beecee

Adding even more support for your hypothesis is the fact that not one of his many links support his baseless rhetorical claims re GR and the cosmological model in general.

As explained you can't and you won't. And your continued bluster and rhetoric on a public forum on which you have not been banned from yet is where that rhetoric and bluster will languish until finally disappearing in cyber space. In realty I would guess though that if you are banned for your refusal to accept and align with the scientific method, you will use this as fodder and claim more victimisation on the next forum you chose to troll.

Empty bluster and rhetoric continues. And delusions as well. Well considering you just recently in a post claimed "proof of god" I see this and most all of your posts as bluster agenda laden rhetoric that will be lost in a short time in cyber space.

Bluster and rhetoric does not cut it my friend. GR is continually tested every day by many professionals and continues to make successful predictions and match observational data. So far none of your links do anything to invalidate any data re the present cosmological model including GR and/or DM...I have a sneaking suspicion this will just be more of the same bluster.

Nice stuff, thanks Strange.... An excerpt from your article worth noting.....

Whether he is correct in his estimations or not, and whether we need to do it within a 100 years, 500 years or a 1000 years, it will certainly in my opinion be inevitable. First of course the Moon, then Mars and further afield.

A few points, as with your other posts, your perceptions are nothing short of speudoscience. Three points: [1] Cold or the degree of cold is simply the absence of heat. [2] You do not have a theory, you have a wild arse guess. [3] A BH surroundings are "hot" because of the intense tidal gravity and the rate at which it is attracting matter and breaking it down. No you are not. Speudoscientific nonsense! The universe is all that evolved from the BB. Cold or the degree of cold is simply the absence of heat. Correct. The absence of any heat at all would see us reach -273C or 0 degrees Kelvin something that has never been obtained in the lab, although physicists have go within a few billionths part of a degree above it. What we see in the picture is millions of galaxies made up of many billions of stars. The same effect can be seen when viewing a forest of trees from a great distance. We are unable to discertain any individual tree and only see a carpet of green. The different colours of the galaxies are a result of the prominence of the particular generation and population of stars present. The fainter dimmer light may simply mean it is further away. Nonsense: When I was a kid I also believed in Santa Claus. The BB is not an explosion: It is/was the evolution of space and time [spacetime] as we know them from a point 10-43 seconds after the initial event. The BB is overwhelmingly supported because it aligns with the observational evidence we have and the fact that it also agrees with Einstein's GR theory. The main point though is I really doubt you have made any worthwhile observations. Again, more nonsense. The universe is actually cooling. At present that temperature is 2.7K and was around 5000C 400,000 years after the BB. Firstly, you do not have a theory. Secondly, DM is evidenced by the rotational periods of galaxies and other experiments such as the "Bullet Cluster". If my comments seem rather harsh, then so be it. I'm just totally amazed how individuals can come to a public science forum, claiming to invalidate present day cosmology from the comfort of their arm chair in front of a computer. If I were you, and I was really interested in this awesome topic of cosmology and astronomy, and not just playing games or trolling, then I would start reading a few reputable books such as "A Brief History of Time" or some of Carl Sagan's books, or even probably the best book I have ever read called "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes: Not so much a book about the bomb, but a history of late 19th century/20th century physics, and great scientists from Bequeral, Rhotegen, Rhuterford, Meitner, Curie, Szillard, Fermi, Bhor, Feynman, Einstein and many others.

The rate of the angular momentum of the Sun has nothing to do with the heat it radiates. Sun spots are simply regions of the Sun where the temperatures are lower then the surrounding regions. DM has SFA to do with any of the Sun's parameters including what heat it rediates. The Sun will not go supernova. The Sun will not become a BH. It will not become a dwarf planet. Obviously you need to read up on physics and astronomy to counter your fairy tale perceptions on what you seem to believe.

Orbital parameters and gravity have been observed, calculated and detailed for 300 years, and are totally supported by observational and mathematical data. No amount of pretentious over zealous confidence continually repeated on a public forum by any Tom, Dick or Harry, will ever change what we already know with great confidence and practical experiments illustrated by the numbers of robotic probes sent to the other planets, that have operated as expected and as detailed by the mathematics. The two Voyager probes immediatley come to mind after their encounters with the gaseous and icy giant planets as calculated.

Thank you for the video which confirms exactly what I was trying to tell you. The "solutions" are as I explained, and as detailed in the video.....simple as that.

Let me answer that another way for you to understand.... If magically we could compress all the mass of the Sun to within its Schwarzchild radius, [about 2.5 kms from memory] it would become a BH. Contrary perhaps to your "logic" the solar system would not be sucked in...all the planets would continue to orbit on their known orbital path. Also the gravity of any object depends on the mass of the object, and the distance you are from it. That explains why light within the interior of the Sun does not get trapped.......for that to happen all the Sun's mass would need to be inside the paraemter of the light/photon. And just quickly another point...If it has been answered I apologise, but from a distant frame of reference anyone viewing an object falling into a BH, would never see it cross the EH, just gradually red shifted beyond the range of your eyes or telescope until it gradually faded from view. But If that object falling in was me, I would certainly cross the EH, and be spaghettified by the tidal gravitational effects until torn asunder into my most basic fundamental parts. That was made known without a shadow of a doubt in the following thread...http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/112395-hijack-from-science-and-the-uni-multiverse-whichever-you-prefer/?tab=comments#comment-1030166

Hiya Danni, if my post appears irrational its because I have had a few Fosters and at my age it doesn't take too much to get me schnozzled.I was raised as a good Catholic boy and was even at one time an Altar boy until I got caught drinking the Altar wine. My Mrs of 40 odd years now is a devout christian. In my life time and interest in science, I have seen the latter, slowly push the necessity of any deity further and futher back. I still though prefer to let religious people be, unless of course they start threads or make excuses to denigrate science, then I make it known in no uncertain terms what I think of their God and beliefs. While science are now reasonably able to explain how the universe came to be, we still, scientists that is, have a way to go to absolutely banish any need for any deity. Scientists as yet are only able to speculate the how and why of the BB, and that obviously leaaves the door open for religious orginizations to put in their God of the gaps. Anyway, another Fosters beckons! seeya!

https://phys.org/news/2017-12-cosmic-filament-probes-galaxy-giant.html Cosmic filament probes our galaxy's giant black hole December 20, 2017, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics A radio image from the NSF’s Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array showing the center of our galaxy. The mysterious radio filament is the curved line located near the center of the image, & the supermassive black hole Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), is shown by the bright source near the bottom of the image. Credit: NSF/VLA/UCLA/M. Morris et al. The center of our Galaxy has been intensely studied for many years, but it still harbors surprises for scientists. A snake-like structure lurking near our galaxy's supermassive black hole is the latest discovery to tantalize astronomers. In 2016, Farhad Yusef-Zadeh of Northwestern University reported the discovery of an unusual filament near the center of the Milky Way Galaxy using the NSF's Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA). The filament is about 2.3 light years long and curves around to point at the supermassive black hole, called Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), located in the Galactic center. Now, another team of astronomers has employed a pioneering technique to produce the highest-quality image yet obtained of this curved object. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-12-cosmic-filament-probes-galaxy-giant.html#jCp the paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aa9985/meta A Nonthermal Radio Filament Connected to the Galactic Black Hole? Abstract Using the Very Large Array, we have investigated a nonthermal radio filament (NTF) recently found very near the Galactic black hole and its radio counterpart, Sgr A*. While this NTF—the Sgr A West Filament (SgrAWF)—shares many characteristics with the population of NTFs occupying the central few hundred parsecs of the Galaxy, the SgrAWF has the distinction of having an orientation and sky location that suggest an intimate physical connection to Sgr A*. We present 3.3 and 5.5 cm images constructed using an innovative methodology that yields a very high dynamic range, providing an unprecedentedly clear picture of the SgrAWF. While the physical association of the SgrAWF with Sgr A* is not unambiguous, the images decidedly evoke this interesting possibility. Assuming that the SgrAWF bears a physical relationship to Sgr A*, we examine the potential implications. One is that Sgr A* is a source of relativistic particles constrained to diffuse along ordered local field lines. The relativistic particles could also be fed into the local field by a collimated outflow from Sgr A*, perhaps driven by the Poynting flux accompanying the black hole spin in the presence of a magnetic field threading the event horizon. Second, we consider the possibility that the SgrAWF is the manifestation of a low-mass-density cosmic string that has become anchored to the black hole. The simplest form of these hypotheses would predict that the filament be bi-directional, whereas the SgrAWF is only seen on one side of Sgr A*, perhaps because of the dynamics of the local medium.

https://phys.org/news/2017-12-scientists-solar-giant-star.html Scientists describe how solar system could have formed in bubble around giant star December 22, 2017, University of Chicago Despite the many impressive discoveries humans have made about the universe, scientists are still unsure about the birth story of our solar system. Scientists with the University of Chicago have laid out a comprehensive theory for how our solar system could have formed in the wind-blown bubbles around a giant, long-dead star. Published Dec. 22 in the Astrophysical Journal, the study addresses a nagging cosmic mystery about the abundance of two elements in our solar system compared to the rest of the galaxy. The general prevailing theory is that our solar system formed billions of years ago near a supernova. But the new scenario instead begins with a giant type of star called a Wolf-Rayet star, which is more than 40 to 50 times the size of our own sun. They burn the hottest of all stars, producing tons of elements which are flung off the surface in an intense stellar wind. As the Wolf-Rayet star sheds its mass, the stellar wind plows through the material that was around it, forming a bubble structure with a dense shell. "The shell of such a bubble is a good place to produce stars," because dust and gas become trapped inside where they can condense into stars, said coauthor Nicolas Dauphas, professor in the Department of Geophysical Sciences. The authors estimate that 1 percent to 16 percent of all sun-like stars could be formed in such stellar nurseries.Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-12-scientists-solar-giant-star.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any comments on the above scenario? Cosmologists of course have now seen stellar systems in various stages of formation mostly supporting the Nebular hypothesis model. I don't believe the above methodology invalidates that to any great degree.

What you say makes sense, particularly the query why they should be short lived. I was more or less playing the devil's advocate actually, as I did many moons ago, have a young GR expert explain to me why White Holes are impossible. Big difference being that the BB was the evolution of spacetime as we know it, while a BH occurs in spacetime.

From what I do know, they have mathematical templates that correspond to different cosmological entities that I would guess also include Magnetars. That statement alone illustrates your obvious god driven agenda. Very silly indeed. None of your links say anything about Plasma/Electric hypothetical being more accurate then GR, and yes most certainly, it was debunked at least two decades ago. Wrong. Galactic spiral arms and their formation are generally now described as "density waves" analogous to traffic jam, in which conglomerations of stellar dust, stars etc pile up before moving on to the next spiral arm. These "rivers of gravity" have been known for a while now, and account for part of the missing mass that we label DM.... http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/02_releases/press_073102.html They do not though account for all the missing mass.

You can repeat your nonsense adinfinitum and it makes no difference to the real science and scientific models and theories that are supported by the maths and observations. Obviously as a no body on a public forum, you do not have anything to lose, and the same goes for all the up and coming young physicists that would early like to make a name for themselves and possibly win a Noble, if they could realistically over throw the present cosmological model. You see, the facts are that GR is being put to the test continually and is still passing with flying colours. I also on another forum had an Astronomer by the name of Geraint Lewis tell me that it is most likely that any future QGT will entail all that the BB does now, but obviously extending its zone of applicability. And the hypothetical papers you mentioned are simply those that still fall behind GR in the power of prediction and in many cases like the Plasma/Electric universe hypothesis, languishes in oblivion. PS: I have also read the book, "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric J Lerner, which was promoting the Electric/Plasma model and consequently also had it totally refuted and debunked, by other professionals including the previous mentioned astronomer. In all honesty I must say that before you attempt to expose any holes in the current model, you need to be totally update with and totally knowledgable of that current model, In that regards, you failed at the first hurdle in not even knowing that gravitational waves have been now seen six times, five by colliding BH pairs and once by Neutron stars.

Ahh, the other part of the agenda now exposed! Just as I thought. The issue is that we have many hypothetical papers on many aspects of cosmology, that have never yet surpassed the BB and GR for powers of matching observational data and making successful predictions, and certainly do not invalidate DM, DE, the BB or GR.. The BB and GR still stand supreme despite the many aspects of your agenda. Perhaps its that issue that you really need to deal with.

While there maybe some holes in present mainstream cosmology, you have yet to show any evidenced, peer reviewed alternative that fits the current observations any better...and neither has anyone else. Personally, I don't think I have mentioned anything about any multiverse, but yes, it is still a speculative subject. Did anyone say anything different? Remember most current models and theories started off as speculative. While BHs have now been shown beyond any reasonable argument to exist, DM is a great example of another speculative aspect that is gatherring momentum as more and more evidence supporting the DM concept comes to light. eg: https://phys.org/news/2017-12-dark-tale.html An innovative interpretation of X-ray data from a cluster of galaxies could help scientists fulfill a quest they have been on for decades: determining the nature of dark matter. The finding involves a new explanation for a set of results made with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, ESA's XMM-Newton and Hitomi, a Japanese-led X-ray telescope. If confirmed with future observations, this may represent a major step forward in understanding the nature of the mysterious, invisible substance that makes up about 85% of matter in the universe. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-12-dark-tale.html#jCp the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.01684.pdf Rudolf Peierls Centre for Theoretical Physics, University of Oxford, 1 Keble Rd., Oxford OX1 3NP, UK Hitomi observations of Perseus with the Soft X-ray Spectrometer (SXS) provide a high-resolution look at the 3.5 keV feature reported by multiple groups in the Perseus cluster. The Hitomi spectrum – which involves the sum of diffuse cluster emission and the point-like central Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN) – does not show any excess at E ∼ 3.5keV, giving an apparent inconsistency with previous observations of excess diffuse emission. We point out that 2009 Chandra data reveals a strong dip in the AGN spectrum at E = (3.54 ± 0.02)keV (cluster frame) – the identical energy to the diffuse excess observed by XMM-Newton. Scaling this dip to the 2016 AGN luminosity and adding it to the diffuse XMM-Newton excess, this predicts an overall dip in the SXS field of view of (−5.9 ± 4.4) × 10−6 ph cm−2 s −1 at E = 3.54 keV – a precise match to the Hitomi data when broadened by the dark matter virial velocity. We describe models of Fluorescent Dark Matter that can reproduce this physics, in which dark matter absorbs and then re-emits 3.5 keV photons emitted from the central AGN. DE of course is a total mystery, although many reputable professionals believe it to be the CC of Einstein fame.

What you care or don't care about is irrelevant to science and cosmology and matters nought. That's OK. but again and that which you appear to be ignoring, is that the forum has a section for non mainstream science, which you seem to be treating with contempt.

Hmmmm...I'm not going to comment any further on your magnetic field obsession, other then to ask you if you are align with, or proposing that long defunct and totally debunked Plasma/Electric hypothetical? Is that your agenda? If so, along with your other rather anti mainstream cosmology approach, you are posting in the wrong section and against the forum rules and perfectly understandable why a physicist would stop posting your posts. In the three science forums I have been a part of, the anti mainstream crowd always have some sort of agenda, albeit, religious, tall poppy syndrome, delusions of grandeur, or just plain old anti establishment bias.

Your link re CygnusX1 is from 2002...Irrespective there are many such observational entities pointing to the only possible source being a gravitationally completely collapsed object...or a BH. And again the five gravitational wave discoveries from binary BH collisions,and one Neutron star collision fit the template required for such interpretations, by the experts and professionals. Or do you believe there is some sort of conspiracy afoot? If so you are in the wrong section. Your last three posts have it mostly wrong in my opinion. Your premise is totally flawed and suggestive of phycobabble which in itself is suggestive of pseudoscience. Time dilation and length contraction are real...its that simple.Whatever other interpretation you like to put on it, does not concern me one iota. This is afterall a public science forum, open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, and certainly not subject to professional scientific peer review, although we do have some experts on this forum that may like to help clear up your alternative take on BHs and associated cosmology. Remember along with the mountains of other evidence, the reason that GR fits so well with present day cosmology is that it goes hand in glove with the BB theory of universe/spacetime evolution.

But we have observed many scenarios of stellar matter etc "literally " disappearing...CygnusX1 for example..... I would brush up on your knowledge of recent events then...We have in actual fact observed now five binary pair BH collisions and one binary Neutron stars collisions. And if your "cynicism" prevents you from accepting that they were actually BH collisions, then it would be interesting to know what you believed it was. Simply put the maths tells us that such orbital parameters need an object at the core that aligns with what we know as a SMBH...Of course if you have another alternate proposition, then let us hear it and please show your maths. Like I said, time dilation and length contraction are facts of life, used and observed every day in the science world, GPS being one. Perhaps one day in the very distant future, we may have the knowledge and technology to manipulate the spacetime metric so that a perception of FTL travel is possible...warp drive for example.....who knows? You have failed to grasp what time dilation means. Let me go through it again...."a thought experiment" If you and I were twins, and I set off at 99.999% "c" and returned 12 months later by my own on board ship's clocks and my own biological clocks, I would be returning to an earth 230 approximate years in the future, with you long dead and buried. Again, time dilation is negligible at earthly based speeds and conditions, hence why it was never noticed until the great man came along. I would also remind you that if you are proposing an alternative methodology as opposed to the accepted evidenced based incumbent model, then you need to start a thread in the appropriate section. I would also answer some of your rather unreasonable cynicism with the following question, what is a magnetic field... Remember science and the scientific method do not deal in "proofs" as you seem to want. All scientific theories remain as possibly being modified and updated in the future. But just as obviously many scientific theories, such as the theory of evolution, SR, GR, the BB have gained in certainty over time frames, the theory of evolution of course being as near certain as anyone would hope for. https://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1

What you are prepared to accept or not has no bearing on science or the scientific methodology. Time dilation and length contraction are facts of life, its as simple as that. Nothing wrong in sceptisim per se, but to deny scientific data is plain silly. Thought experiments on the illustrations of the effects of time dilation and length contraction are mathematical constructs that illustrate time dilation and length contraction effects because those effects are simply negligible at Earthly based speeds and conditions, although still used in many aspects of science including GPS. The existence or otherwise of any deity is not a scientific answer as is any supposed supernatural concept.

If you are speaking of SMBHs, we have ample evidence of their existence, simply by the effects it has on orbital periods of stars close by and also the effects on spacetime itself. Of course the garden variety stellar size BHs and Intermediate size have certainly been even more evidenced with the five discoveries of binary BH collisions and associated gravitational waves. Many aspects of cosmology are hypothetical, science does not deny that, but remember also that many scientific entities such as BHs were also once simply hypothetical, and counter intuitive at one time....further observations and vast improvements in technology have changed that. White Holes, worm holes, are results of the equations of GR, although we have not observed them, and as a result still remain speculative. Time dilation and length contraction are of course evidenced and observed in many experiments and are a state of fact.