beecee

Agreed. Let me add that the first step necessary for any potential non mainstream interpretation of the universe/space/time, is to actually know fully the current accepted model that is generally now accepted, that describes how the universe/spacetime came to be. Near all fail that first step. Once that is achieved, the next step is to make sure any new interpretation or non mainstream idea, describes more observations then the incumbent model, or falsifies some aspect of the incumbent model. This "elliptical dome like structure" you are attempting to dismiss is really just good old plain common sense, and more simply and correctly known as the observable universe, which of course is centered on any observer anywhere in the universe. What we do mainly observe over such large scales , is the assumed homegeneous and isotropic factor of the universe. The relationship between redshift and distant galactic distances is pretty solid. But anyway this isn't the forum to be discussing any unsupported hyptheticals that amaateurs may dream up. Of course! But unless you are totally familiar with why the BB is as overwhelmingly supported as it is, don't delude yourself into believing you have the insights to a better model. http://www.atnf.csiro.au/outreach/education/senior/cosmicengine/hubble.html

The point that I was making is that there is no center to the BB or the universe, other then that center, centered on the observer, where ever that observer may be. The LHC like other particle accelerators, breaks down particles into their fundamental state, and approaches scenarios that existed just after the BB.

There is no "focal point" of the BB: The BB was the evolution of space and time [spacetime] as we know them, and happened everywhere at the same time, because everywhere was packed to within the volume of an atomic nucleus.

My apologies for not crediting the above lyrical arrangement and song...... Although there is a better arrangement by Foster and Allen which I can't seem to find.

All the distant observer would see is infalling mass redshifted to infinity before it ever crosses the EH, until fading from view: I don't believe the distant observer will ever see the EH of the BH increase in size for the same reasons....gravitational red shift. At least that's my take on it and going from a very fuzzy memory many years ago, when answered on another forum by an astronomer.

Light does not have any measurable rest mass, but due to its speed, it does have momentum...that's why solar sails work as an example. Also light/photons travel in geodesic paths in spacetime: The curvature at the EH of a BH is such that light simply has no choice in the geodesic path it must travel, which is to the singularity.

Now there are three steps to heaven, Just listen and you will plainly see, And as life travels on, And things do go wrong , just follow steps one, two and three. Step one, you find a girl you love, Step two, she falls in love with you, Step three, you kiss and hold her tightly, Yeah, that sure seems like heaven to me.

I'm pretty sure the answer to that is yes, remembering all frames of references are valid.

One of mankind's age old questions, "are we alone". Certainly most scientists are probably of the belief that we are not alone, simply due to the facts of the number of stars in our galaxy and the number of galaxies in our observable universe, coupled with "the stuff of life" being everywhere we look. While all that is true, and 100% has my own support, we still in actual fact have no real evidence to show that any ETL off the Earth exists at all, let alone any comparible ETI. With regards to UFO's, as others have informed you, a small percentage remain "unidentified" but the vast majority have been explained by more simple explanations, such as anomalous reflection/refractions of light, cloud formations, weather conditions, sprites, pranks, illusions, mirages, military rockets etc. The few left that are unexplained, remain just that...unexplained or Unidentified. Let me ask you a question....Taking into account the phenomenal astronomical distances involved between stellar systems and galaxies, it is safe to assume that any prospective Alien origin UFO, would be piloted by advanced beings. We could also take into account that such beings would really not covet or want of anything, as everything found on Earth is found everywhere else. Also they obviously being far in advance of us, not really be afraid of any potential aggression that we may answer their visitation with. So then accepting all that, tell me, why don't these advanced beings make their presence officially known? Why don't they land in the government house forecourts in Canberra, or on the White House lawns in the US? or outside Buckingham Palace? Why are they always so secretive? Why are they always landing in out of the way places, kidnapping individuals and carrying out anal probing experiments before returning them in a state of stupor? Why do they just keep on flittering in and then flittering out again, without making their visitation official? I have two wishes before I kick the bucket....[1] The confirmation of ETL, and [2] Putting men on Mars and returning them safely. Let me finish with a simple rule of thumb with regards to any Alien origin UFO's and any answer to mankind's age old question, of "are we alone" "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence" I believe it was the greatest educator of our time, that coined that useful rule of thumb...a man who also firmly believed that we are not alone, but as a scientist also accepted the fact that as yet, we have no real evidence of any off earth Alien life. That man was Carl Sagan. In effect we actually have issued an invitation...In 1972 the Pioneer space probe was launched. It had on it a plaque...... then later we launched Voyager 1 and 2 which both had on board an illustrative record as follows......

You can fool [please] some of the people, all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool [please] all of the people all of the time.

Bingo!

I believe its reasonable to say that the latest data, primarilly from an experiment called WMAP, tells us that the universe is topologically flat [meaning that if two rays of light are emiited into the void parallel, they remain parallel. This seems to denote a universe that is infinite, although we cannot rule out some topologies such as a "torus" which while still flat is finite. I'm no professional though, so any corrections welcome.

The data and evidence tells us that the observable universe/space/time [ as we know them] evolved from a hot dense state, the size of an atomic nucleus that we call a singularity. Physicists today do not accept the physical singularity, and simply see it as the region where current theories break down or are not applicable. the highlighted parts are what matters....firstly all we are able to determine is that it is the observable universe that evolved from that hot dense state, and that whatever was before was simply space and time, as we don't know them. So yes an infinite state is possible although as yet we cannot be sure.

Bingo! if any comment by myself suggested anything else, it was simply because I did not read his "claim" properly...thus..... The EMR burst of energy only was evident with the binary star collision.

When BHs collide we will only get bigger, more massive BHs. That's how scientific theories are formulated sure, and that's why we have yet to have a validated accepted QGT...simply put, at this stage of our technology, we just cannot observe at those quantum scales. Spacetime "may" have existed before t+10-43 seconds, but it would be in a state unknown to us....foamy quantum foam may be an apt description. It has been hypothesised that the BB may have also evolved micro or quantum BHs in those incredible pressures and temperatures just post BB. but again, even if billions or trillions of these micro/quantum BHs were to have merged/collided, we can only get a larger BH. Yep, and they have been detected 5 times so far, with another detection incident of gravitational radiation from binary Neutron stars mergers/collisions. Simply more matter is needed to explain the rotational speeds of the outer parts of galaxies other then what we already observe..enter DM. And yes admittedly a fudge factor when first hypothesised, but since then.....http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_082106.html

Yep, agreed. And may I add that the following should be deemed compulsory reading for any lay person and/or amateur that believes he has constructed or formulated a better explanation then the present incumbent models of the Cosmos.

From the reputable material I have read, hypothetically our first fundamental particles arose when the Superforce started to decouple, at around 10 to the minus 35th or thereabouts, as temperatures started to drop. This created phase transitions and false vacuums, the excesses in energy going into making up our first fundamentals. At 3 minutes post BB, our first atomic nuclei had formed as protons and neutrons formed and temperatures and pressures continued to drop. 380,000 years later conditions were such that our first elements formed when electrons were able to couple to atomic nuclei. Couldn't this be seen as matter produces as a result of the BB? The BB is a theory of the evolution of space and time, [henceforth known as spacetime] from t+10-43 seconds. It says nothing about how or why the BB happened. The timeline of the BB from t+10-43 seconds is illustrated here...http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html Much of the timeline is validated in particle accelerators and such, while the closer we approach the t+10-43 seconds, the less certain we are of the exact methodology. Also much speculation abounds re the subject of the how and why of the BB itself, some more apparently logical and acceptable then others. The following seems likely in my opinion, while still being somewhat speculative in nature.....https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

Did you miss the part where I said I am a lay person and was offering my thoughts on the subject? Did you also fail to read his closed thread, the professional answers he received there, despite his rather arrogant style and demanding his made up rules be adhered to?

I have made an addition in case you missed it. Otherwise, I'll let the experts give a more indepth answer and reasoning.

Just a thought from a lay person.....SR is a special case or subset of GR...GR requires spacetime. Why? Simply put spacetime in GR is gravity, as gravitation is simply described as the curvature/warping/twisting of said spacetime. Plus of course both SR and GR have been thoroughly tested and passed with flying colours. I would also add that spacetime is also the unified multi-dimensional framework within which it is possible to locate events and describe the relationships between them in terms of spatial coordinates and time. The concept of spacetime follows from the observation that the speed of light is constant or invariant, i.e. it does not vary with the motion of the emitter or the observer. Spacetime allows a description of reality that is common for all observers in the universe, regardless of their relative motion. Intervals of space and time considered separately are not the same for all observers.

Just found an interesting paper, which I believe is relevant..... http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/6/3/25/htm The Cosmic Zoo: The (Near) Inevitability of the Evolution of Complex, Macroscopic Life: Abstract: Life on Earth provides a unique biological record from single-cell microbes to technologically intelligent life forms. Our evolution is marked by several major steps or innovations along a path of increasing complexity from microbes to space-faring humans. Here we identify various major key innovations, and use an analytical toolset consisting of a set of models to analyse how likely each key innovation is to occur. Our conclusion is that once the origin of life is accomplished, most of the key innovations can occur rather readily. The conclusion for other worlds is that if the origin of life can occur rather easily, we should live in a cosmic zoo, as the innovations necessary to lead to complex life will occur with high probability given sufficient time and habitat. On the other hand, if the origin of life is rare, then we might live in a rather empty universe. Conclusions: After establishing a set of preconditions needed for life, which are similar to the criteria for habitability that have been discussed extensively in the astrobiology literature, we examined the key innovations of life on Earth, and tested them for multiple occurrences. Using a consistent approach and a model toolset we find that, with the exception of the origin of life and the origin of technological intelligence, we can favour the Critical Path model or the Many Paths model in most cases. The origin of oxygenesis, may be a Many Paths process, and we favour that interpretation, but may also be Random Walk events. This implies that in any world where life has arisen and sufficient energy flux exists, we are confident that we will find complex, animal-like life. The example of Earth suggests that such complex life could evolve in a 1–10 Ga timescale. This does not mean that, as Conway-Morris argues [21], life has to end with humans or animals we are familiar with, but suggests that if we rewind the tape, the result will be same function, but different anatomy and very possibly also different chemistry. Our conclusion has implications for the search for life on other worlds. Not only should we expect microbial biosignatures, but also the detection of signatures that depend on large, complex, multicellular organisms such as the vegetation Red Edge (if it is relevant to the physics and chemistry of the world—see [39]). In particular, this is relevant to the selection of tools we use in searching for life on planets in other solar systems. We hope that our analysis will give support to the search for such life. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I was going to ask a question of this paper, it would be on the last sentence in the Abstract...."On the other hand, if the origin of life is rare, then we might live in a rather empty universe". That question is what and how does one define "rare"? A handful of planetary habitats where life has evolved per galaxy? Two or three examples per galaxy? Or if you prefer a more pessimistic number, how's about One planetary habitat per galaxy? Even in the pessimistic case we would have billions of examples in the observable universe where life has evolved. So again, how would or should one define as "rare"?

Yep, great questions and equally great advice: Please accept my one paltry "like" !

Bingo! And the reason why I near always mention "life as we know it" when talking of the possibility of ETL.

Not really. What many people do know, is that the Earth is just one planet revolving around a hum drum star, amongst 400 billion other stars, in one just galaxy among many billions of more galaxies, just in the part of the universe that is observable, and that the "stuff of life" is found where ever we have looked. Those facts lead many people to assume that life [as we know it] should arise elsewhere as conditions dictate. Not to long ago, most astronomers and astrophysicists assumed that our solar system with its nine planets counting Pluto, would not really be unique or special in a galaxy of 400 billion other stars, then of course as you and I know, their reasonable assumptions were vindicated and validated by the discovery of around 3000 extra solar planets to date with many more to yet be verified. They also assume that any planet within a star's habitable zone, is a candidate for life. Since one of mankind's age old questions has always been "is Earth the only planet with life" and "are we alone", It is then reasonable for astronomers and scientists in general to get excited when that real possibility presents itself. Life on other worlds is inevitable most astronomers would believe, but they also live with the knowledge that distances between life bearing planets are astronomical, and distances between life bearing planets to have life arise that approaches our own evolutionary standards of intelligence and technology to undertake space travel, are even more astronomical.eg: 4.3 L/years to the nearest star. Plus of course, even having reached our own technological advance state, we as yet have only still explored robotically, those bodies within our own system. Of course! Water is an indication of the probability of life having arisen, which most astronomers accept as inevitable to have happened elsewhere for the reasons already stated. They also accept that only a small percentage of that life would have evolved to what you term as "civilisation" status. Nothing new there. Of course! But we also know that all the elements were forged in stars that went supernova, and the heavier elements probably via other means such as collisions between Neutron stars etc. Again, nothing particularly unique about what we find in our own system. They are everywhere! Of course! And there is no reason not to believe that the Earth is in any way unique in that regard. ??? Any reference for that? I was always of the opinion that fossil fuels were the result of decaying and long buried vegetation. Obviously then your wrong assumptions re fossil fuel invalidates what you seem to be implying. In a universe of billions of galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars, each with the possibilities of having planets orbiting each of them, with the stuff of life being everywhere we look, the chances of Earth being unique and the only planet to have evolved life, would be rather slim at best. Of course for that life to have evolved to our own standards would be somewhat less likely, but also there is that possibility that some life may have evolved to even higher more advanced states. As yet, we do not know. In fact as yet we do not have any empirical evidence to support the likelyhood of life elsewhere, although at this time, many astronomers believe we are getting close to obtaining that evidence and finely answering one of mankind's eternal questions in the affirmative. We were all born in the belly of stars each and every one of us, including Earth and everything on it. Just as any Alien life form off this planet was also born in the belly of other stars. 2000 odd years ago, it was believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and the Sun revolved around this fart arse little blue orb. 350 years ago, a bloke called Galileo was ridiculed and put under house arrest when he showed that this was not the case. We have come a long way since then.

Great question and the crux of it is solved by the following..... And let me add it is quite refreshing seeing a member asking a genuine question, without any pre-conceived "absolute" agenda derived answer. To add to the already many correct answers you have been given, if we were to squeeze the present mass of the earth into around a couple of centimeters it would become a BH, likewise if we could magically squeeze the mass of the Sun into a diameter of approximately 5kms, it to would become a BH. Interesting to note though, that if the Sun were magically turned into a BH, by squeezing its mass into a 5km diameter, all the planets would continue to orbit along their present paths. In other words, as is sometimes mistakenly thought, a BH is not an all-purpose vacuum cleaner. In such an unlikely scenario, only comets and asteroids that ventured within limits based on its mass and speed would get sucked in. The absolute "point of no return" is around 1.5 Schwarzchild radius, based on "c" Much more knowledge on BHs in relatively laymans speak, can be gained from http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/ http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/intro.html