beecee

I don't believe I'm being pedantic, but it is "c" in actual fact. On the rest I really have no idea now of what you are trying to claim. [actually I do ]

I see beauty in the prediction/s of scientific theory, and the fact that we are reasonably able to give a description of how the universe/spacetime evolved, how stars are simply factories in the art of nucleosynethesis, planets and damn well everything we see, rather than any spiritual/paranormal/supernatural nonsense. Perhaps if you stop continually referring to this mythical creation event on a science forum?

No probs.

Hi Strange...the first quote you have attributed to me, obviously an error as it was not mine.

Probably wise at this time, but as I have a habit of remarking to all those "experts" that inevitable try and chop down Einstein and GR, ( we call it tall poppy syndrome where I come from ) forums such as this are open to all and sundry and the many agendas, missions etc that individuals may have, and such claims on these forums mean absolutely nothing in the greater scheme of things. Mainstream still accept GR and DM as compatible, along with the BB and the fact that each compliments the other admirably. My tip is that when we finally have access to a validated QGT, it will encompass the BB and GR, and simply extend the parameters outside the parameters in which each is valid.

As has already been inferred, it appears you are letting your mythical non scientific beliefs, and obvious agenda, get in the way of the validity and success of GR within its zone of applicability. When you accept that instead of ignoring pertinent concepts and the successful predictions, then you may see the light. The creation aspect certainly is a delusion with absolutely no evidence to support it. And GR obviously supports the addition of DM, which in itself is now well supported. I found an excellent answer to the question of GR and DM....... https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/222275/relation-of-general-relativity-to-dark-matter-and-dark-energy In any respect, GR still accommodates DM without any problem, and obviously the further validation needed is the nature and makeup of DM itself.

Science is not an illusion: In fact science more as an empirically based revelation and debunker of old long held mythical beliefs and a never ending path to more and more knowledge.. GR accommodates DM without any problem and obviously also works as per gravitational lensing on the galactic scale and of course the prediction of gravitational radiation. Obviously you are aware that GR has an overwhelming amount of observational and experimental evidence to support it. Therefor it would have been totally amiss to throw out GR on one anomaly, that indeed was fudged with DM and has since been evidenced with the Bullet cluster observation and other powerful inferences such as gravitational lensing etc. To have automatically assume that GR was wrong would have been crazy. Again GR like Newtonian physics works admirably well within its zone of applicability.

Let me say something as an outside observer. We have a system in Australia where every wage and salary earner contributes 1.5% of his wage or salary for health care, with another 1% surcharge on top of that if income is above $180,000/PA. Individuals then if they like can take out private health insurance if they prefer adding a few bells and whistles to the excellent basic health care, such as a private room, as against in the usual 4 to 6 in a ward for those without the additional insurance. The unemployed, retired and Pensioners are automatically covered for health care if and when it is needed. This has been the way in Australia since 1972 and actually works. Isn't that the important outcome of a health care system? The "F&*% you Jack, I'm alright" mentality some seem to be presenting is in my view totally immoral. From where I sit, it appears many in your country despise that system simply because it smells of Socialism. That in my opinion is crazy, particularly in a place where there are next to no gun and firearm laws.

Why isn't it? Because of DM? GR accommodates that OK....DE? In an expanding universe, DE and acceleration makes perfect sense, as I'm sure someone of your learning already knows. You seem to be looking and trying to find excuses under every little rock or pebble. Agreed, but again, vixra hasn't what you will call a reputable reputation, and every point you have put so far has been explained by the other experts. In my opinion the beauty of the BB and GR is how they compliment each other and go hand in glove. That alone, besides the incredible successful predictions (gravitational waves) has it still standing in good stead.

Any creator or any idea of any ID, paranormal, supernatural is unscientific. The universe obviously is not an impossibility, after all we are here and that can reasonably speculatively be explained. You keep forgetting that we have only been searching the heavens for a 100 years or so....not long and of course the sheer size and great numbers involved, plus the two greatest barriers, time and distance. You seem to be wanting to install or wish for a "god of the gaps". And I've seen men walk on white hot stones on the Fijian Island of Beqa. That in no way means that some sky pixie or magic spaghetti monster exists. The greater part of man's evolution on earth has been in periods where the church maintained ignorance and beliefs in gods were needed to explain near everything around them from rain, thunder, hurricanes, etc etc, before science eventually took hold. ?? Einstein actually saw his CC as the greatest blunder of his life. And when he spoke of an illusion he was referring to the past, present and future...in other words no absolute "now" Sure its possible. And isn't that the beauty of science in that theories remain theories until further evidence is forthcoming to either modify, change or scrap altogether, or just give a more accurate account. Not at all, in fact the exact opposite. Science and the present explanatory power of cosmology, the BB, nucleosynthesis, has made any ID superfluous. And of course as the greatest educator of our time so calmly and sedately put it.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6bztIma03k DM was a fudge factor. The choice was GR was wrong despite it working particularly well and making outstanding predictions, or there was something that we cannot see that only interacts gravitationally. Since then the evidence for DM particularly with the bullet cluster observation continues to build. http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_082106.html DE can also be explained when considered with the universal expansion of spacetime and the constant mass/energy density obviously growing less. Again your argument seems to be along the lines of the god of the gaps. By the way, I hate being labelled an Atheist, and particularly an angry one. I see things the way it appears and the way it is explained by science. I have also been witnessed to a UFO sighting. It happened one evening so I waited until the next morning for any other reports...none were forthcoming. I wrote it off as a UFO with the emphasis on the U. I did not jump to conclusions that it was extra terrestrial in origin, despite my long held desire to have evidence of ETL before I kick the bucket.

https://phys.org/news/2017-09-gravitational-oscillate-neutrinos.html Gravitational waves may oscillate, just like neutrinos: (Phys.org)—Using data from the first-ever gravitational waves detected last year, along with a theoretical analysis, physicists have shown that gravitational waves may oscillate between two different forms called "g" and "f"-type gravitational waves. The physicists explain that this phenomenon is analogous to the way that neutrinos oscillate between three distinct flavors—electron, muon, and tau. The oscillating gravitational waves arise in a modified theory of gravity called bimetric gravity, or "bigravity," and the physicists show that the oscillations may be detectable in future experiments. The researchers, Kevin Max, a PhD student at Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa and INFN Pisa, Italy; Moritz Platscher, a PhD student at the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, Germany; and Juri Smirnov, a postdoc at the University of Florence, Italy, have published a paper on their analysis of gravitational wave oscillations in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters. As the physicists explain, the work may help answer the question of what "the other 95%" of the universe is made of, by suggesting that the answer may lie in modifications to gravity rather than new particles.Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-09-gravitational-oscillate-neutrinos.html#jCp https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.07785.pdf Gravitational Wave Oscillations in Bigravity: ABSTRACT We derive consistent equations for gravitational wave oscillations in bigravity. In this framework a second dynamical tensor field is introduced in addition to General Relativity and coupled such that one massless and one massive linear combination arise. Only one of the two tensors is the physical metric coupling to matter, and thus the basis in which gravitational waves propagate is different from the basis where the wave is produced and detected. Therefore, one should expect – in analogy to neutrino oscillations – to observe an oscillatory behavior. We show how this behavior arises explicitly, discuss phenomenological implications and present new limits on the graviton parameter space in bigravity. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Anyone care to elaborate on the above possibilities and consequences?

Scientific theories are not after any "truth" or "reality" : They simply describe with various degrees of accuracy, what we see and model accordingly. If in the process they hit upon this "truth" all well and good. So, you do have an agenda then? And you are on a mission? Is this prompted by the scientific evidence which shows that any creator is actually superfluous, at least up to t+10-43 seconds? The Hubble flow has been shown to exist, and after all was first indicated by a Belgian priest. Also I'm not sure if anyone else has noted it as yet, but you claim your paper is published with vixra? Although only a lay person, what I have learnt from my time on science forums, is that this is far from being a reputable publisher. You want to discredit the BB? OK, tell me what this all pervasive 2.73 K temperature we see is from. Cosmology paints an awe inspiring picture, of how the universe/spacetime, stars, planets etc, came to be, based on empirical observations. That stands on reasonably solid ground, and will certainly take more then any publishing in vixra, or claims on a science forum to discredit...in my lay persons opinion of course!

Join the club! As far as age is concerned anyway. But if they did want a few old farts like myself, I would certainly be in it. Not sure how viable the MARS ONE thingy really is, I have serious doubts on a few fronts, but hey, I wish them the best of luck, and if it did look like eventuating, best of luck to the lucky few who would go. They have knocked the original 200,000 applicants down to a 100 the last time I checked...... https://www.mars-one.com/ https://community.mars-one.com/last_activity/ALL/18/82/ALL/ALL/5/3

And actually any object that appears grey under fluoresecent light is grey as you say. Since the colour of any object in the first instant, depends on the nature of the EMR falling on them. At least that's the way I see it. Length contraction again, in my opinion is real in the frame it is detected in. I did find some references that may help...Like I said, all FoR are as valid as each other. or this which basically states that in the case of muons, one frame sees time dilation, while the other sees length contraction....http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html

Briefly every frame of reference is as valid as any other, so yes length contraction does take place.. http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/01/q-why-does-relativistic-length-contraction-lorentz-contraction-happen/

My understanding of the WMAP experiment, was that it measured the temperature of the CMBR, and mapped the very tiny variations that existed, or the observed seeds for galactic formation.

GR tells us that when the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory. That means that essentially all a BH is and consists of is critically curved spacetime, with the singularity at the core. That's logic, and I believe you certainly can use it. Again as GR tells us that once the schwarzchild radius is reached further collapse is compulsory, how is that not evidence that essentially a BH is just critically curved spacetime with the mass/singularity at the core...GR is still a fairly robust theory the last time I looked, so I see no reason to doubt that compulsory further collapse.

Hmmm.... Am I the only one who has done anything, exciting, amazing, worthwhile?? Surely not!! Am I the only one that would consider being a one way Astronaut to Mars with Mars One?

For the reasons already stated:(1) Perhaps the observed flatness could be just the arc of a much larger curvature...(2) We only observe the observable universe because that damn stuff we call light has a finite speed, (3) the possibility still exists that it maybe torus shape or some other exotic geometry, Big!!! It isn't made up of discreet units, rather according to GR, smooth and continuous, but to marry GR with Quantum physics, we will need a QGT...quantum gravity theory.

Interesting post you have made. Let me say you have read far more than I, but in the main, I have contained myself to reputable scientific publications and authors, although being raised as a Catholic, I do have some knowledge of the bible. One exception I did once make to the "reputable publications and authors"I stipulated was a book I read called "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric J Lerner. I consequently had that debunked point by point by an astronomer on another now defunct forum. Let me say that while reading to gain knowledge is admirable and should be encouraged, proper instructions and the necessary academic credentials are also necessary. I obviously do not fill that part. The part of your post that interested me was your comment on when you started reading the "reputable"stuff that while you found it "epic in scale and perception, you also found it dry" It had the opposite effect on me. I was in awe as to how our incumbent models were able to make such validated predictions and found it mouth watering stuff and an impetus to further reading and forums such as this. The thing is we have real validated evidence the universe is expanding in the cosmological red shifts, and that is further enhanced by "Hubble's Law" and the recessional velocities of the distant galaxies is proportional to their distances from us. The "tired light"hypothetical was debunked long ago. There is still much for astronomers and cosmologists to learn naturally, but since those heady Einstein days in the early part of the 20th century, we have made giant leaps and bounds.

Data from the WMAP probe showed the universe to be flat within very small error bars. That means the universe is infinite (ignoring non standard geometries such as torus shape) Though small though, those error bars still exist, and as such perhaps the universe maybe closed with those small error bars actually being the arc of a much larger curvature. At this time the finite or infinite nature of the universe is not really known. If the universe is infinite, then there are an infinite number of observable universes. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but your following question seems to suggest you are in error re what you believe an "observable" universe is. The observable universe is simply that spherical region, that exists around an observer, and governed by the light that has had time to reach the observer. So in effect an observer situated near the horizon of our observable universe, would see us in one direction, and a region of equal distant in the other direction, that is not part of our observable universe. But obviously still a part of the universe as a whole. Perhaps research into the relatively newly discovered gravitational waves? I might add that in general, when cosmologists speak of the universe, they generally mean the observable universe, although the observable universe does in no way mean or suggest that the boundary of the observable universe is a boundary of the whole universe.

The best way to turn a believer in my opinion, is simply show them the beauty, mastery, logic, and explanatory powers of science: Point out how the average living age has risen since the early and middle ages, when every day common diseases would kill you. Point out how the necessity of any deity is defunct, at least up to t+10-43 seconds. If that cannot turn a person, then there's no hope.

It most certainly is set in stone for anyone considering they are scientists! Science explains how things work, but not necessarily why they work. QM works and is observable. String theory and its derivatives are as yet unobservable and are speculative. Anyone working outside the scientific methodology are pseudoscientists, or cranks, or any other number of assorted nuts. Again, the philosophy behind the steps of the scientific method are set in stone. Yes that philosophical work, as Professor Krauss infers, is the foundation of science. Scientists are certainly indebted to the philosophical greats of the past, although personally, I see the scientific methodology more an application of logic. There work is mostly done. Not sure what a "bon mot" is but *shrug* you are entitled to disagree. While there is obviously still plenty we don't know in science/physics, they are also being worked on as we speak, scientifically via the scientific method. And of course the science that physicists do is governed by the scientific method, that was set in stone yonks ago. Again remember "Science explains how things work, but not necessarily why they work". The philosophers can mull over that. Hmmm, not sure how to answer that...other then to repeat, "Science explains how things work, but not necessarily why they work". The philosophers can mull over that. That's part of science and the scientific methodology. But in my case and my personal hypothetical, it remains just that, as I am unable to, nor qualified enough to validate that hypothetical. *shrug* Did you watch the Feynman video? As another critic said, Neil De-Grasse Tyson, concerning yourself with the meaning of meaning, is near meaningless. Let me add also, a reputable scientist Professor Sean Carroll, has taken to task, the critics such as Krauss, Hawking Dawkins and De-Grasse Tyson. So I do as a lay person try and see both sides. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/23/physicists-should-stop-saying-silly-things-about-philosophy/ Perhaps I'm slightly biased being a practical hands on man, just as probably you are slightly biased having achieved some qualifications in philosophy.

As I said..... "GR also tells us that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory, so we can I believe logically assume that any BH is mostly just critically curved spacetime, with the mass (all the mass) at the core/singularity, in an unknown state. (which is at the quantum/Planck level". so we can I believe logically assume that any BH is mostly just critically curved spacetime, with the mass (all the mass) at the core/singularity, in an unknown state. (which is at the quantum/Planck level.

Other then meeting my Mrs 41 years ago and the birth of our Son, my most unforgetable moment was in 1974, two years before my marriage. I had achieved 15 years service at the company I worked for, being with them from the day I left school and gaining a trade certificate in Fitting/Welding and Machining. I was due for 3 months long service leave and was looking for somewhere different and exciting to do. By chance I came across a small advertisment in a Sydney paper asking for guest crew for a British registered three masted square rigged Barquentine, which was leaving Portsmouth England in December '73 and arriving in Panama in January '74, then sailing across the Pacific and on to Sydney. The name of the boat was "Ëolus". After answering the ad, and being interviewed by one of the owners at Gosford 80kms north of Sydney, I found myself having four injections, yellow fever, small pox, Typhoid and Malaria, and flying over to Panama arriving there on Jan 20th '74. The canal zone officials had no information of its arrival so I caught a train to Cristobal on the Atlantic Ocean side of the canal and witnessed the arrival of the Eolus on Jan 26th. Thus commenced my 4 months of the best time of my life. The skipper was a Danish fella named Anders Jensen and someone who the 10 permanent crew and 30 guest crew all loved and respected...a true gentleman, and skilled navigator in every sense of the word. We sailed through the Panama canal, something quite interesting in itself, birthed at Panama city for the night, and then next morning set out across the Pacific Ocean. Crossing the equator one experiences the doldrums, an area 5 degrees either side where cyclones/hurricanes are non existent and any wind at all is rare. The sea is like a sheet of glass with the often seen blow hole of a whale, or seals and dolphins, along with a bountiful supply of sea birds of all varieties including a wandering Albatross. We threw some lines over the side, had one of the crew standing by with a shot gun, and climbed to the top gallant yard arms, and jumped the 50 to 70 ft into the Pacific. A thrill in itself. Our first stop was the Galapagos Islands, which straddle the Equator where we climbed an extinct volcano and looked down into the crater with the bluest blue lake one could ever see. After 4 days sailing to different Islands in that group (after obtaining permission from the Equadorian authorities) we set sail across the Pacific to the Marquesas Islands, a distant of 6000kms. The crossing took 26 days and towards the end of that fresh water was rationed. Throughout the journey each stood his assigned watch, and those that so desired in their spare time, undertook navigation via a sextant, sail making and repairing, climbing the masts setting and furling in sails (no safety harnesses either!) general seamanship and of course your turn at cooking...well assisting the French chef we had on board. I proudly became pretty sufficient at using the sextant and often took sightings on the Sun, Moon, Venus and Jupiter in plotting our course. When we reached the Marquesas we visited three Islands, named Hiva Hoa, Fatu Hiva and Nuku Hiva. These are the northern portion of French Polynesia and on one of those Islands we came across the grave of the French painter Paul Gaugan. From the Marquesas we set sail south to the Tuamoto Archipeligo group of mainly atolls, stopping at one named Manihi Atoll only 600 kms west of Muaroa Atoll where the French were once conducting their nuclear tests. From there west to the Tahitian Islands, and stops at Tahiti, Moorea and Borabora of "South Pacific"the movie fame. After much exploring drinking and having some fun, it was business again and further west to American Samoa and Pago Pago. Then onwards to the Friendly Islands or Tongan Islands stopping at Nukualofa and Aitutaki where we were invited to meet the King of Tonga Tua ahafu 4th and other Tongan VIPs. Further west to the Fijian Islands and Beqa, Kadavu and of course Viti Levu. Leaving Fiji we headed towards Australia and made a stop at Norfolk Island, home of some of the Bounty Mutineer descendants. After leaving Norfolk and only 1400 kms from the Australian coast, we encountered a fierce storm with gale force winds reaching force 8 and 9 on the Beaufort scale, along with 35 and 40 ft seas. Conditions strangely that I personally reveled in and a time when we were not allowed to use our galley and lived on tinned food for 4 days. Overdue and unable to establish radio contact, we were reported as lost by the Sydney coastal and port authorities. One more stop at Lord Howe Island, and then we entered Sydney harbour on the 31st May '74 welcomed by a flottila of craft and my very worried concerned parents. The Eolus was 150ft long, 26 ft beam, 90ft mainmast and could fly 16 sails on its three masts, four gibs'ls, the fores'l, lower tops'l, upper tops'l, lower top gallant, upper top gallant all on the foremast, then three stay's'ls between fore and main, then the mains'l and mains'l tops'l on the main mast, and mizzen s'l and mizzen s'l top s'l on the mizzen mast. Here are a couple of photos.... http://thanetonline.blogspot.com.au/2007/12/friggin-in-rigging.html I hope some find it of interest. I certainly did and still do even though now an old fart! Anyone else have any experience they would like to share?