbiology. "The discovery of archaeal lineages is critical to our understanding of the universal tree of life and evolutionary history of the Earth," the group wrote. "Geochemically diverse thermal environments in Yellowstone National Park provide unprecedented opportunities for studying archaea in habitats that may represent analogues of early Earth." Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-scientists-discovery-yellowstone-extremely-relevant.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-018-0163-1 Marsarchaeota are an aerobic archaeal lineage abundant in geothermal iron oxide microbial mats Abstract The discovery of archaeal lineages is critical to our understanding of the universal tree of life and evolutionary history of the Earth. Geochemically diverse thermal environments in Yellowstone National Park provide unprecedented opportunities for studying archaea in habitats that may represent analogues of early Earth. Here, we report the discovery and characterization of a phylum-level archaeal lineage proposed and herein referred to as the ‘Marsarchaeota’, after the red planet. The Marsarchaeota contains at least two major subgroups prevalent in acidic, microaerobic geothermal Fe(III) oxide microbial mats across a temperature range from ~50–80 °C. Metagenomics, single-cell sequencing, enrichment culturing and in situ transcriptional analyses reveal their biogeochemical role as facultative aerobic chemoorganotrophs that may also mediate the reduction of Fe(III). Phylogenomic analyses of replicate assemblies corresponding to two groups of Marsarchaeota indicate that they branch between the Crenarchaeota and all other major archaeal lineages. Transcriptomic analyses of several Fe(III) oxide mat communities reveal that these organisms were actively transcribing two different terminal oxidase complexes in situ and genes comprising an F420-dependent butanal catabolism. The broad distribution of Marsarchaeota in geothermal, microaerobic Fe(III) oxide mats suggests that similar habitat types probably played an important role in the evolution of archaea.

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-astronomers-fastest-growing-black-hole-space.html Astronomers find fastest-growing black hole known in space May 15, 2018, Australian National University Astronomers at ANU have found the fastest-growing black hole known in the Universe, describing it as a monster that devours a mass equivalent to our sun every two days. The astronomers have looked back more than 12 billion years to the early dark ages of the Universe, when this supermassive black hole was estimated to be the size of about 20 billion suns with a one per cent growth rate every one million years. "This black hole is growing so rapidly that it's shining thousands of times more brightly than an entire galaxy, due to all of the gases it sucks in daily that cause lots of friction and heat," said Dr Wolf from the ANU Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics. "If we had this monster sitting at the centre of our Milky Way galaxy, it would appear 10 times brighter than a full moon. It would appear as an incredibly bright pin-point star that would almost wash out all of the stars in the sky." Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-astronomers-fastest-growing-black-hole-space.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.04317.pdf Discovery of the most ultra-luminous QSO :using Gaia, SkyMapper and WISE: Abstract: We report the discovery of the ultra-luminous QSO SMSS J215728.21-360215.1 with magnitude z = 16.9 and W4= 7.42 at redshift 4.75. Given absolute magnitudes of M145,AB = −29.3, M300,AB = −30.12 and log Lbol/Lbol, = 14.84, it is the QSO with the highest unlensed UV-optical luminosity currently known in the Universe. It was found by combining proper-motion data from Gaia DR2 with photometry from SkyMapper DR1 and the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE). In the Gaia database it is an isolated single source and thus unlikely to be strongly gravitationally lensed. It is also unlikely to be a beamed source as it is not discovered in the radio domain by either NVSS or SUMSS. It is classed as a weak-emission-line QSO and possesses broad absorption line features. A lightcurve from ATLAS spanning the time from October 2015 to December 2017 shows little sign of variability

While agreeing that quantum theory and GR are incompatible at these levels, and agreeing that we can not be sure what actually happens inside a BH, I'm not convinced that what I said does assume GR as more fundamental then quantum theory. I have also seen and heard discussions of possible quark stars and quark matter: 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. I also found this answer at https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30795/what-happens-to-matter-in-extremely-high-gravity?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa "Extreme gravity essentially equates to extreme pressure. We see a progression in stellar evolution. The high pressures of the huge gravitational pull of a star is at first counteracted by electromagnetic/thermal interactions between gas particles. However, at a certain point (with enough gravitational pull) these interactions are not enough and the gravitational force overwhelms electromagnetic forces. Positively charged nuclei collide into positively charged nuclei and hydrogen fusion occurs. The star is supported from further collapse via electron degeneracy pressure, where two electrons cannot occupy the same quantum state. As elements bind into heavier elements, fusion becomes more and more difficult and requires more energy. Eventually the nuclear forces are not sufficient and the star collapses further, allowing carbon to fuse. This carbon fusion is much more energetic than the proceeding fusion and the star explodes. If there is sufficient mass, a supernova occurs and the remnant could be a neutron star (if the star exceeds the Chandrashankar limit of about 1.44 solar masses) or a black hole (if the star exceeds the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff Limit of 3 solar masses). In a neutron star, fermi-degeneracy pressure keeps the particles from collapsing down to a gravitational singularity. Essentially there is enough pressure to force electrons into protons and form neutrons (inverse beta decay), and the neutrons are only stopped from colliding with each other by neutron degeneracy pressure. With a large enough mass though, even this is not enough to stop collapse, to either a theoretical quark star or even to a black hole. So essentially we see as pressure increases, the various forces that keep matter matter-like get overcome. First electromagnetic interactions, then electron degenerecy pressure, then neutron degenercy pressure, and finally a collapse into a singularity/black hole (or something like that). Edit: In response to the original poster's question, they can theoretically condense further to a quark degenerate matter. The specifics at this level get more fuzzy, since the strong force is difficult to model accurately due to asymptotic freedom. Unless there are particles that make up quarks, this is the lowest level of possible degeneracy". and.... https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30795/what-happens-to-matter-in-extremely-high-gravity?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa 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".

Gravity as any mass/object approaches the "singularity" will overcome all other forces, including the strong nuclear force, as it is broken down into its most fundamental parts, probably quarks.

One wonders if there are any with our name on it.

Certainly from your own Frame of reference, and theoretically spaghetification may even happen this side of the EH, depending on the BH's size and mass. From an outside distant FoR, you would never be seen to actually cross the EH...rather just redshifted and slowed until fading from view........Inside and in your own frame, you approach the EH, cross it, and proceed on your one way trip to the singularity Stretch, I prefer curve or warped, is caused by the mass which exhibits gravity, which "slows" the light to a distant frame. Inside the EH, the warping/curving continues depending on mass, at least up to the quantum/Planck region where our theories then fail us. I'm not sure how you imagine the BH maybe compressed, but we really can only reason logically about what may happen inside the EH, based on the GR edict that once the Schwarzchild radius of any particular mass is reached an EH forms, and further collapse is compulsory, at least up to the quantum/Planck level where GR itself fails us. But hey! I'm only a bloody amateur at this game, so lets wait for one of our experts to either agree, or correct any errors or corrections.

Firstly I believe in this day and age, the only defined singularity in a BH, is at the quantum/Planck level where our laws of physics and GR are not applicable. Certainly not due to infinite spacetime curvature and/or density. When we say one would be spaghetified, we are imagining falling in say feet first. The spacetime curvature differential from your head to your toes would be such that spaghetification would happen. Surviving inside a BH is a valid concept, if the BH was large enough and obviously the spacetime curvature less severe, with little tidal gravity affects. A SMBH similar to what exists at the core of most galaxies would be able to be entered without immediate fear of spaghetification. Spacetime

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-evidence-plumes-jupiter-moon-europa.html Old NASA spacecraft points to new evidence of watery plumes over Europa May 14, 2018: A fresh look at data from a 1997 flyby of Jupiter's moon, Europa, suggests that NASA's Galileo spacecraft flew directly through a watery plume, raising hopes of probing the jets for signs of life around the second planet from Earth. The revelations Monday came after scientists revisited a puzzling reading from an instrument aboard Galileo, which in 1995 became the first spacecraft to enter the orbit of a gas giant planet. What they found was the most direct evidence yet of plumes emerging from Europa's frozen surface, researchers reported in the scientific journal Nature Astronomy. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-evidence-plumes-jupiter-moon-europa.html#jCp ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0450-z Evidence of a plume on Europa from Galileo magnetic and plasma wave signatures: Abstract: The icy surface of Jupiter’s moon, Europa, is thought to lie on top of a global ocean1,2,3,4. Signatures in some Hubble Space Telescope images have been associated with putative water plumes rising above Europa’s surface5,6, providing support for the ocean theory. However, all telescopic detections reported were made at the limit of sensitivity of the data5,6,7, thereby calling for a search for plume signatures in in-situ measurements. Here, we report in-situ evidence of a plume on Europa from the magnetic field and plasma wave observations acquired on Galileo’s closest encounter with the moon. During this flyby, which dropped below 400 km altitude, the magnetometer8 recorded an approximately 1,000-kilometre-scale field rotation and a decrease of over 200 nT in field magnitude, and the Plasma Wave Spectrometer9 registered intense localized wave emissions indicative of a brief but substantial increase in plasma density. We show that the location, duration and variations of the magnetic field and plasma wave measurements are consistent with the interaction of Jupiter’s corotating plasma with Europa if a plume with characteristics inferred from Hubble images were erupting from the region of Europa’s thermal anomalies. These results provide strong independent evidence of the presence of plumes at Europa. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I don't really believe there was really much doubt anyway re Europa having an Ocean of sorts underneath its icy surface, and evidenced by the noticable cracks and changes that appear on occasions.

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/westerhout-43-star-formation-05962.html New Study Casts Doubt on Currently Accepted Theories of Star Formation: An international team of astronomers has found that long-held assumptions about the relationship between the mass of star-forming clouds of dust and gas and the eventual mass of the star itself may not be as straightforward as scientists think. Their work is published in the journal Nature Astronomy. The underlying reasons as to why a star eventually grows to a specific mass has puzzled astronomers for years. It has been assumed that a star’s mass mostly depends on the original structure — known as a star-forming core — from which stars are born. more at.....http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/westerhout-43-star-formation-05962.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0452-x The unexpectedly large proportion of high-mass star-forming cores in a Galactic mini-starburst: Abstract: Understanding the processes that determine the stellar initial mass function (IMF) is a critical unsolved problem, with profound implications for many areas of astrophysics1. In molecular clouds, stars are formed in cores—gas condensations sufficiently dense that gravitational collapse converts a large fraction of their mass into a star or small clutch of stars. In nearby star-formation regions, the core mass function (CMF) is strikingly similar to the IMF, suggesting that the shape of the IMF may simply be inherited from the CMF2,3,4,5. Here, we present 1.3 mm observations, obtained with the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array telescope, of the active star-formation region W43-MM1, which may be more representative of the Galactic-arm regions where most stars form6,7. The unprecedented resolution of these observations reveals a statistically robust CMF at high masses, with a slope that is markedly shallower than the IMF. This seriously challenges our understanding of the origin of the IMF.

I'm also as sceptical as anyone for many reasons. I'm actually more concerned with this "Pilot wave theory" and how valid or otherwise it is. So far this aspect appears to be its only saving grace. Testing it in LEO or space would be interesting though, and either be the final nail in its coffin, or something confirming what I have always been of the opinion of...that is, if this isn't a fraud, and thrust is produced, I don't accept that any known laws have been broken...rather some as yet unknown aspect....perhaps Pilot wave theory? if it really works !

The onus of offering "proof" as you call it, is on you or the nutball named Greer...remembering of course the words of probably the greatest educator of our time...."EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE" Carl Sagan: Certainly not conspiracy theories, inuendo, unsupported third hand accounts, u tube videos etc etc

http://www.theangryufologist.us/dr-steven-greer-fraud-heres-proof/ Positive proof that Dr Stephen Greer, is a Fraud, Liar and Phychopath:

No one care to comment on this? Again, my thoughts on the electromagnetic drive have always been that no known laws of physics were ever broken, rather that some apparent as yet unknown aspect could be at work. The following article and hypothetical seems to support those thoughts........Is this Pilot wave theory possibly this unknown aspect at work? Or is this a fraud?

Could be a number of reasons why individuals see the need to attempt to down grade or falsely denigrate some accepted scientific aspect, including "delusions of grandeur" and other religious baggage that is often evident in other threads of this nature.

Light is simply a part of the electromagnetic spectrum which exhibits properties consistent with being a wave and/or a particle, depending on application. I'm not sure what the other 99 ideas are.

My thoughts on the electromagnetic drive have always been that no known laws of physics were ever broken, rather that some apparent as yet unknown aspect could be at work. The following article and hypothetical seems to support those thoughts........ https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-a-weird-new-idea-about-how-the-impossible-em-drive-could-produce-thrust This Overlooked Theory Could Be The Missing Piece That Explains How The EM Drive Works What if it doesn't break the laws of physics? FIONA MACDONALD 7 OCT 2017 Ever since the EM drive first made headlines, science lovers have puzzled over how the propulsion system seems to produce thrust, despite the fact it's 'impossible' according to one of the most fundamental laws of physics - Newton's third law of motion. Now a team of physicists have put forward an alternative explanation - it turns out the EM drive could actually work without breaking any scientific laws, if we factor in a weird and often overlooked idea in quantum physics - pilot wave theory. more at link.....https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-a-weird-new-idea-about-how-the-impossible-em-drive-could-produce-thrust The new research has been published in The Journal of Applied Physical Science International. http://www.ikpress.org/abstract/6485 Abstracts Scientific literature refers to a strange observed phenomenon, “impossible” according to traditional physics, looking at the experimental feasibility of the so called “EM Drive”. The authors have called it an Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum. Here we present a possible explanation for the observed thrust based on the conceptual framework of Eurhythmic Physics, a kind of pilot-wave theory aiming at bridging the gap between quantum and macroscopic systems. Applied to the present system, a generalized guidance condition could explain the claimed absence of reaction of the material of the drive on the enclosed fields. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Some later news dated Feb this year..... https://www.nowscience.co.uk/single-post/2018/02/24/China-Claims-They-Have-Successfully-Created-an-EM-Drive China Claims They Have Successfully Created an EM Drive ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; So, how viable is this "Pilot wave theory"? Or is this whole exercise a fraudulent joke played out for the scientific community? The last news I heard on this was that there was enough physics and observational data in this claim, to have it tested in LEO and space. What do others here believe is the case?

Spacetime encompasses space with the extra dimension of time. Maths is the language of physics and describes spacetime as is evident in GR and its many predictions, such as gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, Lense Thirring effect etc. You have so far made many claims that all defy what the observational and experimental evidence tells us. I believe it is about time you offered some evidence supporting your stance other then empty rhetoric.

Your understanding of plain English appears faulty....All Wiki casts some debate on is whether spacetime is a physical entity or not.....simply put something does not need to be physical to be real. Disagreement among scientists as to whether it is real or a mathamtaical construct is what Wiki is talking about. Being purposely obtuse does not cut it here. Your question has been answered and the experimental example given.

Wow! where to start.....Let me start with the possibility of Einstein being wrong...He certainly was wrong on occasions, such as in the beginning rejecting what GR had told him, re the universe being a static quality rather then a dynamic one: Reason he did that? He was following the accepted "common sense" beliefs of the day, which soon afterwards was shown to be in error by the observational evidence of a comrade named Edward Hubble....which then answers your second faux pas. Your third error was claiming Einstein simply had an opinion. This actually shows that you are totally unaware of what science is, what the scientific method entails, and of course what a scientific theory is. Your fourth error was your apparent insistence on a universal now....do you also claim that the speed of light is instantaneous? Because that is the only way you can have a universal now....Einstein and relativity shows us that beyond any shadow of doubt. So in answer to your final question, yes I disagree with your opinion, simply because observational and experimental evidence show indisputably that you are wrong. Opinions are not science. The finite speed of light. eg: You go out tonight and gaze at Alpha Centauri system...in fact due to the finite speed of light you are seeing the light that left it 4.3 years ago because it is 4.3 L/years away. You do not see it now.

No probs.

OK, noted and will do.

Just short circuiting.

Over the last couple of years or so, a cosmological discovery, perhaps the most momentous of the century, has been unveiled.Detectors, have fulfilled one of Einstein's GR greatest predictions...that of gravitational waves from coalescing binary BH pairs and also Neutron star pairs: Besides further validating GR, it of course has validated any doubts about the existence of BH's. Here is an interesting article...... https://phys.org/news/2018-05-dozens-binaries-milky-globular-clusters.html The historic first detection of gravitational waves from colliding black holes far outside our galaxy opened a new window to understanding the universe. A string of detections—four more binary black holes and a pair of neutron stars—soon followed the Sept. 14, 2015, observation. Now, another detector is being built to crack this window wider open. This next-generation observatory, called LISA, is expected to be in space in 2034, and it will be sensitive to gravitational waves of a lower frequency than those detected by the Earth-bound Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO). A new Northwestern University study predicts dozens of binaries (pairs of orbiting compact objects) in the globular clusters of the Milky Way will be detectable by LISA (Laser Interferometer Space Antenna). These binary sources would contain all combinations of black hole, neutron star and white dwarf components. Binaries formed from these star-dense clusters will have many different features from those binaries that formed in isolation, far from other stars. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-dozens-binaries-milky-globular-clusters.html#jCp the paper is at.......https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.191103 ABSTRACT We explore the formation of double-compact-object binaries in Milky Way (MW) globular clusters (GCs) that may be detectable by the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA). We use a set of 137 fully evolved GC models that, overall, effectively match the properties of the observed GCs in the MW. We estimate that, in total, the MW GCs contain ∼21 sources that will be detectable by LISA. These detectable sources contain all combinations of black hole (BH), neutron star, and white dwarf components. We predict ∼7 of these sources will be BH-BH binaries. Furthermore, we show that some of these BH-BH binaries can have signal-to-noise ratios large enough to be detectable at the distance of the Andromeda galaxy or even the Virgo cluster. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: My question is relevant to the highlighted part in the article thus......."These binary sources would contain all combinations of black hole, neutron star and white dwarf components" While its logical to contemplate how WD/BH, NS/BH, pairs evolve, what at this time is the best theoretical explanation for binary BH pairs themselves? I can think of two.......both formed from giant gravitationally bound stellar partners,or that one BH actually captured another that apparently wandered to close. Any other explanations? What I find more incredibly amazing is as per the Abstract, [and highlighted by me] is the ability to predict exactly how many, what type, and detectable distances ranging all the way to M31 and Virgo cluster. Any comments?