beecee

You're on a science forum, and you will be judged by your adherence to the scientific method or lack thereof, more likely. The fact that I raise issues and points that question your sincerity and the real probability you have an agenda of sorts[religious?] and having you avoid answering them, along with previous episodes, points to you being the purveyor of nonsense. Evidence in this and other threads show that your responses are no more then cop outs in many instances. The point is that you have failed to invalidate the incumbent model. A model that has stood for a century with ensuing greats adding further insights and making successful predictions AS PER THE FOLLOWING. http://acme.highpoint.edu/~atitus/phy221/lecture-notes/10-1-energy-quantization.pdf Photon model of light There are two models of light that are useful to explain various experiments. One model of light describes it as an electromagnetic wave made up of a propagating wave made up of an oscillating electric field and oscillating magnetic field (in a plane perpendicular to the electric field). The color of light depends on its wavelength (or frequency where λf = c in a vacuum). Light can be made up of many electromagnetic waves of various colors giving you what is called a spectrum. White light is made up of equal amounts of all of the colors of the visible spectrum. Another model of light describes it as a collection of particles called photons. These photons have no rest mass but do have energy (kinetic energy). The energy of a photon is E = hf where h is Planck’s constant and f is the frequency of the light. Thus the “color” of a photon depends on its energy. Visible light is a small region of the entire range of possible energies of photons. The entire range is called the electromagnetic spectrum which ranges from gamma rays with very high energy to radio with very low energy. The range of energies of the spectrum is shown on pg. 214 of your textbook. The visible range of the spectrum is from 1.8 eV (red) to 3.1 eV (violet). The unit of energy most often used for light is the electron-Volt. Note that 1 eV= 1.6 × 10−19 J :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: When your speculative hypothetical can improve on that model, then you may have ssomething worthwhile...In the meantime.....

What nonsense? That you claim your C was a typo, and I showed good evidence that it was more ignorance?, or that I'm offering more observations as to the unsupported rhetoric and nonsensical, all encompassing claims that you make. I smell an agenda afoot...religious?

And unsupported hypothesis from an unqualified source on a science forum, most certainly do not disqualify recognised scientific theories.

If you did it once I would believe it was a typo: You did it numerous times. Like I said, I have observed you unjustly, illogically and amateurishly disputing much of science in your posts: All with plenty of gusto and bravo, but none with any real empirical evidence. So you have no qualifications to invalidate any incumbent theory, in conjunction of course with the lack of any real evidence to invalidate them? So have I. But I also realise that I have much more to learn and I certainly have no delusions re my qualifications or ability to try and debunk current scientific knowledge all from my armchair in front of a computer, on a science forum, open to any Tom, Dick and Harry. I could though refer you to some really good reputable science books.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.06867.pdf Abstract : In the year 1900 Max Planck was led by experimental observations to propose a strange formula for the intensity as a function of frequency for light emitted by a cavity made in a hot substance such as a metal. lPlanck provided a derivation based on peculiar properties to be obeyed by the emitters and absorbers in the cavity. I attempt to point out some nuts and bolts reasoning that could have provided a clue to the physical reasoning. In 1905, Einstein made the bold hypothesis that under certain circumstances, radiation could be absorbed and emitted as packets of energy and also propagated without spreading out like waves. Einstein was able to predict the formula for the photoelectric effect based on his hypothesis. While the formula was experimentally verified by 1913, his peers seem to have rejected its interpretation in terms of light quanta. Einstein himself was aware of its inherent contradictions. The first part of this article goes over this period of struggle with the photon concept, and sets the stage for the entry of S N Bose’s critical contribution in 1923.

Sorry, personally I'm not going through your very lengthy post in any detail, rather I'll just make some observations.... [1] The symbol for the speed of light is "c" not C . [2] Your speculative hypothetical is just that, and if you really had anything concrete based on evidence, or invalidating the current incumbent model, you would not be here. You would write up a proper scientific for peer review. [3] You seem to have a beef with many areas of scientific endeavour: What are your qualifications, taking into account the error in point [1]

Let me add, that yes indeed, inter-stellar travel is in reality far beyond anything we can ever hop for at this present time. As mentioned the time factor alone, [10s of thousands of years] is daunting. But at the risk of repeating myself, the time factor will also benfit humanity. In 500 years we will certainly have put men on Mars and established Moon out posts and other outposts throughout our system.Perhaps we will have sent a "generation"type star ship to another extra solar planet that is suitable for life...Now lets look at a 1000 years...5000 years....damn, let's look at humanity in a 100,000 years: If we are still around, does anyone really believe that we will not have the technology to reach the stars, either through generation type ships or advanced relativistic ships. I suggest you talk to Marc Millis, or Dr Mae Jamison. Or even to the applicants that applied to Mars One, for a proposed one way trip to Mars: http://www.mars-one.com/ To say missions to other stars is not feasible, at this time, is true: But given the time, say 500, 1000, 10,000 years, to still say it will be not feasible is totally unrealistic despite any of your projected fabricated S curves..

And there was also a time when humans thought that if they sailed onwards to the horizen, they would fall off the edge of the Earth, and we believed the Earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe, and we would never fly...In fact an otherwise great scientist named Lord Kelvin poo pooed manned flight only 9 or 10 years before the Wright Brothers. And of course I have always encouched my more realistic predictions, with "in the course of time" and "if we survive any future catastrophic event" We will mine asteroids in time: We will return to the Moon in time: We will establish out posts on the Moon in time, much as we do in Antarctica: We will put man on Mars: We will leave our solar system and go to distant stars in time: Given the time, we can accomplish anything that is allowed by the laws of physics and GR: We were not born to stagnate on this fart arse little blue orb we call earth.

It's not. But many people need something to cling to, some hope for what they see as the afterlife: It's similar in many ways to a child with his teddy bear, or a baby with a dummy in its mouth. They in essence cannot or will not face what empirical scientific evidence and observation has shown. That is we are simply just star stuff, born in the belly of stars that went supernova, and the stars themselves formed simply through the force of gravity, and that life is simply an accident of chemistry.

While it's true we don't know about "all there is," I believe that our assumptions about the isotropic and homogeneous nature of the observable universe, can be logically extrapolated to the universe as a whole that evolved from the BB. At the same time, any speculative idea re the possible many quantum fluctuations that may have arose from the quantum foam, would also probably be entirely different from the conditions imposed by our own local BB: Some fluctuations may have started to evolve and then like a soap bubble, due to initial conditions, may have burst: Others may have evolved and expanded at incredible rates to finally have reached maximum entropy...all most likely would have different initial conditions, that would see each entirely different from our own local BB, and consequently would all be unknown propositions.eg; the strength of gravity, the EMFs, etc etc Some day in the future, some bright spark may invent, discover or mathematically work out a logical explanation, consistent with the laws of physics, as to what if anything can or does exist outside our BB bubble universe: But hey! it's fun speculating within the bounds of science and the scientific methodology! We never know where it may lead.

GR tells us that once the Schwarzchild radius of a mass is reached, further collapse is compulsory. But we also know GR fails at the quantum/Planck level. For that reason most physicists do not believe that the mathematical point singularity and the associated infinite quantities is ever reached. Rather a surface of sorts should exist at or just below this quantum/Planck level, of the mass/energy from whence the BH was formed.

The complexity and structure arose from whatever we chose to define as nothing...the quantum foam...virtual particles etc. I came across a "TED" talk yesterday given in a similar non complicated narrative: It is a bit long around 18 minutes but I believe you should enjoy and possibly benefit from: I know I did. https://www.ted.com/talks/david_christian_big_history/transcript?language=en

I still don't like the BH exploding concept, rather see them as evaporating..... The quantum BHs if they existed, would have evaporated in very quick time: standard stellar and SMBHs would take near the life of the universe to evaporate. The two papers you have linked to are interesting in what I have read so far [the abstracts] but appear speculative at this stage of proceedings. Whether an evaporating BH is the source of GRBs is also unkown at this time, in fact I believe there is as much speculation that GRBs happen when a BH first forms.

Naturally if we as a human race, are given the time, and can avoid any catastrophic disaster, either man-made or natural, such as a meteor/asteroid hit, or any other civilization altering/destroying event, we should be able to reach the stars..either and probably firstly, in generation type space ships travelling at sub relativistic speeds, that may be overtaken by later spaceships as advanced humans are able to harness the technology to warp spacetime and travel at relativistic speeds. It's all a matter of progress and avoiding the disasters I speak of. The following are some orginizations already working towards that end..... https://100yss.org/mission/team https://tauzero.aero/ https://tauzero.aero/who-we-are/ NB: Both these companies are headed by experienced NASA people including DR Mae Jamison ( engineer, physician and NASA astronaut. ) and Marc Millis (Aerospace Engineer NASA Glenn Research Center)

BHs are not gluttonous pigs so to speak. A BH encountering a large mass will pull that mass into an orbit and gradually pull its matter into an accretion disk, with the matter spiralling into the BH. The following is an illustration from APOD https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap131120.html In expecting a reasonable question re the polar jets, no they are not coming from the BH, but best theoretical science puts them down to some of the matter that is swept around by a BHs spin and possible magnetic field, then thrown out at the polar regions.

No, both are correct and make correct observable observations within their respective spheres of influence and applicability. Yes as of this time they seem to be mutually exclusive and the need for an observable validated QGT is constantly being worked on. But that certainly is no excuse for making fraudulent and unsupported claims and inferences about near all areas of cosmology, which you seem to revel in for some weird reason. While spacetime certainly expands, we do not as yet have a verifiable quantum theory of gravity. Spacetime expansion is observable over very large scales. Over smaller scales, (galactic walls, groups of galaxies, stellar systems, stars, planets, ect) the forces of gravity, EMF, and the strong and weak nuclear forces, are able to overcome the expansion.

Wow! You certainly seem to have an aversion to real science and scientific methodology, and a penchant towards nonsense bordering on gobbledigook.

Just found the following "TED" video: It's just 18 minutes long and well worth watching. Any errors, alterations or corrections? Any other comment/s? ( I believe it should be shown at all schools starting at primary aged children). A great little explanatory talk in the most basic lay person's language.

Gravitational lensing a long held prediction of Einsteins GR, has been validated many times despite your obvious doubt. The first was in 1919 during a total solar eclipse, and the observations of a star by Arthur Eddington. All gravitational lensing is by the way, is the observation of light following geodesics, or the shortest route between two points in curved/warped spacetime. Gravitational lensing was actually the first validated prediction of GR and is a totally robust theory without any real alternative interpretation. Your "light being blocked"reasoning seems rather contrived and illogical for many reasons. There is by the way another small effect of Newtonian refraction which is also always considered and calculated.

BH's do not explode. Obviously you are speaking of Hawking Radiation, a hypothetical quantum effect ( but one in my opinion, is reasonably logical and sustainable) that concerns itself with virtual particle pairs created just this side of a BHs EH: One may fall into the BH while the other escapes. The escaping particle becomes real, while the negative partner that is sucked into the BH, subtracts from the BHs mass. That is a lay persons description of it and a more correct summation can be found at: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6srN4idq1E Quantum or Primordial BHs are also a hypothetical aspect of micro BH's around Planck size that may have been created in the hot dense early conditions that existed just after the BB.

Even if there we multiple BBs from the quantum foam, each BB would form its own separate universe. All we can assume logically is that our BB created the universe we know and it is all there is and contains all we know....the rest is sheer speculation: Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Unless of course the problem you envisage does not exist.

Firstly the BB was not an explosion: It was the evolution and expansion of space and time (in the first instance, matter came later) from a hot dense state. Secondly, we have absolutely no evidence that any recollapse will occur, in fact recent observations of the expansion accelerating, is evidence against any recollapse.

As an aside, the UNSW was the one my Son attended doing IT, and just a hop, skip and a jump from where I live in Maroubra. I have also briefly met Tamara, (although I doubt that she would remember ) along with an Astronomer named Geraint Lewis who Professor Tamara mentions in her paper. It was during a Lunar eclipse and a Lunar eclipse party the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commision) and their science department put on at that time.

How about the re-establishment of the SSC (Superconducting Super Collider) in the US which was cancelled, (budget concerns??) This was proposed to be much larger then the current LHC. How far were they into it before construction was stopped? Is there any chance/hope of re-commencing construction? What was the actual size? How much more insight into the early moments of the universe would it have achieved in relation to the LHC and the Higgs?