beecee

Light/photons actually follow geodesics in curved spacetime...it is neither speeding up or slowing down. A geodesic are the straightest path between two points or in flat spacetime, they are straight lines. On a sphere, geodesics are great circles (as per the equator). Time always passes at one second per second, both mechanically and biologically no matter where one is. It is only when viewing time in another frame of reference that one may see time slow down or dilate. eg: If you and I were twins, and I being the more adventurious type, head off in my spaceship at 99.999% "c", you would see me and my time, age much slower, if you had a magic telescope that could view me. But my own time still passes at one second per second. In fact if I travel at that speed and return 12 months later by my own biological and mechanical timing devices, I would be returning to an Earth around 230 years in the future, with you long dead and buried. The effects of time dilation and length contraction are though negligible at earthly based speeds and modes of operation, and was why it was never noticed and/or considered before Einstein came along. Irrespective it is still important enough for many scientific experiments and particularly with our GPS system of navigation where it is considered and allowed for.

Science is basically governed by the scientific methodology.....ask questions...for an hypothesis...research...experiment...observe.....check...communicate results...repeat experiments. Pseudoscience is dtected by the following means...excessive use of physcobabble...anecdotal evidence...claims that are unable to be falsified...absence of peer review.

White Holes and wormholes are predictions of the equations of GR, but as yet we have no evidence for their existence. I did find this interesting piece. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole In general relativity, a white hole is a hypothetical region of spacetimewhich cannot be entered from the outside, although matter and lightcan escape from it. In this sense, it is the reverse of a black hole, which can only be entered from the outside and from which matter and light cannot escape. White holes appear in the theory of eternal black holes. In addition to a black hole region in the future, such a solution of the Einstein field equations has a white hole region in its past.[1]However, this region does not exist for black holes that have formed through gravitational collapse, nor are there any known physical processes through which a white hole could be formed. Although information and evidence regarding white holes remains inconclusive, the 2006 GRB 060614 has been proposed as the first documented occurrence of a white hole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRB_060614 GRB 060614 was a remarkable gamma-ray burst (GRB) detected by the Swift satellite on June 14, 2006 with puzzling properties, which challenge current progenitor models.[1] In particular, the lack of any bright supernova(SN) down to very strict limits and the vanishing spectral lags during the whole burst are typical of short GRBs, strikingly at odds with the long (102s) duration of this event and its origin in a galaxy 1.6 billion light years away in the constellation Indus.[2] In 2011, it was hypothesised that the burst was a white hole appearing for 102 seconds.[3]

Basically yes. Gravity being spacetime curvature. Light/photons also curve spacetime by a infinitesssimal amount, due to its momentum, yet it has zero rest mass. Just did. The speed of light is never reached. We are talking atomic and sub atomic particles, not stellar sized objects. Obviously your guesses and assumptions are plainly wrong. Going at "c" would see time stand still. A photon from its own perspective will traverse the universe in an instant due to infinite time dilation and length contraction. No, its actual fact and has been observed. [length contraction and time dilation]. Time and space are relative. Time and space are not absolute. There is no universal NOW. And of course many experiments and observations show your guesses and assumptions as wrong. You do not have a theory...you have an hypothesis, and one that is incorrect. It's all relative. I suggest you read up on SR and GR from a reputable scientific source. There is no problem, other then your confusion over relativity, relativity being the operative word. This is why nothing with mass will ever reach light speed..."c" Your mass would increase to such an extent that an infinite amount of energy would be needed to keep you at "c" obviously a paradox.

Anti science science is not science, it is pseudoscience or just plain bunkum. Science also is a discipline in eternal progress, and as yet scientists do not know everything.Theories are being updated, modified and changed all the time, as observations improve and technology increases There are still some mysteries, and unexplained phenomena, even here on Earth.

Discoveries as to this date have re-enforced GR. If there were any other "theories" still in play as you say, they would need to describe our observations more accurately then the incumbent model, and make even more verifiable predictions. I'm pretty sure if anything left in play could do that, then it would be pushed for all that it was worth as potentially, the author would be another Einstein. Remember, scientists/cosmologists everyday are doing their darndest to invalidate GR. Within GR, gravity [if this is your query, remembering I have come in late] does not need to get out of a BH. The gravitational field of any BH is a fossil field from the entity from which the BH formed. Also gravity is spacetime and is nonlinear, a property that in essence means gravity makes more gravity. The gravitational radiation is being created as the BHs/NSs orbit each other cuminating in a final merger as detailed in the following two videos, one an excellent description by Brian Greene. https://www.space.com/38288-gravitational-waves-detected-by-two-observatories.html I was told long ago when discussing cosmology that one should not and cannot mix and try and interact two models. GR and quantum mechanics are incompatible. It also seems at a quick glance that you still have questions re DM and how it fits in with GR. 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. "We expect that this result will either be hugely important or a total dud," said Joseph Conlon of Oxford University who led the new study. "I don't think there is a halfway point when you are looking for answers to one of the biggest questions in science."Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-12-dark-tale.html#jCp the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.01684.pdf Consistency of Hitomi, XMM-Newton and Chandra 3.5 keV data from Perseus 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. Conclusions We have argued that Hitomi, XMM-Newton and Chandra observations of the Perseus cluster at E ∼ 3.5keV show a remarkable degree of consistency. In particular, the Hitomi spectrum around 3.5 keV can be understood as the sum of a dip in the AGN spectrum at E = (3.54 ± 0.02) keV (observed by Chandra) with an excess in the diffuse cluster emission at an identical energy (observed by XMM-Newton and Chandra). We have described dark matter models that can give rise to this phenomenology. Sadly Hitomi is no longer able to contribute to observational efforts to understand the 3.5 keV line. We have emphasised that an accurate and clean spectrum of the NGC1275 AGN is crucial for understanding this phenomenon. Significant improvements on this can be made using operating satellites and with existing CCD technology. The best current spectrum was taken in 2009 by Chandra with the nominal frame time of 3 seconds. Given the AGN is now twice as bright, a further dedicated off-axis observation of NGC1275, operating with reduced frame time to minimise pileup, would give a substantial improvement over the 2009 data.

If in that very unlikely chance that we were alone, it would certainly raise far many more questions then the more likely alternative.

I'm a firm "believer" that we certainly are not alone in the universe, despite any real empirical evidence to support that belief. I believe most cosmologists are also of the same opinion. The sheer enormity, scope and near countless numbers of galaxies and stars in our observable universe, plus the fact that the stuff of life being everywhere we have looked, supports that general belief. We are situated on a small terrestrial planet, orbiting a humdrum dwarf star, situated in the outer suburbs of an average size galaxy, among many billions of other galaxies in the observable universe.

The fact that the terrestrial planets are closer to the Sun then the gaseous and icy giants, actually support the accretion disk theory re planetary formation. And also in recent times, various stages of stellar system creation has been observed in distant systems. The heavier elements are more inclined to fall towards the center, [to create the terrestrial planets] along with the fact that closer to the Sun, the lighter elements such as Hydrogen Methane etc were prevented fro condensing due to higher temperatures. These lighter elements went into into creating the icy gaseous giants further out from the Sun, where temperatures were more conducive.

Many people seem to have a need for mystery, spookiness, and paranormal concepts in their life, that according to them, science is unable to explain. I belong to another forum that is fast losing respect as a science forum simply because it is dominated by weirdos who honestly believe in ghosts, goblins, Bigfoot and even some nonsense re a nuclear war having been conducted on Mars by Alien beings! I kid you not! https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/745738/Life-on-Mars-wiped-out-nuclear-war-Dr-John-Brandenburg These types of people will always prefer the "u tube" video on the net as proof that mainstream science and "powers that be" are conspiring against the general populace. Popular TV series such as "The X-Files" and "Millenium" certainly have a lot to answer for, and the poor gullible and impressionable Idiots that they have gathered along the way. Yes sadly there are real people who still believe in this sort of nonsense.

Your question/s and your replies to those questions, in my opinion, illustrate why Professor Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking and others are correct in their assumptions that Philosophy has had its day. In summing Krauss suggests that philosophers are threatened by real science because science is a discipline in eternal progress while philosophy appears stagnant. His book "A Universe from Nothing" answers one of those eternally philosophical questions quite well in my opinion, while philosophy still dithers and dathers, in my opinion of course. Are we a simulation? I don't believe so. Can we prove we are or are not, part of a simulation? Science observes and conducts experiments, and models accordingly. These models/theories grow in certainty and stature over time, and as they continue to make successful predictions and align with what we observe. The theory of evolution of life is of course certain. The theories of the BB, SR and GR are all near certain and still growing in that certainty...Yet none tell us the how, or the why, or any deep underlying reality or truth. Proof and deep reality are incidental in my opinion, and may never be known in actual fact, but by the same token, if our application of the scientific method, enables us to one day reveal this "deep reality" all well and good...if not, so be it. Apologies if my post in part seems rather philosophical.

The gravitational field is geometry of spacetime, as dictated by mass/energy. Spacetime is the multi-dimensional framework/field within which we 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 and 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 our universe regardless of their motion. Gravitational waves are just one of the predictions of GR that has now been validated six times, with three instruments around the world. GR stands without any real challenge as the overwhelmingly supported model of gravity by the power of its predictions and its compatibility with the BB, and the evolution of this spacetime from t+10-43 seconds. Obviously going on your remarks in the first post, you seem to have some beef with GR, and/or gravitational waves. So what is this beef? Why? What you need to do is invalidate the current findings or show a means by which our observations are explained better then the current incumbent model. Obviously like many others with an agenda [although I havn't quite worked out yours as yet...religious??] you are unable to do so and simply find relief for your frustrations on forums such as this, open to any Tom, Dick and Harry.

Perhaps this is simply a delusion affecting yourself, as this experiment now has been confirmed by three detectors...Or will you now claim conspiracy? My suggestion is that you actually learn some stuff re SR/GR, gravitational waves and physics in general, because in reality, you seem to have put a conglomeration of general errors together [as others have informed you] and somehow reach a delusional conclusion based on those errors and erroneous interpretations as to what did happen and was detected at least 6 times now. I'm sure he'll now profusely thank you from the bottom of his heart for helping him over that hurdle.

Ahaa! At least we are making a bit of sense now.

Theoretical or otherwise, Hawking Radiation does not involve anything "crossing" the EH from inside to outside. For a Schwarzchild metric BH, it certainly is, and is what is entailed by GR.

Yeah good point.In that case it may actually act to increase angular momentum. Complicated? That is certainly an understatement! Yet getting into this complicated scenario, could/should the angular momentum of the BH, act to prevent total compulsory collapse to the quantum/Planck level?

OK, my reasoning was that the interaction/s with the accretion disks and magnetic field lines, as well as other matter/energy could/would act to slow down the angular momentum over time. But considering your point, and considering what I have claimed a few times re compulsory collapse once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, should the question then be asked, does centrifugal force act to keep it from collapsing all the way down to the Quantum/Planck length? Obviously according to current thinking, a ring singularity is formed. Can this ring singularity be at the Planck/quantum level? And of course if one can calculate a trajectory upon entering a BH via the pole regions to pass through the middle of the ring singularity, one may effectively be able to do this without being torn asunder by gravitational effects, as one would be affected by gravity equally on all sides.

Yet GR tells us that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, (the EH is formed) further collapse is compulsory, at least (in my opinion anyway) up to the quantum/Planck level, where GR is non applicable. So isn't it more valid to accept a surface/conglomeration of sorts at that level?

Charge I'm sure, would be negated rather quickly and I would guess so to would angular momentum, but over a far longer period. Which seems to tell me that the simple Schwarzchild solution would be the final destination of any BH. Like you I aint sure but, just offering my thoughts.

I don't believe Time Travel is forbidden. In fact I'm rather positive it is a prediction of GR..at least forward time travel. Time Travel into the past is a different kettle of fish. https://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed

A spinning BH (Kerr BH) need not have a charge, but a charged spinning BH, called a Kerr-Newman BH is rotating and charged. The charge most probably stems from interaction/s with incoming matter and the accretion disk...Like I said, nothing crosses the EH from inside to outside. I can't do better then to quote Strange's answer to that question.... I have stated that further collapse is compulsory at least up to the singularity as defined by where GR is invalid, that is the quantum/Planck level. A mass approaching and/or crossing the BH's EH, is spaghettified and torn apart, broken down into its most basic fundamentals as it approaches the singularity by tidal gravitational effects. Whether or not a Plasma forms or any form of radiation, all matter/energy only has one path...it has no choice in the matter. The BB singularity is a singularity "OF" spacetime: A BH singularity, is a singularity "IN" spacetime No, the BB was an evolution of spacetime as we know it, from a hot dense state, from a time of t+10-43 seconds. A BH radiating away {Hawking Radiation} simply loses its EH and becomes just another arena of spacetime. All paths lead to the singularity: There is no choice in the matter. Matter is disassembled inside a BH via tidal gravity effects...It probably along with all matter and radiation forms a surface or conglomeration unknown to us at the quantum Planck level.

OK, I have come into this late, so bear with me if you will. Any errors, alterations and/or corrections welcome: The stages to a BHs creation is firstly the radiative pressure of nuclear fusion, being overcome by gravity, secondly as the core gets denser, EDP (electron degeneracy pressure) and NDP (Neutron degeneracy pressure) are overcome and a stage is reached when the Schwarzchild radius is reached and an EH formed. GR tells us that at this point further collapse is compulsory. While we are never able to get any information from inside a BH, we can reasonably and logically assume due to the compulsory collapse edict, that collapse continues until at least the quantum/Planck level where the laws of physics and GR are invalid, as far as we know. This is one definition of a BH singularity, the other being that collapse continues until a singularity of infinite density and spacetime curvature is formed. Most cosmologists now do not accept the latter version, which means that the singularity should be defined as where GR and the laws of physics are invalid. So a surface or conglomeration of sorts exists at this quantum/Planck level. Nothing but nothing ever crosses the EH from inside to outside as all matter/energy simply only has a choice of one path to take, that is to the singularity. Even Hawking radiation does not entail any particle/energy crossing that EH from inside to outside. In essence a BH is simply critically curved spacetime with a singularity as defined by the non applicability of our laws and GR, so to speak of BH density is really inappropriate. On recent posts, the "bouncing universe"hypothetical, or as it was called in the fifties, "The Oscillating" model does not necessarilly invalidate the BB, rather it entails the BB, and simply extends the zones of applicability beyond into specualtive regions and physics. OK, now some queries.. I agree...My question is is the expansion simply a result of the impetus from Inflation and whatever made spacetime to start evolving/expanding. This seems reasonable to me due to the scenario that the gravity from the mass/density in the early universe, was acting to slow down the overall expansion rate, but as the expansion continued, the mass/energy density was reduced, and consequently expansion then started accelerating as the cause of expansion is constant over all spacetime. The second query concerns my thoughts on why the BB is overwhelmingly accepted as the best model we have...The way I see it, other then the usual pillars of cosmology which it aligns with, such as the CMBR, abundance of lighter elements, the observed expansion, etc, the fact that it seems to fit hand in glove with GR, a powerful freind and ally I would suggest. The third query is are there any errors in my preamble?

And my welcome also! And congrats on the pregnancy...your Mrs actually. As an old bastard, I've been through it all and now have a grown up young man in IT, who looks after his aging dad and Mum, and is a joy to be still living at home!

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.03323.pdfReversing the thermodynamic arrow of time using quantum correlations: 9 Nov 2017: Abstract:The second law permits the prediction of the direction of natural processes, thus defining a thermodynamic arrow of time. However, standard thermodynamics presupposes the absence of initial correlations between interacting systems. We here experimentally demonstrate the reversal of the arrow of time for two initially quantum correlated spins-1/2, prepared in local thermal states at different temperatures, employing a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance setup. We observe a spontaneous heat flow from the cold to the hot system. This process is enabled by a trade off between correlations and entropy that we quantify with information-theoretical quantities.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::In other words your cold cup of coffee will not heat itself up, but quantum systems seemingly do not adhere to such restraints. Any comments on this article?

Great speculative cosmology! I agree, at least its what I like to speculate also. But speculation at this time is all it is. We have absolutely no reason at all to believe it does exist other then being one outcome of Einsteins equations, just as wormholes are.