beecee

Ahhh, I remember well another, fella on another science forum, a while back now, saying that this insemination was by the Alien race that had their atomic war on mars. I kid you not! https://www.gaia.com/video/evidence-nuclear-war-mars-john-brandenburg Is this the race you are talking about? *sniff, sniff* I actually smell woo woo again! Not sure this is appropriate for philosophy???

Your nonsense in [1] asking for proof and not knowing that no scientific theory is "proven" other then the theory of evolution as I'm sure you will agree.... and [2] the scientific methodology entails models continually being improved on, modified or just plain rejected. Argument from authority is only really a fallacy and invalid, when one uses some notable authoritarian not a authority on the discipline concerned. Of course you reject that against your own non authortiarian, anti scientific methodology position. I quote authority, involved professionally and credentially within the discipline under discussion. You reject all counter arguments as well as all scientific models no matter how valid, as obviously it fails to align with whatever preconceived notions you have. The two points I made show you are ignorant of the scientific method. Weather of course refers to short term atmospheric conditions: Climate refers to the general weather over long periods, and which I described to you previously and which you seem to have ignored, along with the Chasing Ice doco. Climate modelling of course being related to a person's position on the globe, time of year, Chandler Wobble, and precession. So far they have reasonably stood the test of time, although the increasing build up of extreme weather events, ice melt, GHG's etc etc etc all point to climate change. Two points already mentioned along with your arguing from authority gaff. Besides what I have already mentioned, no, as I am not a professional as obviously you are not. Yep, and I certainly prefer the professional authoritive position, over any position taken by any Tom, Dick or Harry on a public science forum. You have rejected all answers so far, from your non authoritive and unknown position, made on a public forum open to anyone. Again, as an amateur I find your position far from reliable and verging on fanatical in fact. If their predictions fail then yes their models are wrong, and the scientific methodology continues with further impartial observations. please refer back to past posts of mine today. Rubbish. Either human induced climate change is going to drastically affect the lives of millions if not billions of people, or it is not. That's the decision and whether you take the "stuff you Jack" approach, or the more responsible taking action approach with regards to the future generations you so blithely discard. What is not scientific and invalid, is the problem that seems to fit with you in not wanting an answer, and dancing, side-stepping and making excuses re authority, when the problem seems to be a preconceived agenda you have.

That's OK with me.....What you personally accept is of no real concern to the real scientific world out there. I see it as I have inferred previously. Do you have a beef or an agenda or similar? Of course they are scientifically valid. If you prefer denial or speudoscience, that's your problem. Like I said, I,m an amateur at this, although I have done plenty of reading...authoritive, reputable reading of course! If your goal is to make people believe that, then from the reaction/s, I believe you have failed. Don't be silly. The scientific methodology, which you seem to want people to believe you are upholding, entails models being improved upon, modified and/or scrapped, as observations and technical equipment improves. Personal?? Not in the least, at least on my part...But hey, just a suggestion, if you truly believe what you are trying to get the rest of us to believe on this forum, then why not write up an appropriate scientific paper for professional peer review? Ooops, that would be using that dirty authoritive aspect again though! No, it is obviously used in conjunction with many other aspects. Science and the scientific methodology in general does not deal in proofs, for obvious reasons. Every model is up for imporvement and/or modification, although I believe its safe to say that the theory of evolution is an exceptance to that rule of thumb...That is 100% certain. Just that you did seem confused in that regard. I really believe you need to get back to what the scientific method really entails, as per at least two points so far you have seemed to be astray on. We are speaking of human induced climate change. That's your opinion. Climate scientists in the main disagree with you. What scrutiny? Are you qualified to judge the professional known experts in this field? The risk factor has been determined. If there was/is any doubt, most concerned, caring people would agree we err on the side of caution. I don't believe in the "stuff you Jack, I'm alright' attitude. I believe that answers the question. ps: Have you watched the "Chasing Ice" doco yet?? here is a short clip... or here is the whole video, around 1hr 40 minutes long and certainly far more viewable on dvd.

In my opinion the answers you have been given, are entirely honest and correct. And while politics is irrelevant to science, it is not irrelevant to people that most certainly approach a science forum and subsequent question, with no intention of accepting any answer that conflicts with his pre-ordained point of view. Yes, I have seen that "excuse" used by many that I have described in my previous answer. Let me assure you that we all, all of us including you, except arguments/decisions from authority every day of our lives. Plus as an amateur in this field, I certainly do accept the opinions from reputable authority, [which I have found mostly align with predictions] rather then those with an agenda. Scientific models are improved upon and have their zones of applicability extended, [rather then invalidated] all the time, as more intensive observations and/or experiments dictate. Maybe I'm missing the point, but scientific climate models can go back as far as when the seasons were eventually established...you know, it get's colder in Winter then Summer, or the closer to the Equator one is, the hotter the climate is and even sees the dismissal of any meaningful Winter. Other models are probably based on the Earth's Chandler wobble and precession. We know that green house gasses tend to trap heat which will lead to climate change....there are many other variables such as the amount of ice. These are facts. Also I learnt a long time ago, that weather is not the same as climate. You have had a few whinges so far re how you are being treated. One could say that you appear rather sensitive, which leads to the next question, sensitive for what reasons? Do you deny climate change is happening? Do you accept that civilisation has added to the build up of green house gases? You seem to be arguing the toss about trivialities and trying with all the guile you can muster, to denigrate the science of climate change, and probably as an extension, other areas also. I said it before and I'll say it again, even if there is doubt over scientific modeling of climate change, it is better to err on the side of caution...at least for our children, and their children, and their children's children.

I see your "legitimate" questions answered with legitimate and valid answers. And really, no one is being rubbed up the wrong way. As we all know these science forums are open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, with a possible myriad of agendas, and with no intention of accepting any answer that does not fit their own political persuasions and/or pre-conceived dogma on the subject in question. It is, always, including the present climate models. https://wg1.ipcc.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf extract: How Are Models Constructed? The fundamental basis on which climate models are constructed has not changed since the TAR, although there have been many specifi c developments (see Section 8.2). Climate models are derived from fundamental physical laws (such as Newton’s laws of motion), which are then subjected to physical approximations appropriate for the large-scale climate system, and then further approximated through mathematical discretization. Computational constraints restrict the resolution that is possible in the discretized equations, and some representation of the large-scale impacts of unresolved processes is required (the parametrization problem). How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change? There is considerable confi dence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confi dence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confi dence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of signifi cant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases. Climate models are mathematical representations of the climate system, expressed as computer codes and run on powerful computers. One source of confidence in models comes from the fact that model fundamentals are based on established physical laws, such as conservation of mass, energy and momentum, along with a wealth of observations. A second source of confidence comes from the ability of models to simulate important aspects of the current climate. Models are routinely and extensively assessed by comparing their simulations with observations of the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and land surface. Unprecedented levels of evaluation have taken place over the last decade in the form of organised multi-model ‘intercomparisons’. Models show significant and increasing skill in representing many important mean climate features, such as the large-scale distributions of atmospheric temperature, precipitation, radiation and wind, and of oceanic temperatures, currents and sea ice cover. Models can also simulate essential aspects of many of the patterns of climate variability observed across a range of time scales. Examples include the advance and retreat of the major monsoon systems, the seasonal shifts of temperatures, storm tracks and rain belts, and the hemispheric-scale seesawing of extratropical surface pressures (the Northern and Southern ‘annular modes’). Some climate models, or closely related variants, have also been tested by using them to predict weather and make seasonal forecasts. These models demonstrate skill in such forecasts, showing they can represent important features of the general circulation across shorter time scales, as well as aspects of seasonal and interannual variability. Models’ ability to represent these and other important climate features increases our confidence that they represent the essential physical processes important for the simulation of future climate change. (Note that the limitations in climate models’ ability to forecast weather beyond a few days do not limit their ability to predict long-term climate changes, as these are very different types of prediction – see FAQ 1.2.) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PS: Some of your posts are rather difficult to follow, probably due to your inability or incorrect use of the "quote" function. It would be nice to rectify that.

https://wg1.ipcc.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-8-1.html

The reason for the obvious imbalance of matter over anti matter, is as far as I know, still unknown at this time. But an interesting observation is the scenario that if there would have been more anti matter then matter, we would be calling that anti matter, matter, and matter, anti matter, if you know what I mean. https://home.cern/topics/antimatter/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem extract from above link.... "In the past few decades, particle-physics experiments have shown that the laws of nature do not apply equally to matter and antimatter. Physicists are keen to discover the reasons why. Researchers have observed spontaneous transformations between particles and their antiparticles, occurring millions of times per second before they decay. Some unknown entity intervening in this process in the early universe could have caused these "oscillating" particles to decay as matter more often than they decayed as antimatter.

Measuring distances to stars is simple....stellar parallax. Measure its position tonight, then again in 6 months time. More distant objects such as galaxies are measured using Ceipeid Variables and type 1a Supernova, which are at a known brightness.

Science sets out to explain what we see, and the way the universe is: It does not concern itself with any mythical axioms of any faith. Religious faith, and all paranormal, supernatural myths, are simply unscientific and a result of early man efforts/attempts in explaining the wonders of the universe.

Wasn't familiar with the term "Pascal's Wager" but after checking this is the definition I Got...."Pascal's Wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century Frenchphilosopher, mathematicianand physicist Blaise Pascal(1623–62).[1] It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager Well considering how this is in regards to science and observational climate change, while Pascal's little wager is with regards to whether one needs to accept some unscientific myth on whether there is an after life or not, with either reward or punishment, I don't see it as a case at all. Again, I urge you to watch the doco "Chasing Ice"

I was raised as a good Catholic boy, in fact at one time I was also an Altar boy! But when the Parish priest caught myself and another, behind the altar, drinking the altar wine, I was quickly dismissed. As a member of the human race, I see the need of human kind to explain his existence and the many awe inspiring wonders that surround him. Religion and other mythical explanations evolved and had their beginnings when ancient man saw "Gods" in the Sun, rivers, mountains etc. As the scientific discipline evolved, and explanations were forthcoming to explain these wonders scientifically, the need for supernatural and paranormal myths gradually diminished. In other words science has pushed the need for any deity back into near oblivion. So convincing has been the science that now even the Catholic church now see the BB and evolution as reasons why we are here. From there though, they then again depart from scientific explanations at put such beginnings down to the work of God. In the meantime science continues to research, experiment, and search for more natural answers as to the how and why. In saying all that I believe a person has the right to chose [or reject] his religion of choice as an answer to the big questions and to maintain his or her apparent comfort zone...afterall I have now been married for 42 years to a very religious woman and actually a true Christian in every sense of that meaning. Her greatest attribute, [and probably mine also] has been toleration of each others beliefs. What does really irk me though is the fanatical religious folk, and sometimes closeted supporters of some form of ID explanation, forever getting on their white chargers, and conducting baseless anti science or anti GR crusades.

When I see light being gravitationally lensed around a star or other massive conglomeration such as a galaxy, I actually see light/photons following geodesics in curved/warped spacetime...... The concept of spacetime follows from the observation that the speed of light is invariant, and does not vary with the motion of the origin of the light/photons or the observer. Spacetime allows a description of reality that is common for all observers in the universe, regardless of their relative motion. The invariant nature of the speed of light leads to the observations that Intervals of space and time considered separately are not the same for all observers. It's that simple really. Continued experiments and observations over more then a 100 years has lead scientists to that conclusion.

I would make it compulsory for all schools to view the documentary called "Chasing Ice" Besides the spectacular awe inspiring photography, I believe it answers your question...In fact I would make it compulsory for all interested in the foreseeable fate of this planet to view. https://chasingice.com/ Let me add that at one time I was also doubtful as to human activity and the effects of climate change, but I also was always of the opinion that considering the stakes involved, if we were/are to err, it should be/must be on the side of caution.

Am I allowed to make an observation here? OK, we have the good old USA, who have had their war of Independence and as a result their bill of rights and this second ammendment, allowing anyone to bear arms...1791 wasn't it? Just three years after Australia received its first European settlers in the form of convicts from old Mother England. So why can't this second ammendment formulated in 1791 be changed or scrapped to reflect changing conditions and values in the year 2018? Some observations of mine; The US has risen to be the so called "leader of the free world" since WWII. Australia as a relatively small nation, has fought many wars including both world wars, on the side of the US. Our people are fairly similar in many ways, yet Australia had no qualms about enforcing strict gun laws and implementing a gun buy back scheme, after our worst ever gun massacre in 1996....It worked and is still working with no one disadvantaged. We also implemented change in the mid sixties with regards to the metric system of measurement and money: That wasn't easy, particularly for the oldies, but again it all worked and worked well to no disadvantage to anyone. The US also failed to follow this new innovation: Why? I do remember them losing a Mars probe due to a mix up of imperial and metric data sent to the probe for orbital insertion. So, could one conclude that the US is just totally adverse to change? Do they as the leaders of the free world, see any sort of " reduction of status" in implementing change either as an example from other free world nations, or to any supposed shame in changing what was accepted in 1791? Or are they clinging to the macho wild west image, so often portrayed by Hollywood in film...the cowboy mentality shown in many western films, along with the gun fights, Indian massacres etc. Let me say that my own country has nothing to be proud of in that regard, and with relation to the indigenous people, but we are attempting to make amends and progress is obvious with our country's original inhabitants. My Son just got a new car, and guess what? It has no bloody cd player in it! I was mortified!! But he explained to me with the advent of MP players and other devices for holding music, the old cd is just out of date!!! In my opinion the bottom line is guns were made to kill...the less of them about, the better for all of society. And while we are only a small populated country of 25 million people, we implement change when it is needed. Perhaps, just perhaps, your politicians could learn from us down under.

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-astronomers-s0-star-ready-big.html Astronomers discover S0-2 star is single and ready for big Einstein test February 22, 2018, W. M. Keck Observatory The orbit of S0-2 (light blue) located near the Milky Way's supermassive black hole will be used to test Einstein's Theory of General Relativity and generate potentially new gravitational models. Credit: W. M. Keck Observatory Astronomers have the "all-clear" for an exciting test of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, thanks to a new discovery about S0-2's star status. Up until now, it was thought that S0-2 may be a binary, a system where two stars circle around each other. Having such a partner would have complicated the upcoming gravity test. But in a study published recently in the Astrophysical Journal, a team of astronomers led by a UCLA scientist from Hawaii has found that S0-2 does not have a significant other after all, or at least one that is massive enough to get in the way of critical measurements that astronomers need to test Einstein's theory. The researchers made their discovery by obtaining spectroscopic measurements of S0-2 using W. M. Keck Observatory's OH-Suppressing Infrared Imaging Spectrograph (OSIRIS) and Laser Guide Star Adaptive Optics. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-02-astronomers-s0-star-ready-big.html#jCp the paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3eb/meta Investigating the Binarity of S0-2: Implications for Its Origins and Robustness as a Probe of the Laws of Gravity around a Supermassive Black Hole: Abstract The star S0-2, which orbits the supermassive black hole (SMBH) in our Galaxy with a period of 16 years, provides the strongest constraint on both the mass of the SMBH and the distance to the Galactic center. S0-2 will soon provide the first measurement of relativistic effects near a SMBH. We report the first limits on the binarity of S0-2 from radial velocity (RV) monitoring, which has implications for both understanding its origin and robustness as a probe of the central gravitational field. With 87 RV measurements, which include 12 new observations that we present, we have the requisite data set to look for RV variations from S0-2's orbital model. Using a Lomb–Scargle analysis and orbit-fitting for potential binaries, we detect no RV variation beyond S0-2's orbital motion and do not find any significant periodic signal. The lack of a binary companion does not currently distinguish different formation scenarios for S0-2. The upper limit on the mass of a companion star () still allowed by our results has a median upper limit of sin i ≤ 1.6 M ⊙ for periods between 1 and 150 days, the longest period to avoid tidal break-up of the binary. We also investigate the impact of the remaining allowed binary system on the measurement of the relativistic redshift at S0-2's closest approach in 2018. While binary star systems are important to consider for this experiment, we find that plausible binaries for S0-2 will not alter a 5σ detection of the relativistic redshift. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: OK, my main question [ and possible answer] is also the one referred to in the article, and summed up in the following extract.... "The study also sheds more light on the strange birth of S0-2 and its stellar neighbors in the S-Star Cluster. The fact that these stars exist so close to the supermassive black hole is unusual because they are so young; how they could've formed in such a hostile environment is a mystery. "Star formation at the Galactic Center is difficult because the brute strength of tidal forces from the black hole can tear gas clouds apart before they can collapse and form stars," said Do. "S0-2 is a very special and puzzling star," said Chu. "We don't typically see young, hot stars like S0-2 form so close to a supermassive black hole. This means that S0-2 must have formed a different way." OK, while this star is fairly large, wouldn't the answer to where it formed, be instead that it was actually ejected, possibly in its proto stage from another system within the galactic buldge? The other point I find so enthralling and revealing about this article and paper, is again, another example of the fact that science and scientists are forever trying and testing out incumbent theories, even those of Einstein. Whoever ends up finding any flaw in GR, will have his name up in lights. If ever GR is invalidated or falsified, or some limitation on its predictiveness is found, it will be from the inside mainstream.

Interesting link: Thanks and book marked!

Great stuff!

Sorry, you do not have a scientific theory, you have an as yet, unsupported hypothesis. And of course you are in the wrong section.

There is nothing wrong in asking questions, in fact it is why science is what it is, and why all scientists themselves ask questions. That's how theories develop. Some though come to science forums with an agenda, and ask questions that they have no intention of accepting a valid answer for. Science develops theories that match observation. Sometimes the why and/or the how are unanswerable or are more philosophical then scientific. see the following to explain what I mean. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8 Like me you are an amateur: Nothing wrong with that, we are all an amateur in some regard to some particular subject area. But speaking for myself, answers I have received on forums like this, I mostly review myself via some known reputable website or person, or book. I voted no, because I have come to recognise that many folk come to science forums with an agenda as I already mentioned, and some come with other afflictions such as "delusions of grandeur"and/or "tall poppy syndrome" or religious fanaticism. These are mostly easily recognisable after they post a few times, and their "not going to accept an answer that conflicts with my personal view" mentality comes to the fore. The like, up, and down votes give an indication of the intention and persona of the person asking or answering a question, remembering that mainstream science forums such as this are just that...mainstream science forums. Hypotheticals and non mainstream quirky ideas are just that, and like the established incumbent theories before they became established incumbent theories, need to "run the gauntlet" of critical questioning by others, before being accepted. Mostly and rightly so, they are banished to the trash for failing what we know as the simple scientific methodology.

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-laser-ranged-satellite-accurately-earth-tidal.html Laser-ranged satellite measurement now accurately reflects Earth's tidal perturbations Tides on Earth have a far-reaching influence, including disturbing satellites' measurements by affecting their motion. This disturbance can be studied using a model for the gravitational potential of the Earth, taking into account the fact that Earth's shape is not spherical. The LAser RElativity Satellite (LARES), is the best ever relevant test particle to move in the Earth's gravitational field. In a new study published in EPJ Plus, LARES proves its efficiency for high-precision probing of General Relativity and fundamental physics. By studying the Earth's tidal perturbations acting on the LARES, Vahe Gurzadyan from the Center for Cosmology and Astrophysics at Yerevan State University, Armenia, and colleagues demonstrate the value of laser-range satellites for high-precision measurements. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-02-laser-ranged-satellite-accurately-earth-tidal.html#jCp :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Reading the following extract from the article, "To extract frame-dragging from the laser-ranging data for high accuracy, the authors model the main gravitational and non-gravitational orbital perturbations. To do so, the team documented 110 significant Earth tide modes for the LARES satellite using the perturbative methods of celestial mechanics and recent data on the satellite's orbit. Frame-dragging is one of the intriguing phenomena of Einstein's theory of General Relativity. It is an effect on space, and is elastic—in other words, it will revert back to its original shape and energy state after force is exerted on it-whereby particles exchange energy with it. This has implications for astrophysics" Wow!!! This seems incredible accuracy and precision to my mind. So how did/does it compare to the GP-B data and readings a few years ago? I mean the precision of GP-B was pretty high, and I would have imagined that our cosmologists and Astrophysicists after GP-B, would have laid back contented and celebrated with a can of Fosters or two! PS: Anti GRsts, please take note.

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-ultramassive-black-holes-far-off-galaxies.html Thanks to data collected by NASA's Chandra X-ray telescope on galaxies up to 3.5 billion light years away from Earth, an international team of astrophysicists has detected what are likely to be the most massive black holes ever discovered in the universe. The team's calculations showed that these ultramassive black holes are growing faster than the stars in their respective galaxies. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-02-ultramassive-black-holes-far-off-galaxies.html#jCp extract: "The results showed that the masses of ultramassive black holes are roughly 10 times greater than those originally projected. Furthermore, almost half of the sample's black holes are estimated to be at least 10 billion times more massive than the sun. This puts them in a class of extreme heavyweights that certain astronomers call "ultramassive black holes." "We have discovered black holes that are far larger and way more massive than anticipated," Mezcua says. "Are they so big because they had a head start or because certain ideal conditions allowed them to grow more rapidly over billions of years? For the moment, there is no way for us to know." Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-02-ultramassive-black-holes-far-off-galaxies.html#jCp """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" OK, I remember reading results of the WMAP probe and the data that revealed the first stars formed around 200 million years post BB. And its common knowledge that these GEN 1 first stars, that formed from the actual stuff of the BB itself, H and He [POP III] were many times more massive then current stars, plus they had relatively short life spans in the 10's of millions of years before going S/nova or Hypernova: So, my question, are these ultra massive BHs really that surprising?

Astronomers reveal secrets of most distant supernova ever detected February 20, 2018, University of Portsmouth Supernova. Credit: NASA An international team of astronomers, including Professor Bob Nichol from the University of Portsmouth, has confirmed the discovery of the most distant supernova ever detected – a huge cosmic explosion that took place 10.5 billion years ago, or three-quarters the age of the Universe itself. The exploding star, named DES16C2nm, was detected by the Dark Energy Survey (DES), an international collaboration to map several hundred million galaxies in order to find out more about dark energy – the mysterious force believed to be causing the accelerated expansion of the Universe. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-02-astronomers-reveal-secrets-distant-supernova.html#jCp the paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aaa126/meta Studying the Ultraviolet Spectrum of the First Spectroscopically Confirmed Supernova at Redshift Two Abstract We present observations of DES16C2nm, the first spectroscopically confirmed hydrogen-free superluminous supernova (SLSN-I) at redshift . DES16C2nm was discovered by the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Supernova Program, with follow-up photometric data from the Hubble Space Telescope, Gemini, and the European Southern Observatory Very Large Telescope supplementing the DES data. Spectroscopic observations confirm DES16C2nm to be at z = 1.998, and spectroscopically similar to Gaia16apd (a SLSN-I at z = 0.102), with a peak absolute magnitude of . The high redshift of DES16C2nm provides a unique opportunity to study the ultraviolet (UV) properties of SLSNe-I. Combining DES16C2nm with 10 similar events from the literature, we show that there exists a homogeneous class of SLSNe-I in the UV ( Å), with peak luminosities in the (rest-frame) U band, and increasing absorption to shorter wavelengths. There is no evidence that the mean photometric and spectroscopic properties of SLSNe-I differ between low () and high redshift (), but there is clear evidence of diversity in the spectrum at , possibly caused by the variations in temperature between events. No significant correlations are observed between spectral line velocities and photometric luminosity. Using these data, we estimate that SLSNe-I can be discovered to z = 3.8 by DES. While SLSNe-I are typically identified from their blue observed colors at low redshift (), we highlight that at these events appear optically red, peaking in the observer-frame z-band. Such characteristics are critical to identify these objects with future facilities such as the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, Euclid, and the Wide-field Infrared Survey Telescope, which should detect such SLSNe-I to z = 3.5, 3.7, and 6.6, respectively.

The point is my friend is that when we get down to the nitty gritty of things, you do not have the qualifications or credentials to claim what is or isn't ridiculious in mainstream science. Let me illustrate the point I'm trying to make, and as others have told you...science isn't necessarily after truth or reality...a scientific theory is not meant to be fact, you dismally misquote Einstein, you then finally claim you know mainstream and what you are talking about? Then put on a pretentious I don't care act" and expect others to drop what they are doing to listen to so called words of wisdom. And on life, well as far as we can deliberate life is simply a product of evolution...as the great Carl Sagan put it, we are all star stuff. You seem to want people to believe that your "- " are a badge of honour? Since you appear ignorant of so many basic essentials of cosmology as I listed, and since your guesses have no evidence in any sort of reality, I'll give that a miss if you don't mind.

So obviously you do not accept the existence of BH's? Have you any other potential model to describe the effects that we see? Please if you do, take the time to start another thread in the speculative section, and put forward your hypothetical for the forum's professionals to judge....thank you, Otherwise of course, like the many other anti science and anti GR nuts that infest forums such as this, open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, you are just pissing into the wind.

You mean premises that perhaps on face value, may appear counter-intuitive? Which ones do you have trouble with accepting? Which ones are idiotic? Why do you believe cosmologists and other professionals would accept any idiotic premise that describes time dilation, when we observe it every day.