beecee

Most scientists/cosmologists would accept the scenario that life should be relatively plentiful throughout the Universe. The reasons for that are the "near infinite" extent and content of the universe around us, plus the fact that the "stuff of life" has been found everywhere we look. In recognising all that, we still at this stage have no real evidence that life exists beyond this little blue orb, and certainly no convincing evidence of Earth having ever been visited by any ETI. There is though an increasing number of scientists that believe the evidence for life beyond Earth may well be forthcoming within the next decade or so. I hope they are shown to be correct and that it happens before I kick the bucket. Two barriers exist that inhibit any interstellar/intergalactic contact between intelligent beings: Time and distance they be.

Wow, this is getting way to philosophical for me. It reminds me of a quote I once came across.....

Also obviously effect the Omega figure and the geometry of the universe, ie open, closed or flat and that being close to the value omega=1, indicating a flat universe.

Let me say again that to my knowledge the subject tells me that the standard particle model of physics enables us to understand the physics of matter and the forces. It is deemed as far as I understand it, as very successful in its verified predictions, ( the Higgs and more) but remains incomplete.eg: As yet we do not know why there was apparently a slight excess of matter over anti matter near the BB...or why it doesn't account for gravity. But that doesn't mean it is wrong and we should throw it out...You have been asked for examples of scenarios/observations that are not explained by the standard model. I also firmly believe that anything anyone feels like claiming on a science forum, if it is not mainstream, will face critical review as it should. It's great you take physics seriously, so too did Fred Hoyle, and like Fred Hoyle you must accept criticism if it is due.

Thanks....Any thoughts on why the apparent imbalance between the matter, anti matter period? PS: I suppose if we would have had the more anti matter then matter, then today we would be calling anti matter, matter, and matter, anti matter if you get my drift.

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-teams-astronomers-evidence-baryonic.html (Phys.org)—Two teams working independently have found evidence of the existence of Baryonic matter—particles that link galaxies together. One team was made of members from the Institute of Space Astrophysics, the other was based out of the University of Edinburgh. Both teams have uploaded a paper describing their work to the arXiv preprint server and both are claiming their findings solve the mystery of where so much of the normal matter—protons, neutrons and electrons—in the universe has been hiding. Once scientists came up with the Big Bang Theory, a problem immediately arose—after calculating how much normal matter should exist in the universe at this point in time, they found approximately 50 percent of it is missing. Since then, scientists have worked on theories to explain where all that matter was hiding—the prevailing theory suggests that it exists as strands of Baryonic matter floating in the space between galaxies and cannot be seen with conventional instruments—this was the theory both teams in this new effort tested.Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-teams-astronomers-evidence-baryonic.html#jCp the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.05024.pdf A Search for Warm/Hot Gas Filaments Between Pairs of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies ABSTRACT We search the Planck data for a thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (tSZ) signal due to gas filaments between pairs of Luminous Red Galaxies (LRG’s) taken from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 12 (SDSS/DR12). We identify ∼260,000 LRG pairs in the DR12 catalog that lie within 6–10 h −1Mpc of each other in tangential direction and within 6 h −1Mpc in radial direction. We stack pairs by rotating and scaling the angular positions of each LRG so they lie on a common reference frame, then we subtract a circularly symmetric halo from each member of the pair to search for a residual signal between the pair members. We find a statistically significant (5.3σ) signal between LRG pairs in the stacked data with a magnitude ∆y = (1.31 ± 0.25) × 10−8 . The uncertainty is estimated from two Monte Carlo null tests which also establish the reliability of our analysis. Assuming a simple, isothermal, cylindrical filament model of electron over-density with a radial density profile proportional to rc/r (as determined from simulations), where r is the perpendicular distance from the cylinder axis and rc is the core radius of the density profile, we constrain the product of over-density and filament temperature to be δc × (Te/107 K) × (rc/0.5h −1 Mpc) = 2.7 ± 0.5. To our knowledge, this is the first detection of filamentary gas at over-densities typical of cosmological largescale structure. We compare our result to the BAHAMAS suite of cosmological hydrodynamic simulations (McCarthy et al. 2017) and find a slightly lower, but marginally consistent Comptonization excess, ∆y = (0.84 ± 0.24) × 10−8 . ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Does this mean if further research validates these findings, that we will have less need for the quantity of DM that currently constitutes around 27% of the universe?

Interesting discussion between you and Strange: I hope no one objects to me butting in. My limited knowledge on the subject tells me that the standard particle model of physics enables us to understand the physics of matter and the forces. It is deemed as far as I understand it, as very successful in its verified predictions, ( the Higgs and more) but remains incomplete.eg: As yet we do not know why there was apparently a slight excess of matter over anti matter near the BB...or why it doesn't account for gravity. But that doesn't mean it is wrong and we should throw it out...The BB still has some shortcomings, but the evidence to support it is overwhelming:the same goes for GR. Both have far more supporting them then any unexplained discrepencies. Any thoughts on my brief lay person's description from either you or Strange is welcomed...or any errors, alterations and/or corrections.

I'll answer your question: I havn't a bloody clue, OK? Now let me add some further comments....when we (the forum) suddenly has a newbie popping in asking a question with obviously a giant ego to feed, and when that newbie when requested for clarification of his questions by not one, but many reputable members, who are known as credentialed authorities in the discipline being discussed, answers with total arrogance and dismissal of those clarifications and requests, then in my mind that newbie needs to take a backward step, have a disprin, and a good lay down and start thinking as to why so many knowledgable members are making there requests. Otherwise other members observing such egotistical arrogant behavour from that newbie, will just dismiss him as another f$%#^&$# troll that science forums such as this seem to attract. I hope that helps.

Partly agree...the part where space is not nothing. But the BB itself was the evolution of space and time, (spacetime) "as we know it" We can only speculate about anything else.

Yeah that makes plenty of sense....thanks

Just takes a little bit of intestinal fortitude. Just after our (as in Australia) last mass shooting 21 years ago at Port Arthur Tasmania, we had a Liberal (conservative party) Prime Minister named John Howard, who took the bit between his teeth and commenced the implementation of a gun by back scheme and tough new restrictions and laws on fire arms etc. It worked. We have not had any massacre since that day in 1996.

My first thoughts exactly, but I wasn't real sure.....then came this......http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/feb/02/magnetic-fields-put-the-brakes-on-millisecond-pulsars OK, this invokes the rotational period as opposed to orbital, but my problem when arguing this out was that in the H/T Pulsar papers I have read, I see no mention of a magnetic field: which then obviously supports your assertion that this needs to be showed as valid. The thread on this in the forum was resolved due to my adversary not being able to show empirical evidence why it should happen and he was banned: But I was still not fully satisfied and would have liked to have found some mention of it, to sort of "rub his nose in it" if you get my drift.

The degradation in the orbital parameters of the Hulse/Taylor binary system was our first indication of the validity of GWs: A while ago on another forum, while discussing this observation, the claim that this observation was fraudulent was raised by one of our anti science god bothering evangelists, who claimed that the orbital degradation was simply a result of the interaction/s of the magnetic fields of these Pulsars. I'm pretty sure that this scenario would have been allowed for, and probably the effect from interacting magnetic field/s as minimal if at all. Does anyone have any information as to what part magnetic fields would play, if they did play a part, and why they would not play a part at all if that was the case. I have previously gone though numerous papers on the H/T system and the orbital degradation, and was unable to find any inference to magnetic fields at all. Of course after the recent discoveries of GWs by aLIGO and its sister detectors, the evidence for GWs is now a given, in line with the data as received.

Strange has given a correct answer, and I would advise you to consider carefully the answers of those with negative reputations in red. In my own words gravity is a property of the geometry of spacetime in the presence of mass. Any deeper meaning or why it arises is simply just how the universe works. Have you heard of Richard Feynman? the following presents that scenario https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

Here is that adorable Greek Angel once again, sing a Spanish number "Granada' and a delightful Greek song...... And this French number called Perdoname

Your critical analysis skills, "claims" here and elsewhere, are more likely a figment of your imagination. On another forum I once participated on, we had a member who called himself "The God" and when this moron's many anti scientific errors were pointed out to him, he often claimed "I am never wrong" Onto the subject matter, a couple of years ago I remember watching a movie length documentary called "Chasing Ice": Outstanding photography and was the recipient of the Emmy award in 2014. I recommend anyone that has not seen it to make an effort. It's stunning visual photography and the overwhelming empirical evidence and science as presented is excellent. https://chasingice.com/ It certainly convinced a couple of previously sceptical mates of mine and one has turned a complete circle and is now a member of Greenpeace.

And what of the nut you have for a President? Yes yes I know, just as you have made in depth studies of every subject/matter you get involved in. Particularly when others dare disagree with you and point out your own apparent unhinged attitude that the maniacal right like to adhere to. You may well be right and I wrong more likely. And of course we have many in every country of the type you describe. At this very time we are having a poll in Australia on the recognition or otherwise of gay marriages. Every adult person has been sent a form to vote either yes or no. How would this go in the states on strict/er gun laws?

And isn't that the beauty of science? In that it can add, change, modify, re-establish existing knowledge as new more extensive knowledge becomes available. But let me say that being "wrong" may not really apply in many instances...Newtonian mechanics is still correct when applied within its zone of applicability: Likewise Einstein's GR extends those zones where Newtonian does not apply, and obviously a future QGT will likewise extend those parameters again to where GR is not applicable. A matter of right tools for the right job. Pretty damn close actually. What my view on philosophy with regards to science and the scientific method is, is that the ground rules and foundations have been laid. The view that Laurence Krauss and others are putting in actual fact. Well said. I'm not arguing (and I don't believe Krauss is either) that philosophy is now defunct in all walks of life...I have posted the following video a few times...I'm not sure if Gee has seen it. If he hasn't I urge him to watch it...only 7.5 minutes long, but in my opinion, draws and establishes what science is, and what philosophy is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

The singularity is the realm at which our current theories fail or are not applicable. A singularity need not be infinite but may lead to infinite quantities of spacetime curvature and density, mass certainly is not one of them. Most physicists do not believe the singularity exists, (other then that as defined where our current theories break down) which means a surface of sorts of matter/energy in some unknown state should exist at around the quantum/Planck level.

Totally wrong! If you read what I posted correctly, you notice I did say "some" African countries and also "some" Islam countries where lawlessness and strife is prevalent. I'm really not sure how else to compare a country where an individual can accumulate 30 or 40 guns, some of them military automatic type weapons. I earlier in this thread posed a question to scherado, half jokingly about this second amendment many Americans seem so stuck on, and if it included freedom to own and possess hand grenades...It is notable that he did not answer that question. And when this country is supposedly the leader of the free world, it makes the contrast doubly troubling and weird. But I do agree that as an outsider, my opinion is just that, and the existing problem is up to Americans to solve, but really, just because they probably see themselves as the leader of the free world, is no reason why they should not look at the systems of other countries and not be so proud and protective of that label as leader of the free world. I remember a while back Hillary Clinton, while visiting our country, remarked in gushing terms about the success of our own gun laws, along with our health care system for all Australians. But perhaps such realization of the reasons and methodologies our relatively small country (in terms of population), is far too hard for the average American to swallow their collective pride and accept and adopt. But then again, I'm only an outsider.

No interview and whatever the motive behind this atrocity, will change the fact that such a thing could only occur in a country with totally inadequate archaic gun laws, based on some imagined misplaced loyalty to a constitution drawn up in 1790, after a war for independence. One would think we are talking about some third world African country or one that was undergoing some sort of terror related and religious backed violence as in some Islam countries. And yet we are talking about the USA, the supposed leader of the free world.

Here we go again! How many does that make? I would reciprocate and put him on ignore, but sometimes a good belly laugh is worth it.

No not really...actually quite factual. Science is and does push the necessity of any creative spaghetti monster into near oblivion, for the valid reasons I have stated. Science doesn't care for your comfort or anyone else that needs that crutch. It has explained quite adequately how the universe evolved, how life evolved, and how we are all basically star dust. Let me not mince any words...that is bunkum, at least where religion is concerned, but I'm not going into that now: Others in other threads have revealed that many times. But something has become quite obvious, so let me go back to where you said, That which has become quite obvious is you most likely have an agenda. That's your choice, but your continued preaching and claiming nonsense, while explaining away with excuses that which invalidates your nonsense on a science forum, under philosophy, will obviously be revealed for what they truly are, religious rants. Please note, this is the philosophy forum, not that I'm any philosopher of any note. It isn't for preaching. That empirical observation is far more stunningly logical then any fairy stories that you chose to make up. Actually I'm quite an emotional bloke. I'm in awe at the wonders of cosmology, the beauty of astronomy, the explanatory power of Einstein's relativity, the awesome power of BHs, the incredible prediction of gravitational waves by GR and their confirmation in recent times...I'm quite emotional with regards to still wanting to be among the living to witness a manned Mars mission, or a permanent base on the Moon. Religion may be necessary for the impressionable and gullible: I'm neither. And finally let me say to you, that I'm not any anti religious nut. In fact I was educated at a Catholic school, and have had the same one and only wife for the past 42 years, who is a devout christian who tolerates my own beliefs or lack thereof. Our Son also went to a Catholic school, primarialy for the reason that in my opinion, they did have a better education system then the state run schools. He appreciates his Mother and my wife for the good she does in many ways, and our combined efforts in sponsoring two children from Africa. He like myself, but without too much flaunting in front of his Mother, also is in awe of the sciences. There are some good and great people who are religious...there are some religious people who are scum...there are some good and great scientists and Atheists...there are also some who are scum. Have a good day.

That particular link is quite revealing and interesting, which is why I like saying in any explanation, (and in my lay person's style) that the BB is a theory of the evolution of space and time (spacetime) as we know it. Also interesting is the support for the "Superforce" reasonably speculative scenario, and being inherent to spacetime itself. Makes a heap of sense, at least to me. Also interesting and quite profound is the quote in your first link https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/5-questions-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask-about-the-expanding-universe-9433c4906a29 thus..... “The more clearly we can focus our attention on the wonders and realities of the universe about us, the less taste we shall have for destruction.” -Rachel Carson

Petulance, arrogance, spitting the dummy, delusions of grandeur, just about says it all! Also worth noting that our friend never once commented on the link I gave. https://www.sciencealert.com/the-largest-dataset-we-have-shows-powerful-evidence-gun-control-works/page-2