beecee

Are you referring to matter/energy that may pass from a polar trajectory through the exact middle of a ring singularity? If not could you elaborate further on that?

There is also plenty of pseudoscientific nonsense and rubbish on the Internet. For your own sake, I hope you got the right answers, not just the ones that apparently fit into your world view out look. There are many IDers, religious fanatics and others with an different agendas that take every opportunity they can to denigrate or attempt to invalidate science. They most certainly need to be put straight and informed in no uncertain terms that this is first and foremost a science forum, and as such everything comes under the scrutiny of the scientific methodology. . That's nice. Just remember, we have plenty of reputable experts out there that know what cosmology entails, and what we at this time know with regards to the universe, and what is still speculated. Amateurish guesses to not really cut the mustard. GR tells us that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collpase is compulsory, at least up to the quantum/Planck/singularity level, where the laws of physics and GR as we know them are no longer valid. All matter/enery that crosses the EH has a one way path to the singularity...no exceptions. Nothing ever comes back out of a BH. Once inside it is lost forever. Even Hawking Radiation does not imply any particle crossing the EH from inside to outside.

We have yet to confirm the existence or otherwise of wormholes, but certainly the equations of GR do allow for them. Yes, a BH is a spherical shape, but unlike a sphere of matter like the Earth, if you are foolish enough to jump in, you will certainly become part of the mass that has originally formed the BH, and that exists at what we call the Singularity at the core. And by the way, any bloke that jumps into a hole through the center of the Earth, will fall towards the center, and the energy he gains as he falls, will see him reach and go past the center core a short distance, fall back to the center and beyond in the direction he jumped in, and actually oscillate there for a short period of time, before settling down at the center.

And the correct explanation. The color of any object in the first instant, depends on the EMR being emitted. Then of course that EMR enters the eye, and the properties and structure of the eye and what part of the spectrum it absorbs or reflects determines what colour we see. You may well ask, what colour is an Orange in the dark? The real scientifically correct answer to that question, is that the Orange is black...or has no colour as no EMR is falling on it, to either reflect, refract or absorb.

You really need to go back to basics. Firstly, science in general does not deal in proofs. In fact science has little to do with "proving" anything. Secondly, you need to research what a scientific theory really is: It is not defined as a "theory" as per the general everyday meaning. In other words it is not a guess. [as is a hypothesis] it is an explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by empirical evidence and continues to make successful predictions. Secondly a scientific theory is always open to change based on further observational evidence and data, but by the same token, a scientific theory gains in certainty as it continues to match observations. Again if I were you I would do some proper research into science and the scientific methodology and take less notice of daily media reports, and rhetoric.

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/WA/news/ligo20171115 Scientists searching for gravitational waves have confirmed yet another detection from their fruitful observing run earlier this year. Dubbed GW170608, the latest discovery was produced by the merger of two relatively light black holes, 7 and 12 times the mass of the sun, at a distance of about a billion light-years from Earth. The merger left behind a final black hole 18 times the mass of the sun, meaning that energy equivalent to about 1 solar mass was emitted as gravitational waves during the collision. more at link....

Thanks fellas...much appreciated.

Sure I understand it, because simply, that's exactly what I said...a gravitational wave is a ripple OF spacetime in GR, and GR is at this time the overwhelmingly accepted and successful model of gravity which we have. Yes, and that's simply wrong, but easily and falsely claimed as correct on a public forum open to all and sundry. What so many people really forget, and what is plainly stupid, is what I told you re public forums and irrational claims in the previous reply. In other words your claims, no matter how arrogantly supported with rhetoric, mean absolutely nothing in the scientific world and in the greater scheme of things. No M and M were correct that the speed of light is a constant and that still holds today. Spacetime on the other hand is simply 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 and 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 regardless of their relative motion. Space of course is simply the region between planets, stars, galaxies etc...if there was no space, everything would be together: if there was no time, everything would happen together. By definition an orbit is simply an elliptical path around a body: Pseudoscientific rubbish. I'm neither bullying nor harassing you: I'm simply telling you, you are wrong, and no amount of false bravado, aggressive arrogance, and self gratutitous rhetoric in your posts, will ever change that. Again, you are not being bullying and/or harassed. You are being informed that you are wrong in ignoring already validated evidence pointing to time dilation and length contraction. And obviously the reason why you are in the speculative section: Next stop down trash!

I would be grateful in some review of the following paper could be given by those with the required level of expertise on the subject. I believe in this day and age, after recent observational discoveries that BHs are pretty well beyond doubt. Not though according to this paper and its initiator. Would those that are able to invalidate his concepts in the paper, mind if I transpose their answers to the person concerned and in that forum? Your name and handle of course will not be used, just your reply. Thanks to all taking the time to review this...much appreciated. https://www.academia.edu/34549343/Gravity_causes_release_of_Energy_in_Neutron_Star Gravity causes release of Energy in Neutron Star Abstract: As per our present understanding a sufficiently large star on exhaustion of its nuclearfuel will gravitationally collapse into a singularity and form a Black Hole. In this paper it isproposed that before this could happen, even at the stage of Neutron Star there will be release ofenergy due to gravitational compactness as the asymptotic freedom of Quarks shall be broken,thus preventing the formation of Black Hole singularity. It is further proposed that gravity ingeneral through Neutron Stars plays significant role in perpetuating the Energy - Mass - Energycontinuum of the Universe. Conclusion A simple yet very powerful process of release of energy in the core of a Neutron Star is definedand proposed; this process eliminates the need for hypothesizing Black Hole Singularity and alsoresolves the Black Hole Paradox. The theory concludes that in principle the Neutron Star is theultimate mass into energy converter, and prevents formation of Black Hole singularity. It isemphatically concluded that Gravity ensures release of Neutron energy preempting the formationof anything like Black Hole singularities. A list of observations and predictions is also providedfor better understanding of this process and its applications to other celestial events likeSupernova, relativistic jets etc

Hi Dan....I was raised as a good Catholic boy, in fact I was an Altar boy at one time until caught taking a sip of the altar wine behind the altar one day! I am also a lay person as far as science is concerned and have no scientific qualifications, but did become really interested in it a long time ago, and boosted my limited knowledge by reading plenty of reputable material. Rather then answering your questions, I have a couple of interesting links that will explain how science, particularly astronomy/cosmology has pushed any need for any deity back to near oblivion. The first I believe answers your question albeit with some speculation, "How can something be created out of nothing?" https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ Then the following video by Carl Sagan who I believe to be the best scientific educator I have seen or heard.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6bztIma03k Science certainly does not know everything, but it is continually explaining more and more and showing that we really are nothing special in this great big wide awesome universe we inhabit and are simply a conglomeration of different elements that has arose through chemical reactions and evolved to what we are, and where we are today.

Spacetime (not space) is the gravitational field in GR. A gravitational wave is a ripple of spacetime in GR So we'll see you in Stockholm Sweden next year? The only embarrassment I see is an gross excess of arrogance in your statement. Common knowledge that spacetime is not curtailed by the universal speed limit. That only applies to massive objects.

Gravity is simply spacetime geometry.

Of course the possibility of any scientific theory including the standard cosmological model, based on new and extended observations, may show that it is wrong or needs modification.But also criticizing is easier than building a theory, and the achievements of the standard theory must not be underestimated. http://galacticinteractions.scientopia.org/2011/01/14/one-of-astronomys-pet-crackpot-theories-non-cosmological-quasar-redshifts/ excerpt: "With the advent of large-scale sky surveys such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), it has become possible to statistically test these predictions. Of course, the vast majority of astronomers haven't bothered, because we have extremely good models of quasars as cosmological objects that explain a wide range of observations about them, meaning that there's really no need to pay attention to the crank fringe asserting that there must be something wrong with the mainstream model. However, this (rational) response does feed into the natural tendency of many people to be attracted to conspiracy theories, who then assert that the "dogma" of mainstream science is "ignoring the evidence" for these decidedly non-conventional models of quasars. So, a few people have used the data in the SDSS to look for correlations of quasars and foreground galaxies, or to look for evidence of periodic redshifts in quasars. The result, of course, is that there is no evidence to support these theory, and indeed that the large statistics afforded by these surveys support the cosmological model. In other words, if you want it summed up in fewer words: Arp is wrong. The evidence does not back up his arguments." much more at http://galacticinteractions.scientopia.org/2011/01/14/one-of-astronomys-pet-crackpot-theories-non-cosmological-quasar-redshifts/

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-star-survived-years.html Star exploded, survived, and exploded again more than 50 years later November 8, 2017 It's the celestial equivalent of a horror movie villain—a star that wouldn't stay dead. An international team of astronomers including Carnegie's Nick Konidaris and Benjamin Shappee discovered a star that exploded multiple times over a period of 50 years. The finding, published by Nature, completely confounds existing knowledge of a star's end of life, and Konidaris' instrument-construction played a crucial role in analyzing the phenomenon. In September 2014, the intermediate Palomar Transient Factory team of astronomers detected a new explosion in the sky, iPTF14hls. The light given off by the event was analyzed in order to understand the speed and chemical composition of the material ejected in the explosion. This analysis indicated that the explosion was what's called a type II-P supernova, and everything about the discovery seemed normal. Until, that is, a few months later when the supernova started getting brighter again. Type II-P supernovae usually remain bright for about 100 days. But iPTF14hls remained bright for more than 600! What's more, archival data revealed a 1954 explosion in the exact same location. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-11-star-survived-years.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24030 Energetic eruptions leading to a peculiar hydrogen-rich explosion of a massive star Abstract Every supernova so far observed has been considered to be the terminal explosion of a star. Moreover, all supernovae with absorption lines in their spectra show those lines decreasing in velocity over time, as the ejecta expand and thin, revealing slower-moving material that was previously hidden. In addition, every supernova that exhibits the absorption lines of hydrogen has one main light-curve peak, or a plateau in luminosity, lasting approximately 100 days before declining1. Here we report observations of iPTF14hls, an event that has spectra identical to a hydrogen-rich core-collapse supernova, but characteristics that differ extensively from those of known supernovae. The light curve has at least five peaks and remains bright for more than 600 days; the absorption lines show little to no decrease in velocity; and the radius of the line-forming region is more than an order of magnitude bigger than the radius of the photosphere derived from the continuum emission. These characteristics are consistent with a shell of several tens of solar masses ejected by the progenitor star at supernova-level energies a few hundred days before a terminal explosion. Another possible eruption was recorded at the same position in 1954. Multiple energetic pre-supernova eruptions are expected to occur in stars of 95 to 130 solar masses, which experience the pulsational pair instability2,3,4,5. That model, however, does not account for the continued presence of hydrogen, or the energetics observed here. Another mechanism for the violent ejection of mass in massive stars may be required. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone with any ideas?

I'm simply saying that what he proposed with his interpretation of observation, only applied to a small sample in the greater scheme of observational data. DM did not invalidate GR, and this anomaly is not enough to invalidate what the overwhelming observations say.

Like Freddy Hoyle, Arp was probably an otherwise great astronomer, but in this instant, based on some limited data, (as compared to overwhelming data supporting the accepted definition of redshift) he was apparently wrong. Was he also a supporter of the defunct and invalidated Electric/Plasma universe hypothetical?

No problems! Another thing with relation to light/photons, although having no rest mass, they do have momentum, and as such, are the reasons that light sails work, and a point that is not mentioned much, it also causes a very tiny infinitesimal amount of spacetime warpage.

When a photon moves through any medium, it is absorbed, re emitted, refracted and reflected, but always at "c" From our perspective it appears to slow, but actually just has a longer distance to travel. From the perspective of the photon though (if that were possible) time and distance to not exist and from its perspective, it will traverse the whole universe in an instant.

Yes certainly. I am familiar with density waves and spiral arms, and totally forgot all about them..So how about my hypothetical reasoning as to why some spiral galaxies appeared earlier then expected.

http://nineplanets.org/news/oldest-spiral-galaxy-yet-found/ excerpt: Spiral arms form due to a galaxy's angular momentum, correct? Perhaps, (just a thought for comment on) this galaxy developed within say 300 million years post BB, (which I have read is when they first develop} as a elliptical or irregular galaxy, but unlike the vast majority of galaxies in that early post BB era, did not undergo mergers and/or collisions with other ellipticals and/or irregulars, thereby giving in a far longer time to form spiral arms.

Interesting indeed! Thanks Strange. I suppose I need to be more aware of physorg and the occasional error ridden science article.

No probs.....There are many QGTs out there, but the problem is that we are as yet unable to observe at the quantum/Planck level to validate them....string and its many derivatives including LQG, which is why when I mention a QGT I will generally refer to a validated QGT That appears to be the stumbling block at this time.

A BH has what is known as a "Photon Sphere" that is a region where light/photons can actually orbit and exists at 1.5 Schwarzchild radius. eg: If you were at this position, and you shone a torch directly ahead, it would orbit and hit you on the back of the head! Stars that we see, and accretion disks actually orbit outside the photon sphere and matter is spiraled in towards the BH. For any body to maintain an orbit at 1.5 Schwarzchild radius, it must be travelling at "c" therefor any orbit within 1.5 Schwarzchild radius is impossible. A great site for knowledge, facts about BHs can be found at http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/ The difference being of course is that we have evidence for the BB, and the evolution of space and time, (spacetime) from t+10-43 seconds. Plus then we are able to reasonably speculate before that 10-43 seconds, and show how it could be possible for the BB to arise from nothing...https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ or http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~dumand/post/dumandexternal/1990/HDC-3-90.pdf The point is that the universe is here, and while the above links cover speculative elements as to how it arose, I find it far far more reasonable then any magical supernatural being that supposedly is eternal.

Expansion is evident only over large scales....smaller scales such as our local group of galaxies and cluster, and gravity overcomes that expansion...even smaller scales such as planets, stars, you and me, the strong and weak force along with gravity, overcome the expansion. Matter is not part of the expansion, period.

Scientists/cosmologists are always working outside the box, that you seem to pride yourself as being the only one.....difference being that most scientists when facing the realization that whatever it is they are researching outside the box, if it fails to align with what is observed, it is confined to the crap heap. All current incumbent theories were at one time, outside the box. The fact is that the universe/space/time are not absolute and all are variable depending on one's frame of reference. Time is also real...just as real as space. In layman's terms, time stops everything from happening together, and space stops everything from being together; Or a more professional approach can be found here......http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/