beecee

I know what chronometry is. I was referring to your confusing style [at least to me] fabricating of unfamiliar phrases, and unsupported claims. But let me help you out once again as it appears as with your apparent ignorance of "c" being the symbol for light speed, you have confused chronometry with chronology. Not really, and as I have indicated many times in stating that like you, I am a lay person and amateur at this game, but unlike you, I'm not attempting to rewrite 20th/21st century cosmology, or do I have any delusions with regard to the fact that science will never be rewritten on any science forum. The accelerating expansion of the universe is certainly observed although the impetus behind it, is unknown, hence the term DE. Many physicists though interpret it as the CC of Einstein fame. This accelerating phase appears to have started around 5 billion years ago. From what I understand the explanation of why is that while the DE component apparently acts over all of spacetime at a constant rate, the mass/energy density of the universe is obviously getting less with the expansion...same amount of mass/energy, more spacetime, hence acceleration. I hope that helps.

You don't believe it is the whole story? Well once again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, give us some evidence that leads you to this "belief" and your many other "beliefs"while at the same time, seemingly ignoring all the evidence for current incumbent theories like the BB and GR. You know the score, re any Tom, Dick and Harry. Yes both true and relative to the scale of perspective. But I certainly do not see that in anyway invalidating gravitational lensing.But did you watch the video...only 7 minutes long.

I wish I was smart enough to understand what you are asking/claiming/suggesting. You you like to reword all that again?

Your table is solid from your scale of perspective. But if you could shrink yourself down to the size of a proton, you would witness the electron repulsion that actually stops your hand falling through the table. They are both real situations and not unsupported crap that you do seem to make up quite often. Science does not actually seek reality: It constructs models that describe and match the observational and experimental data that we have. If it happens to hit on this "reality"all well and good. Here is a short video: I hope you take the time to watch it and understand what I mean...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

What gets swallowed by a BH, has a one way trip to the singularity and where the mass in some unknown form should reside. In the process of falling towards the singularity, the tidal gravitational effects, would spaghettifi any massive object, and it would be broken down into its most basic constituents as gravity overcomes the EM and strong nuclear force. Essentially the BH is mainly just critically curved spacetime, with the mass residing at the core/singularity in some unknown state. That's why it isn't really smart to talk of a BHs density. Nothing is ever ejected from inside a BHs EH. Matter inside a BH has no choice but to collapse to the singularity/core in accordance with GR. The BB is overwhelmingly accepted as to the evolution of space, time and matter/energy. That process can be reasonably explained from t+10-43 seconds up to the present time. Hawking radiation while obviously never being observed, is a reasonable explanatory process as to what could happen to virtual particle pairs created near the EH. With all due respect, I would study up on cosmological mainstream theories before you even attempt to write them off without anymore then "I think not." Another example of not understanding current mainstream cosmology: The nature of DE, is certainly unknown, [ that's why it's called DE ] but is evidenced in the data from WMAP probe. It is a "property"of spacetime itself and can't be swallowed like normal energy by a BH. Some cosmologists believe it could be the cosmological constant of Einstein fame.

Let me add some more...Humans have always explored, and while the least of the reasons scientifically speaking is "because its there" answer, it is without doubt part of our make-up. Let me also say that there probably has always been those that have dismally decried exploration for whatever purposes including scientific. I wonder where we would be had the Wright Brothers listed to Lord Kelvin? Or had NASA listed to the fabricated reasonings why they should not have sent Alan Shepard aloft into orbit...and John Glenn in those heady early days of space exploration...I wonder where we would be if NASA had of listened to the "bleeding hearts" that probably suggested the end of the space missions when Grissom, White and Chaffee died tragically in Apollo 1...or when 14 astronauts were lost in the Columbia and Challenger space shuttle disasters? Sure, since those days, economic and political arguments have seen a slow down and a hiatus in going back to the Moon. But as I said before, those are variable quantities and do change, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worst. But neither will halt our inevitable progress and technological advancement, and that obviously includes going back to the Moon, creating out posts, putting man on Mars and in the distant future, heading towards the stars in any of a variety of possible methods. Given the time of course. The likes of Marc Millis of Tau Zero, and Dr Mae Jamison of the 100 year Starship company, and Planetary resourses and Elon Musk and Space X, and many many other visionary, optimistic, realistic and hard working people are leading the way and making sure that continued journey takes place, despite the isolated pockets of those that would seek, for whatever reasons to curtail and/or halt such proceedings. I have of course forgotten to mention the late Gene Roddenberry and his efforts...and of course sci/fi writers like Arthur C Clark and Andrei Asimov. Today's Science Fiction, is tomorrows science fact: ps: A question: Does today's modern mobile phone, surpass the Star Trek communicator of Star Trek fame? (Accepted the Star Trek communicator did not need Satellites)

Interesting article...We can look at another scenario when our Sun enters its giant red phase: Will Mars then be in what we call a Goldilocks zone? (Noting that the red giant phase can last up to a billion years. How about the White Dwarf stage? Another thought: While Venus's dense atmosphere and subsequent pressures inhibit any human like habitation, 50 miles up in its atmosphere, pressures are equivalent to Earth's surface pressure. here is a summary of that position...... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus "Landis has proposed aerostat habitats followed by floating cities, based on the concept that breathable air (21:79 oxygen/nitrogen mixture) is a lifting gas in the dense carbon dioxide atmosphere, with over 60% of the lifting power that helium has on Earth.[6] In effect, a balloon full of human-breathable air would sustain itself and extra weight (such as a colony) in midair. At an altitude of 50 kilometres (31 mi) above Venerian surface, the environment is the most Earth-like in the Solar System – a pressure of approximately 1000 hPa and temperatures in the 0 to 50 °C (273 to 323 K; 32 to 122 °F) range. Protection against cosmic radiation would be provided by the atmosphere above, with shielding mass equivalent to Earth's.[7] At the top of the clouds the wind speed on Venus reaches up to 95 m/s (340 km/h; 210 mph), circling the planet approximately every four Earth days in a phenomenon known as "super-rotation".[8] Colonies floating in this region could therefore have a much shorter day length by remaining untethered to the ground and moving with the atmosphere, compared to the usual 243 Earth days it takes for the planet to rotate. Allowing a colony to move freely would also reduce structural stress from the wind". ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: It appears there are many stages in the evolution of a stellar system when goldilocks zones would be possible, with many changes as the star moves along its main sequence evolution, not to mention brown dwarfs of course and even planetary parameters such as on Venus.

You keep repeating your rhetoric: Again, talk to reputable people, like Marc Millis and Dr Mae Jamison, far more in the know then you or I, and of course with that essential quality called reasonable progressive optimism that humanity mostly always has, and which you seem to totally lack. Again, we were/are not born to stagnate on this fart arse little blue orb, with a great big wide wonderous universe waiting out there...but hey! You go ahead and knock yourself out repeating your own dismal unrealistic pessimistic qualities.

But don't we need a reason for questioning? http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec05.html "Observations to date support the idea that the Universe is both isotropic and homogeneous. Both facts are linked to what is called the cosmological principle. The cosmological principle derives from the Copernican Principle but has no foundation in any particular physical model or theory, i.e. it can not be `proved' in a mathematical sense. However, it has been supported by numerous observations of our Universe and has great weight from purely empirical grounds".

As Strange has said, the polar jets do not originate from inside the BH: Nothing but nothing ever crosses the EH, back out of the BH. They are thought to originate from spinning [Kerr metric] BHs, along with twisted magnetic field lines. As matter spirals into the BH from the accretion disk, it can reach speeds just short of "c" and very high temperatures. A rotating charged BH is called a Kerr-Newman BH, but charge would not last any real length of time, as the charge is negated by matter of opposite charge. The spin also oblates the BH into a oblate spheroid shape, and forming another EH and a region called the ergosphere, from which theoretically a sufficiently advanced civilisation may be able to extract energy but that's another story. http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/ergosphere.htm

Many years ago now, I vaguely remember NASA considering a probe being sent to Europa or rather another probe being sent to the Pluto/Charon system and the outer solar system. Economic restraints sadly meant that both could not be undertaken. I was of the opinion that a Europa probe would be far more advantageous, but as we know now the "New Horizons" probe to the Pluto system won out. Obviously to my joy, this turned out to be quite successful and revealed much about the solar systems outer minor planet and its moons, and is still sending back knowledge even as we speak. Perhaps Europa may yet have its day.

Tried light? Don't be daft, that has been debunked by better people then you or I. Or if you have any new evidence to support it, then you know what to do, don't you? Your claims on this or any other forum changes nothing with regards to mainstream tried and tested theories. You are simply wasting your time, some cyber energy that in a short amount of time, will be lost in cyber space forever. Bye anyway, its been fun debunking your nonsense although in reality I see others have done that before me. bye again, things to do, places to see.

No I don't see any stars moving away from me: But I also do not see any stars outside of the Milky Way galaxy. Let me continue the science lesson. You see the expansion of the universe is only observed over large scales; On smaller scales such as walls of galaxies, groups of galaxies and galaxies themselves, gravity decouples us from that expansion rate...understand? Then over even smaller scales, the EMF and strong and weak nuclear play there part in keeping planets together and beings such as you and me. On your ignorant comment "maybe there is another logical reason" then OK, tell me, what is that other logical reason that explains better then the explanation we have now...Hmmm, I'm smelling that agenda again.

Understandable obviously taking account of your stance elsewhere with regards to your silly bullshit comment. No the universe/spacetime as we know it, had a beginning and we can logically describe that from t+10-43 seconds. Speculatively speaking though, if anything did exist before the BB [quantum foam, nothing] that may have existed for eternity: That as yet is unknown.And time is real, just as space is real, and spacetime. Whether it is fundamental or not is unknown.

Your delusions and self gratutious rhetoric is staggering to say the least.

No, the universe is nothing more then a sheer accident.....a quantum fluctuation in the quantum foam, perhaps among other fluctuations and maybe BBs...it is the story of the emergence of gravity from the first Planck instant to shaping the universe that we know of today...it is the story of chemistry and abiogenisis and evolution...it is the story of how we arose from star stuff...it is the story of entropy, complexity and chance. https://www.ted.com/talks/david_christian_big_history/transcript?language=en#t-78936

And how many threads do you need to have closed before you get the message? You know the one....No one is going to invalidate any mainstream theory on a science forum where Abnormally Honest can claim what he likes....Secondly I have also remarked that even if your hypothetical is all that it is, by explaining what the incumbent theory does, it needs to extend the boundaries so to speak to oust the incumbent theory. What have you against copy n paste of mainstream scientific articles on a science forum? Are you not able to face the truth of the ridiculous nature of someone on a science forum, virtually trying to rewrite 20th/21st century physics? Who do you believe you are fooling? Yes, I'm a lay person. And I have the choice of standing here in awe at your nonsensical claims, or be smart enough to realize the obvious that has been experienced by many on many science forums...you know, Joe Blow claiming all science is wrong...or that he or she has a better explanation, and all obviously with an agenda, which in time generally comes to light. By the way, while I'm certainly a lay person, I have read many reputable books by reputable science authors of the like of Sir Martin Rees, Mitch Begalman, Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, Paul Davis, Stephen Weinberg, Michio Kaku, and a few more which escape my memory at this time. So stop trying to pull the wool over my eyes and everyone elses. Now give me empirical evidence [not your thoughts and/or beliefs] that light has mass. Give me evidence that you have over thrown SR. The best in this instant you have achieved is some alternative that may match the same predictions of the incumbent, but I truly doubt that very much just going on your past claims.

The fact that light sails work are evidenced that the incumbent theory of light works....simple as that..ie, light has energy and momentum, but no mass, as experiments and observations over more then a 100 years have shown. If your hypothesis is what you claim, [1] you wouldn't be here and would be publishing a paper with a reputable firm for peer review, [2] It would also need to predict or describe better then the incumbent theory to oust the incumbent theory, [3] you would also be smarter then you have shown here, and not mistaken C for "c" and known that a scientific theory does not worry or care about "proof," which in my experience many anti mainstream cranks and religious nuts often use in trying to down grade and rubbish science and the scientific methodology. Not sure yet which one fits in with you. The simplest explanation is that light has a duel nature which has stood the test of time for more than a 100 years.ie, it is a wave and a particle. Oh, and again, I state nothing as a fact, rather I refer you to mainstream tested evidenced based scientific theories and links. Please review what a scientific theory is, and in reviewing note that such theories do gain in certainty over time.

Light has no mass, only momentum and energy; http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes". Light is composed of photons, so we could ask if the photon has mass. The answer is then definitely "no": the photon is a massless particle. According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass, and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits. Even before it was known that light is composed of photons, it was known that light carries momentum and will exert pressure on a surface. This is not evidence that it has mass since momentum can exist without mass. (For details see the Physics FAQ article What is the mass of a photon?). Sometimes people like to say that the photon does have mass because a photon has energy E = hf where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency of the photon. Energy, they say, is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's famous formula E = mc2. They also say that a photon has momentum, and momentum p is related to mass m by p = mv. What they are talking about is "relativistic mass", an old concept that can cause confusion (see the FAQ article Does mass change with speed?). Relativistic mass is a measure of the energy E of a particle, which changes with velocity. By convention, relativistic mass is not usually called the mass of a particle in contemporary physics so, at least semantically, it is wrong to say the photon has mass in this way. But you can say that the photon has relativistic mass if you really want to. In modern terminology the mass of an object is its invariant mass, which is zero for a photon. If we now return to the question "Does light have mass?", this can be taken to mean different things if the light is moving freely or trapped in a container. The definition of the invariant mass of an object is m = sqrt{E2/c4 - p2/c2}. By this definition a beam of light is massless like the photons it is composed of. However, if light is trapped in a box with perfect mirrors so the photons are continually reflected back and forth in both directions symmetrically in the box, then the total momentum is zero in the box's frame of reference but the energy is not. Therefore the light adds a small contribution to the mass of the box. This could be measured--in principle at least--either by the greater force required to accelerate the box, or by an increase in its gravitational pull. You might say that the light in the box has mass, but it would be more correct to say that the light contributes to the total mass of the box of light. You should not use this to justify the statement that light has mass in general. Part of this discussion is only concerned with semantics. It might be thought that it would be better to regard the mass of the photons to be their (nonzero) relativistic mass, as opposed to their (zero) invariant mass. We could then consistently talk about the light having mass independently of whether or not it is contained. If relativistic mass is used for all objects, then mass is conserved and the mass of an object is the sum of the masses of its parts. However, modern usage defines mass as the invariant mass of an object mainly because the invariant mass is more useful when doing any kind of calculation. In this case mass is not conserved and the mass of an object is not the sum of the masses of its parts. Thus, the mass of a box of light is more than the mass of the box and the sum of the masses of the photons (the latter being zero). Relativistic mass is equivalent to energy, which is why relativistic mass is not a commonly used term nowadays. In the modern view "mass" is not equivalent to energy; mass is just that part of the energy of a body which is not kinetic energy. Mass is independent of velocity whereas energy is not Let's try to phrase this another way. What is the meaning of the equation E=mc2? You can interpret it to mean that energy is the same thing as mass except for a conversion factor equal to the square of the speed of light. Then wherever there is mass there is energy and wherever there is energy there is mass. In that case photons have mass, but we call it relativistic mass. Another way to use Einstein's equation would be to keep mass and energy as separate and use it as an equation which applies when mass is converted to energy or energy is converted to mass--usually in nuclear reactions. The mass is then independent of velocity and is closer to the old Newtonian concept. In that case, only the total of energy and mass would be conserved, but it seems better to try to keep the conservation of energy. The interpretation most widely used is a compromise in which mass is invariant and always has energy so that total energy is conserved but kinetic energy and radiation does not have mass. The distinction is purely a matter of semantic convention. Sometimes people ask "If light has no mass how can it be deflected by the gravity of a star?". One answer is that all particles, including photons, move along geodesics in general relativity and the path they follow is independent of their mass. The deflection of starlight by the sun was first measured by Arthur Eddington in 1919. The result was consistent with the predictions of general relativity and inconsistent with the newtonian theory. Another answer is that the light has energy and momentum which couples to gravity. The energy-momentum 4-vector of a particle, rather than its mass, is the gravitational analogue of electric charge. (The corresponding analogue of electric current is the energy-momentum stress tensor which appears in the gravitational field equations of general relativity.) A massless particle can have energy E and momentum p because mass is related to these by the equation m2 = E2/c4 - p2/c2, which is zero for a photon because E = pc for massless radiation. The energy and momentum of light also generates curvature of spacetime, so general relativity predicts that light will attract objects gravitationally. This effect is far too weak to have yet been measured. The gravitational effect of photons does not have any cosmological effects either (except perhaps in the first instant after the Big Bang). And there seem to be far too few with too little energy to make any noticeable contribution to dark matter. http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

Or delusions of grandeur and the reasons your other threads were closed.

You mean like questions you supposedly answered satisfactorlly in your other threads that were closed?

And you're ignoring more then a 100 years of science, that shows you are totally wrong and obviously inflicted with delusions of grandeur and/or some agenda probably religious, as many religious people are always out to try and invalidate or rubbish accepted mainstream science.. http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/ahp/LAD/C3/C3_elecEnergy.html http://blair.pha.jhu.edu/spectroscopy/basics.html

Ummm yes, most certainly...unless you just want your rhetorical ramblings to gather dust, lost in cyber space.

Light has no mass but it does have momentum. This is put to practical use in light sails. That is patently wrong but I'll wait for your evidence invalidating SR. Please though do not confuse Newtonian concepts with relativistic concepts which you seem to have done in your OP.Oh and don't forget...it's "c" for "celeritas", the Latin word for speed. Firstly, your so called attempt to show light has mass has failed, secondly scientific theories are not based on proof. A scientific theory is always open for modification based on further empirical evidence, or even total change, but do gain in certainty over time and as they continue to match predictions. Thirdly again until you show differently nothing moves faster then "c" in any local frame of reference. Better luck on your next round in trying to invalidate mainstream accepted science.

That's nice: And when you finally get an understanding of the scientific methodology and what a scientific theory is, you will (I hope) understand that until your hypothetical explains more then the incumbent, it will stand as an "also ran" You need to invalidate the current model...understand? And I don't see that ever happening and just a continuation of bluster and avoiding pertinent questions re your intentions. eg: If you had anything of any real value, you would write up a scientific paper, get it published by a reputable publisher, (not vixra) and have it properly professionally reviewed. Best of luck with that.