beecee

The only inconsistencies are in your incorrect interpretation and knowledge or lack thereof, of basic physics.

Perhaps its your own "mission/crusade that need be examined. A great discovery that has literally shook the universe/spacetime, six times and confirmed GR, and BH's. And of course confirmed in three getting the Nobel prize for the discovery.

I suggest you read both articles and stop being so obtuse. Ever heard of inertia?

Science doesn't deal in fantasies, or the supernatural, or the paranormal. They by definition are simply the fantasy you speak of. Science constructs models that match observations and make successful predictions. eg: GR and gravitational radiation. All such models are open for modification and/or rejection and change. That's science.

No rethinking necessary actually. The copter is in the same FoR as the planet...but hey it's explained much better here........ http://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/askaphysicist/physics-answer.cfm?uid=20110218025229 and here...... https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-helicopters-just-hover-and-let-the-earth-rotate-beneath-it

It's opened up an entirely new way at researching the universe/spacetime and cosmology in general. It has validated another aspect of GR, and of course BH's themselves. Yes, a discovery that has literally shook the universe/spacetime...six times so far!

Both though are evident by the failure and/or limitations of our current theories, are they not? So couldn't we simply define a singularity [ both BB and BH] as a non physical epoch where our models break down?

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-fine-structure-constant-dark-photon-theories.html Measurement of the fine-structure constant casts doubt on dark photon theories: A team of researchers from the University of California and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has conducted an ultra-precise measurement of the fine-structure constant, and in so doing, have found evidence that casts doubts on dark photon theory. In their paper published in the journal Science, the group describes their measurement process and what they found by using it. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-04-fine-structure-constant-dark-photon-theories.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: DOI: 10.1126/science.aap7706 Abstract Measurements of the fine-structure constant α require methods from across subfields and are thus powerful tests of the consistency of theory and experiment in physics. Using the recoil frequency of cesium-133 atoms in a matter-wave interferometer, we recorded the most accurate measurement of the fine-structure constant to date: α = 1/137.035999046(27) at 2.0 × 10−10 accuracy. Using multiphoton interactions (Bragg diffraction and Bloch oscillations), we demonstrate the largest phase (12 million radians) of any Ramsey-Bordé interferometer and control systematic effects at a level of 0.12 part per billion. Comparison with Penning trap measurements of the electron gyromagnetic anomaly ge − 2 via the Standard Model of particle physics is now limited by the uncertainty in ge − 2; a 2.5σ tension rejects dark photons as the reason for the unexplained part of the muon's magnetic moment at a 99% confidence level. Implications for dark-sector candidates and electron substructure may be a sign of physics beyond the Standard Model that warrants further investigation. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-04-fine-structure-constant-dark-photon-theories.html#jCp

Yep, spot on, and always with the "provocative" headlines such as "The law of conservation of energy is the greatest mistake of physics" I once got into a slinging match with a ID supporter on another forum with similar "provocative" headlines, "Simple geometric proof GR's GW's are impossible." That type of "shock" approach is part of the troll methodology.

No, science certainly does not have any religious tendencies, no matter how many times you like to repeat it. Science for the umpteenth time is based on observational and experimental data, and from that evidence, models/scientific theories are constructed. As our observations are extended [we see further] and as our experiments improve with technology, our models/theories may be modified, added to, or scrapped in favour of a new improved model. By the same token, other theories such as SR, GR the BB and the theory of evolution gain in certainty the longer they align with data and the longer the keep making successful predictions. But let me say that at times some "limited" faith maybe necessary. The same faith that every human has every day...the faith that your car will start, the faith that you will wake up in the morning, the faith that your employment will be in the same place you left it the previous day. I lack access to the HST, to the LHC, to Parkes Radio telescope not far from my place. I read their news releases, their discoveries, and not having the time nor the expertise, nor the access, I believe it is reasonable to take what I am told from such reputable companies and people, with the proper expertise and knowledge on faith. But please note, that is not anything like any religious faith in something with no evidence and based on ignorance and myth. If I did have the time, if I did have the access, if I did have the proper learning, I could verify all that I am told about and read from reputable material every day.

You didn't read the full link? https://courses.vcu.edu/PHY-rhg/astron/html/mod/006/index.html Examples of Falsifiable Statements No alien spaceships have ever landed in Roswell New Mexico. Find just one spaceship and the statement is disproven. An exhaustive elimination of possibilities is not needed. Just one spaceship will do it. This critter (just pulled from Loch Ness) is a fish. Just one observation --- "Uh, it has fur all over it." --- is enough to disprove this statement, so it is falsifiable. How to Tell if Something is Falsifiable In most cases a falsifiable statement just needs one observation to disprove it. A Statement that is not falsifiable usually needs some sort of exhaustive search of all possibilities to disprove it. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: This may help to answer your question...only 7.5 minutes long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8 Simply some supernatural excuse to short circuit scientific understanding and continued research.

https://courses.vcu.edu/PHY-rhg/astron/html/mod/006/index.html Statements that belong in science must be about reproducible observations. However, as Karl Popper pointed out, there is a much stricter requirement. A scientific statement is one that could possibly be proven wrong. Such a statement is said to be falsifiable. Notice that a falsifiable statement is not automatically wrong. However a falsifiable statement always remains tentative and open to the possibility that it is wrong. When a falsifiable statement turns out to be a mistake, we have a way to detect that mistake and correct it. Examples of Non-falsifiable Statements An alien spaceship crashed in Roswell New Mexico. A giant white gorilla lives in the Himalayan mountains. Loch Ness contains a giant reptile. In each case, if the statement happens to be wrong, all you will ever find is an absence of evidence --- No spaceship parts. No gorilla tracks in the Himalayas. Nothing but small fish in the Loch. That would not convince true believers in those statements. They would say --- "The government hid all of the spaceship parts." "The gorillas avoided you and the snow covered their tracks." "Nessie was hiding in the mud at the bottom of the Loch." None of these statements is falsifiable, so none of them belong in science.

And also the theory of evolution. Then of course there "god of the gaps" comes into play.

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-background-space-reveal-hidden-black.html The background hum of space could reveal hidden black holes: April 12, 2018, Monash University: Deep space is not as silent as we have been led to believe. Every few minutes a pair of black holes smash into each other. These cataclysms release ripples in the fabric of spacetime known as gravitational waves. Now Monash University scientists have developed a way to listen in on these events. The gravitational waves from black hole mergers imprint a distinctive whooping sound in the data collected by gravitational-wave detectors. The new technique is expected to reveal the presence of thousands of previously hidden black holes by teasing out their faint whoops from a sea of static. Last year, in one of the biggest astronomical discoveries of the 21st century, LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) and Virgo Collaboration researchers measured gravitational waves from a pair of merging neutron stars. Drs Eric Thrane and Rory Smith, from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Gravitational Wave Discovery (OzGrav) and Monash University, were part of the team involved in last year's discovery and were also part of the team involved in the detection of first gravitational-wave discovery in 2015, when ripples in the fabric of space time generated by the collision of two black holes in the distant Universe were first witnessed, confirming Albert Einstein's 1915 general theory of Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-04-background-space-reveal-hidden-black.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The paper: https://journals.aps.org/prx/accepted/b1077K8cZ6e1a00db22a57164e1aab4bf827ea464 Optimal search for an astrophysical gravitational-wave background: Abstract: Roughly every \unit[2-10]{minutes}, a pair of stellar mass black holes merge somewhere in the Universe. A small fraction of these mergers are detected as individually resolvable gravitational-wave events by advanced detectors such as LIGO and Virgo. The rest contribute to a stochastic background. We derive the statistically optimal search strategy (producing minimum credible intervals) for a background of unresolved binaries. Our method applies Bayesian parameter estimation to all available data. Using Monte Carlo simulations, we demonstrate that the search is both ``safe'' and effective: it is not fooled by instrumental artifacts such as glitches and it recovers simulated stochastic signals without bias. Given realistic assumptions, we estimate that the search can detect the binary black hole background with about one day of design sensitivity data versus $\approx\unit[40]{months}$ using the traditional cross-correlation search. This framework independently constrains the merger rate and black hole mass distribution, breaking a degeneracy present in the cross-correlation approach. The search provides a unified framework for population studies of compact binaries, which is cast in terms of hyper-parameter estimation. We discuss a number of extensions and generalizations including: application to other sources (such as binary neutron stars and continuous-wave sources), simultaneous estimation of a continuous Gaussian background, and applications to pulsar timing. and.......... https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.00688 The optimal search for an astrophysical gravitational-wave background: Roughly every 2-10 minutes, a pair of stellar mass black holes merge somewhere in the Universe. A small fraction of these mergers are detected as individually resolvable gravitational-wave events by advanced detectors such as LIGO and Virgo. The rest contribute to a stochastic background. We derive the statistically optimal search strategy for a background of unresolved binaries. Our method applies Bayesian parameter estimation to all available data. Using Monte Carlo simulations, we demonstrate that the search is both "safe" and effective: it is not fooled by instrumental artefacts such as glitches, and it recovers simulated stochastic signals without bias. Given realistic assumptions, we estimate that the search can detect the binary black hole background with about one day of design sensitivity data versus ≈40 months using the traditional cross-correlation search. This framework independently constrains the merger rate and black hole mass distribution, breaking a degeneracy present in the cross-correlation approach. The search provides a unified framework for population studies of compact binaries, which is cast in terms of hyper-parameter estimation. We discuss a number of extensions and generalizations including: application to other sources (such as binary neutron stars and continuous-wave sources), simultaneous estimation of a continuous Gaussian background, and applications to pulsar timing.

Possibly a small percentage maybe, [we call that MACHO "Massive Astrophysical Compact Halo Object"] but certainly the evidence for non baryonic DM is pretty weighty at this time. So much for your suspicions.

What hyperbole is that? Pretty spectacular stuff in my book.

https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ A Universe from Nothing by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero. The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy. What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself. Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account. Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable. If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I find this admittedly speculative scenario, far more logical then any form of ID. As Carl says..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4a7F6dOdlc

Most cosmologists doubt that any physical singularity exists, but singularities do not define a BH. The only defined singularity is that defined by the limitations bounds of applicability of our models such as GR. We most certainly can be sure of BH's, at least as certain as we can with any well supported scientific theory. One would wonder what LIGO has discovered at least 5 times so far if that was not the case..

No that's what the mainstream tried and tested cosmology says. Again, the Earth certainly is the only place that we know with certainty that life does exist, but that life may well have arisen also elsewhere and we have every reason to probably believe it has...even within our own solar system. Again, the lack of evidence of life elsewhere is due to the vast distances involved. Universal Abiogenesis of course is the only scientific answer as to how life came to be. So yes, wow! no myth or fairy tales needed. I'll agree that one could view the earth as "special" in that one concept of supporting life to the best of our current knowledge. And we are the center of our observable universe, just as any observer on any rock anywhere in the universe is central to his or her universe. Other then that, the Earth is no more then another hum drum piece of rock, born by gravity accretion, from the debris of previous stars that have gone supernova. And that applies to anything, or anybody anywhere in the universe. We are star stuff to quote Professor Neil De-Grasse Tyson. Ghosts, goblins, fairies, Bigfoot, Abominable Snowman, Santa Clause, magical spaghetti monsters or any other semblance of anything claiming god like supernatural or paranormal powers.

You're being obtuse again. What does stepping inside any church have anything to do with those that chose unscientific supernatural/paranormal nonsense, over evidenced based science and the proven scientific method.

We all have brains ol son, [well most of us] but sometimes mythical beliefs drummed into a person at a young age, is hard to dispatch, even with logic. But you and I are not cosmologists, nor astronomers, and as people have been trying to tell you, the general overwhelming consensus is that we are nothing special, other then the only place we know of with life and for the reasons already stated. And yes, we all have agendas...mine is science, particularly cosmology. Yours already has been noted despite trying to closet it.

That's your problem, but the evidence overwhelmingly says the opposite. The space age is only 60 years old friend, and obviously the near infinite extent of the universe, and the vast distances between likeley habitats, makes discovery and meetings rather difficult. There is no middle ground...that's simply closeting the obvious. It's either follow the scientific evidence and methodology, or turn your back on logic and entertain the unscientific concepts of the supernatural and paranormal.

And I believe so to would the majority of scientists agree with Mordred. Tegmark is one man, and although I respect him, I believe he is also known for some ecentricity in certain fields, Fred Hoyle another otherwise great scientist, was wrong re his "Steady State" as compared to the BB.. Einstein himself doubted his own GR because it inferred a dynamic version when beliefs at that time were that it was static. Science is a discipline in eternal progress. The only "trying to get to" is your own apparent evangelistic crusade to cast doubt on a hum drum nothing special Earth, that of course conflicts with your view you are reluctant to discuss...you know some form of ID...some magic spaghetti monster...

Stop being so obtuse. As I already said, Tegmark finishes off by saying.." What's less clear is what it means" He certainly unlike you or me, is no Tom Dick or Harry, but irrespective, scientists do at times disagree. He certainly is not burdened with some ID religious nonsense to skewer his views.

The "It" he obviously has a problem with, is the "it" that is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence so far, that the Earth has no special place in the universe, and is most certainly most definitely not the center of the universe, other then the 'observable universe" The "It" is the fact that cosmology and science in general, has gradually done away with the ancient age old mythical nonsense that spacetime, the stars, planets and universe in general need some form of magic spaghetti monster to explain it. The "It" he purports to argue against, is simply based on areas where there are gaps in science, and the almost fanatical efforts then to cover those gaps with what is known as "the god of the gaps" Any scientific paper is far more likely to have more accurate observational data and facts, then some u tube video that any Tom Dick or Harry can make.