Unified Field Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 I understand, that science is about connecting all the aspects of Universe - but maybe we should discuss here the multi-verse theory (which I personally consider, as sci-fi fairytale), instead of black holes, gravity, CERN, photons and speed of light. Of course black holes might be hypothetically connected with multi-verses (acting as a wormhole?). But until I won't finally see the data, recorded by Event Horizon Telescope, I won't believe in their existence - I'm a scientific atheist and I don't believe in things, which can't be proved by observation and physical measurement http://eventhorizontelescope.org And what, if there's no black hole in the ceter of Milky Way? Our entire model of Universe, based on gravitation, will crumble... Did you even think about such option? I doubt it... And as for multi-kulti-verse - theories are cool, as everybody can make his own. But before considering such theory, as a part of a model, we need to have ANYTHING, to assume that it might be correct. And the Truth is, that NO ONE is able to observe and physically measure anything except the "point" of HERE and NOW. Multi-verse + linear and determined time dimension = "Back To The Future" meets "Sliders". I also like "Rick & Morty", but to cosider such concept, as scientifically valid, is for me bit too far... I refuse to believe in things, which don't make sense, but sound cool... And what if time is a wave function and not a physical dimension? What if entire physical reality exists in a single and endless moment, which is equal to Planck's Time? What if Universe renders Himself in real-time only? Quantum physics denies determinism - possible outcome becomes a fact, only when we will collapse the wave function and physically determine the outcome. Superposed time function makes in such case much more sense, than a dimensional axis. Future defined, as an superposed assembly of possible outcomes. Past defined, as information about events, which took place already.... Oh, it would mean that Einstein was wrong - so such concept simply can't be true (even if it actually makes sense)... Better believe in 11D wonderland, where everything, what's possible (or impossible) happens in some alternative timeline of a what-if version of our "normal" Universe... But is this science, or a religion? Call me an infidel... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Unified Field said: IAnd what, if there's no black hole in the ceter of Milky Way? Our entire model of Universe, based on gravitation, will crumble... Did you even think about such option? I doubt it... If you are speaking of SMBHs, we have ample evidence of their existence, simply by the effects it has on orbital periods of stars close by and also the effects on spacetime itself. Of course the garden variety stellar size BHs and Intermediate size have certainly been even more evidenced with the five discoveries of binary BH collisions and associated gravitational waves. Quote Oh, it would mean that Einstein was wrong - so such concept simply can't be true (even if it actually makes sense)... Better believe in 11D wonderland, where everything, what's possible (or impossible) happens in some alternative timeline of a what-if version of our "normal" Universe... But is this science, or a religion? Call me an infidel... Many aspects of cosmology are hypothetical, science does not deny that, but remember also that many scientific entities such as BHs were also once simply hypothetical, and counter intuitive at one time....further observations and vast improvements in technology have changed that. White Holes, worm holes, are results of the equations of GR, although we have not observed them, and as a result still remain speculative. Time dilation and length contraction are of course evidenced and observed in many experiments and are a state of fact. Edited December 23, 2017 by beecee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 23, 2017 Author Share Posted December 23, 2017 As for the time dilation. Flow of time is defined by the frequency of processes, which shape the environment of an observer. Rate of this frequency can be varied, depending on location in space, velocity or magnitude of physical forces and (important!) on the physical scale. For two observers with a large difference of size, time will flow differently, even if they will be placed in the same location of space (a bacteria living in an anus). For a tiny observer, time will flow faster, than for a giant and their lifespan will differ as well (if they have similar ratio of metabolism/size). Anyone heard before anything about time dilation created by scaling? No? But it sounds as something rather obvious, so I figured it out by myself ... Time dilation doesn't prove dimensional time - it proves only, that it's "flow" is a relative value. Im absolutely sure, that it's possible, to change locally the apparent flow of time - but it's something completly different, than jumping between determined and physically real points, located on a dimensional axis of time. Such concept creates so many paradoxes and logical errors, that scientists had to make up 8 additional dimensions, while making some attempts of imited explanation. This, is how the multi-verse "theory" was born... Scientists gave us the "best" explanation - if something is not possible in this Universe, then it has to be something common in a different reality or dimension... Please...! How many books was witten, regarding the Grandson Paradox and it's possible solutions? And what for? Is such paradox even possible? I highly doubt it - sooner, or later someone would for sure try it. Actually someone should be killing his still young grandparents, right in this moment, in a different point of time - but somehow "our" Universe still exists and still makes sense... And what if there's a possibility, that a God exists? Just asking about it, makes God a possibility... Shouldn't such hypothetical God exist "somewhere" in the 11D multi-verse of infinite (im)possibilities? Isn't science about scepticism? Well, I'm a sceptic and I won't accept the idea of linear and determined time, until someone won't bring me a newspaper from the next Friday - only after I check, if it speaks about actual future events I will consider it as a fact... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Unified Field said: Isn't science about scepticism? Well, I'm a sceptic and I won't accept the idea of linear and determined time, until someone won't bring me a newspaper from the next Friday - only after I check, if it speaks about actual future events I will consider it as a fact... What you are prepared to accept or not has no bearing on science or the scientific methodology. Time dilation and length contraction are facts of life, its as simple as that. Nothing wrong in sceptisim per se, but to deny scientific data is plain silly. Quote How many books was witten, regarding the Grandson Paradox and it's possible solutions? And what for? Is such paradox even possible? I highly doubt it - sooner, or later someone would for sure try it. Actually someone should be killing his still young grandparents, right in this moment, in a different point of time - but somehow "our" Universe still exists and still makes sense. Thought experiments on the illustrations of the effects of time dilation and length contraction are mathematical constructs that illustrate time dilation and length contraction effects because those effects are simply negligible at Earthly based speeds and conditions, although still used in many aspects of science including GPS. Quote And what if there's a possibility, that a God exists? Just asking about it, makes God a possibility... Shouldn't such hypothetical God exist "somewhere" in the 11D multi-verse of infinite (im)possibilities? The existence or otherwise of any deity is not a scientific answer as is any supposed supernatural concept. Edited December 23, 2017 by beecee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 23, 2017 Author Share Posted December 23, 2017 (edited) 48 minutes ago, beecee said: If you are speaking of SMBHs, we have ample evidence of their existence, simply by the effects it has on orbital periods of stars close by and also the effects on spacetime itself. Of course the garden variety stellar size BHs and Intermediate size have certainly been even more evidenced with the five discoveries of binary BH collisions and associated gravitational waves. Many aspects of cosmology are hypothetical, science does not deny that, but remember also that many scientific entities such as BHs were also once simply hypothetical, and counter intuitive at one time....further observations and vast improvements in technology have changed that. White Holes, worm holes, are results of the equations of GR, although we have not observed them, and as a result still remain speculative. Time dilation and length contraction are of course evidenced and observed in many experiments and are a state of fact. We never recorded any visual evidence of a star being "devoured" by a black hole - such process still exists only as a simulation We've detected gravitational waves, but talking about their sources, is in most cases just a pure speculation. We've recorded such source just once - and it was not a collision of black holes, but neutron stars... Black holes will remain speculative, until we won't finally see the images from those radio telescopes... We've seen simply, that stars in the center of galaxy orbit around a central point - that's it. It can be explained using MHD and not gravity - if you make hydrolise in an external magnetic field, water will start to spin around the electrodes A tiny model of galaxy... Change the voltage and you will change the velocity of spin - and suddenly you don't need any "dark matter" to explain the changing speed of galaxy rotation... 28 minutes ago, beecee said: What you are prepared to accept or not has no bearing on science or the scientific methodology. Time dilation and length contraction are facts of life, its as simple as that. Nothing wrong in sceptisim per se, but to deny scientific data is plain silly. Thought experiments on the illustrations of the effects of time dilation and length contraction are mathematical constructs that illustrate time dilation and length contraction effects because those effects are simply negligible at Earthly based speeds and conditions, although still used in many aspects of science including GPS. I don't deny the time dilation - it just doesn't prove, that time is a determined dimension. You can hypothetically make a capsule, in which time will flow 20 times slower/faster - it won't affect the cause/effect relation. But jumping between different points of time is a total absurd. I don't care, from what equations it is dervied, if it can't be proven in any way and generally doesn't make sesnse... I exist here and now. If a second me exists constantly as well, one minute, or even a second ahead of "now" - then it's not me, but someone else... Sorry, but the entire concept lacks common logic... Edited December 23, 2017 by Unified Field Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Unified Field said: We never recorded any visual evidence of a star being "devoured" by a black hole - such process still exists only as a simulation But we have observed many scenarios of stellar matter etc "literally " disappearing...CygnusX1 for example..... Quote We've detected gravitational waves, but talking about their sources, is in most cases just a pure speculation. We've recorded such source just once - and it was not a collision of black holes, but neutron stars... Black holes will remain speculative, until we won't finally see the images from those radio telescopes... I would brush up on your knowledge of recent events then...We have in actual fact observed now five binary pair BH collisions and one binary Neutron stars collisions. And if your "cynicism" prevents you from accepting that they were actually BH collisions, then it would be interesting to know what you believed it was. Quote We've seen simply, that stars in the center of galaxy orbit around a central point - that's it. It can be explained using MHD and not gravity - if you make hydrolise in an external magnetic field, water will start to spin around the electrodes Simply put the maths tells us that such orbital parameters need an object at the core that aligns with what we know as a SMBH...Of course if you have another alternate proposition, then let us hear it and please show your maths. Quote I don't deny the time dilation - it just doesn't prove, that time is a determined dimension. Yo can hypothetically make a capsule, in which time will flow 20 times slower/faster - it won't affect the cause/effect relation. But jumping between different points of time is a total absurd. I don't care, from what equations it is dervied, if it can't be proven in any way and generally doesn't make sesnse... Like I said, time dilation and length contraction are facts of life, used and observed every day in the science world, GPS being one. Perhaps one day in the very distant future, we may have the knowledge and technology to manipulate the spacetime metric so that a perception of FTL travel is possible...warp drive for example.....who knows? Quote I exist here and now. If I constantly exists as well, one minute, or even a second ahead of "now" - then it's not me, but someone else... Sorry, but the entire concept lacks common logic... You have failed to grasp what time dilation means. Let me go through it again...."a thought experiment" If you and I were twins, and I set off at 99.999% "c" and returned 12 months later by my own on board ship's clocks and my own biological clocks, I would be returning to an earth 230 approximate years in the future, with you long dead and buried. Again, time dilation is negligible at earthly based speeds and conditions, hence why it was never noticed until the great man came along. 46 minutes ago, Unified Field said: We've seen simply, that stars in the center of galaxy orbit around a central point - that's it. It can be explained using MHD and not gravity - if you make hydrolise in an external magnetic field, water will start to spin around the electrodes A tiny model of galaxy... Change the voltage and you will change the velocity of spin - and suddenly you don't need any "dark matter" to explain the changing speed of galaxy rotation... I would also remind you that if you are proposing an alternative methodology as opposed to the accepted evidenced based incumbent model, then you need to start a thread in the appropriate section. I would also answer some of your rather unreasonable cynicism with the following question, what is a magnetic field... Remember science and the scientific method do not deal in "proofs" as you seem to want. All scientific theories remain as possibly being modified and updated in the future. But just as obviously many scientific theories, such as the theory of evolution, SR, GR, the BB have gained in certainty over time frames, the theory of evolution of course being as near certain as anyone would hope for. https://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1 Edited December 23, 2017 by beecee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 23, 2017 Author Share Posted December 23, 2017 1 minute ago, beecee said: But we have observed many scenarios of stellar matter etc "literally " disappearing...CygnusX1 for example..... https://www.eso.org/public/outreach/eduoff/cas/cas2002/cas-projects/austria_cygnus_1/ "Is there really a black hole in Cygnus? Scientists don't know if this is really a black hole. It could be a small star, too faint to see in optical wavelengths, or possibly a planet sized hunk of rock. But the Object is too small for a star. A better explanation is that the object is a neutron star or a white dwarf. Neutron Stars usually have very regular and distinct pulses. Cygnus X-1's emmissions, however, show no regularity or periodicity. They seem to have no repeating patterns, and vary on short and long timescales equally." Quote I would brush up on your knowledge of recent events then...We have in actual fact observed now five binary pair BH collisions and one binary Neutron stars collisions. And if your "cynicism" prevents you from accepting that they were actually BH collisions, then it would be interesting to know what you believed it was. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/sep/27/new-gravitational-wave-detection-shows-shape-of-ripples-from-black-hole-collision-ligo-virgo Can you then tell me, how could they determine a possible source, if they still can't point out a possible direction? They can only calculate, what can it be. Could be any objects with high mass. No one knows for example what couldf happen during a collision of 2 magnetars - do you? Quote Simply put the maths tells us that such orbital parameters need an object at the core that aligns with what we know as a SMBH...Of course if you have another alternate proposition, then let us hear it and please show your maths. You can use every force, which is causing attraction towards the center - it can be gravity, but it doesn't have to. Helical motion of Solar System within the Milky Way looks more. like an EM effect, rather than gravitational one... Quote You have failed to grasp what time dilation means. Let me go through it again...."a thought experiment" If you and I were twins, and I set off at 99.999% "c" and returned 12 months later by my own on board ship's clocks and my own biological clocks, I would be returning to an earth 230 approximate years in the future, with you long dead and buried. Again, time dilation is negligible at earthly based speeds and conditions, hence why it was never noticed until the great man came along. I understand the time dilation... And I will repeat once more (!!!), that I don't argue with this. Time dilation is a fact, confirmed by observation - I don't deny it in any way. Besides it is absolutely logical, that the flow of time can differ, depending on different factors... I argue with the concept of determined and physical time dimension - it's a huge difference. Dilation doesn't prove, that time is already defined in every point of the timeline. That's what I keep telling you since my 3 last posts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Unified Field said: 1 hour ago, Unified Field said: https://www.eso.org/public/outreach/eduoff/cas/cas2002/cas-projects/austria_cygnus_1/ "Is there really a black hole in Cygnus? Scientists don't know if this is really a black hole. It could be a small star, too faint to see in optical wavelengths, or possibly a planet sized hunk of rock. But the Object is too small for a star. A better explanation is that the object is a neutron star or a white dwarf. Neutron Stars usually have very regular and distinct pulses. Cygnus X-1's emmissions, however, show no regularity or periodicity. They seem to have no repeating patterns, and vary on short and long timescales equally." https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/sep/27/new-gravitational-wave-detection-shows-shape-of-ripples-from-black-hole-collision-ligo-virgo Can you then tell me, how could they determine a possible source, if they still can't point out a possible direction? They can only calculate, what can it be. Could be any objects with high mass. No one knows for example what couldf happen during a collision of 2 magnetars - do you? You can use every force, which is causing attraction towards the center - it can be gravity, but it doesn't have to. Helical motion of Solar System within the Milky Way looks more. like an EM effect, rather than gravitational one... Your link re CygnusX1 is from 2002...Irrespective there are many such observational entities pointing to the only possible source being a gravitationally completely collapsed object...or a BH. And again the five gravitational wave discoveries from binary BH collisions,and one Neutron star collision fit the template required for such interpretations, by the experts and professionals. Or do you believe there is some sort of conspiracy afoot? If so you are in the wrong section. Quote I understand the time dilation... And I will repeat once more (!!!), that I don't argue with this. Time dilation is a fact, confirmed by observation - I don't deny it in any way. Besides it is absolutely logical, that the flow of time can differ, depending on different factors... I argue with the concept of determined and physical time dimension - it's a huge difference. Dilation doesn't prove, that time is already defined in every point of the timeline. That's what I keep telling you since my 3 last posts... Your last three posts have it mostly wrong in my opinion. Your premise is totally flawed and suggestive of phycobabble which in itself is suggestive of pseudoscience. Time dilation and length contraction are real...its that simple.Whatever other interpretation you like to put on it, does not concern me one iota. This is afterall a public science forum, open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, and certainly not subject to professional scientific peer review, although we do have some experts on this forum that may like to help clear up your alternative take on BHs and associated cosmology. Remember along with the mountains of other evidence, the reason that GR fits so well with present day cosmology is that it goes hand in glove with the BB theory of universe/spacetime evolution. Edited December 23, 2017 by beecee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 23, 2017 Author Share Posted December 23, 2017 Quote I would also answer some of your rather unreasonable cynicism with the following question, what is a magnetic field... I love to speak about magnetic fields Generally our official science treats magnetism, like somekind of anomaly or side-effect of electric charge in motion. Magnetic field has it's source in the quantum spin of subatomic particles. Science tells, that magnetic field is carried in space by "virtual photons" (maybe virtually possible...). But this is not truth. I was recently speaking online with a physicist regarding magnetic fields and he stopped publishing my posts https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=414 It seems, that magnetic field is "written" in the magnetic component of a photon. Linearly polarized light can be used to visually map magnetic field of an object. Birds are getting disoriented, when they are exposed to polarized light - as they have biological visual receptors of magnetic fields... Now let me ask you a nice question: What can be the source of galactic magnetic fields? What is their role in galaxy formation process? How they can connect with other galactic fields through almost completely "empty" intergalactic medium? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724221049.htm Can you read, what I read here? "A dynamo converts mechanical energy into magnetic energy. The dynamo theory is an attempt at explaining the mechanism with which bodies in the sky can develop a magnetic field. In astronomical objects like planets, stars or galaxies, the dynamo effect occurs if there are turbulent currents and a non-uniform (differential) rotation prevails. This so-called alpha-omega dynamo can generate large-scale magnetic fields – even if the initial field was chaotic." Magnetic energy??? What? Magnetic fields don't need energy to exist... Magnetic fields is created because of the alignment of magnetic fields in it's structure. Smallest magnet was created from 5 aligned atoms... Stronger alingnment creates stronger magnetic fields... You need energy differential to create a current - but you don't need a current for magnetic field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, Unified Field said: I love to speak about magnetic fields Generally our official science treats magnetism, like somekind of anomaly or side-effect of electric charge in motion. Magnetic field has it's source in the quantum spin of subatomic particles. Science tells, that magnetic field is carried in space by "virtual photons" (maybe virtually possible...). But this is not truth. I was recently speaking online with a physicist regarding magnetic fields and he stopped publishing my posts https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=414 It seems, that magnetic field is "written" in the magnetic component of a photon. Linearly polarized light can be used to visually map magnetic field of an object. Birds are getting disoriented, when they are exposed to polarized light - as they have biological visual receptors of magnetic fields... Now let me ask you a nice question: What can be the source of galactic magnetic fields? What is their role in galaxy formation process? How they can connect with other galactic fields through almost completely "empty" intergalactic medium? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724221049.htm Can you read, what I read here? "A dynamo converts mechanical energy into magnetic energy. The dynamo theory is an attempt at explaining the mechanism with which bodies in the sky can develop a magnetic field. In astronomical objects like planets, stars or galaxies, the dynamo effect occurs if there are turbulent currents and a non-uniform (differential) rotation prevails. This so-called alpha-omega dynamo can generate large-scale magnetic fields – even if the initial field was chaotic." Magnetic energy??? What? Magnetic fields don't need energy to exist... Magnetic fields is created because of the alignment of magnetic fields in it's structure. Smallest magnet was created from 5 aligned atoms... Stronger alingnment creates stronger magnetic fields... You need energy differential to create a current - but you don't need a current for magnetic field. Hmmmm...I'm not going to comment any further on your magnetic field obsession, other then to ask you if you are align with, or proposing that long defunct and totally debunked Plasma/Electric hypothetical? Is that your agenda? If so, along with your other rather anti mainstream cosmology approach, you are posting in the wrong section and against the forum rules and perfectly understandable why a physicist would stop posting your posts. In the three science forums I have been a part of, the anti mainstream crowd always have some sort of agenda, albeit, religious, tall poppy syndrome, delusions of grandeur, or just plain old anti establishment bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 23, 2017 Author Share Posted December 23, 2017 (edited) Quote Quote And again the five gravitational wave discoveries from binary BH collisions,and one Neutron star collision fit the template required for such interpretations, by the experts and professionals. Or do you believe there is some sort of conspiracy afoot? If so you are in the wrong section. I don't care about calculations. Show me the images captured by radiotelescopes - only then I will admit, that such objects exist in Universe. I'm tired of theoretical physics... Black holes, dark matetters, dark energies and other concepts, which are being used to "cover" all the black holes and dark mysteries in Standard Model. Quote Time dilation and length contraction are real...its that simple.Whatever other interpretation you like to put on it, does not concern me one iota. This is afterall a public science forum, open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, and certainly not subject to professional scientific peer review, although we do have some experts on this forum that may like to help clear up your alternative take on BHs and associated cosmology. It is indeed - and I keep telling this from the beginning... But I have nothing against a discussion with people, who know the subject about which we speak ... Edited December 23, 2017 by Unified Field -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 1 minute ago, Unified Field said: I don't care about calculations. Show me the images captured by radiotelescopes - only then I will admit, that such objects exist in Universe. I'm tired of theoretical physics... What you care or don't care about is irrelevant to science and cosmology and matters nought. Quote It is indeed - and I keep telling this from the beginning... But I have nothing against a discussion with people, who know the subject about which we speak ... That's OK. but again and that which you appear to be ignoring, is that the forum has a section for non mainstream science, which you seem to be treating with contempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 23, 2017 Author Share Posted December 23, 2017 Quote What you care or don't care about is irrelevant to science and cosmology and matters nought. Of course. I just wonder, what all of you would make, if there won't be anything on those images from radiotelescopes. Besides, I just love to expose all the holes in theoretical physics... Quote That's OK. but again and that which you appear to be ignoring, is that the forum has a section for non mainstream science, which you seem to be treating with contempt. Look at the first post in this thread... Mainstream as hell... Not to mention . that the entire multi-verse subject is more like fiction, than actual science... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Unified Field said: Of course. I just wonder, what all of you would make, if there won't be anything on those images from radiotelescopes. Besides, I just love to expose all the holes in theoretical physics... While there maybe some holes in present mainstream cosmology, you have yet to show any evidenced, peer reviewed alternative that fits the current observations any better...and neither has anyone else. Quote Look at the first post in this thread... Mainstream as hell... Not to mention . that the entire multi-verse subject is more like fiction, than actual science... Personally, I don't think I have mentioned anything about any multiverse, but yes, it is still a speculative subject. Did anyone say anything different? Remember most current models and theories started off as speculative. Quote I don't care about calculations. Show me the images captured by radiotelescopes - only then I will admit, that such objects exist in Universe. I'm tired of theoretical physics... Black holes, dark matetters, dark energies and other concepts, which are being used to "cover" all the black holes and dark mysteries in Standard Model. While BHs have now been shown beyond any reasonable argument to exist, DM is a great example of another speculative aspect that is gatherring momentum as more and more evidence supporting the DM concept comes to light. eg: https://phys.org/news/2017-12-dark-tale.html An innovative interpretation of X-ray data from a cluster of galaxies could help scientists fulfill a quest they have been on for decades: determining the nature of dark matter. The finding involves a new explanation for a set of results made with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, ESA's XMM-Newton and Hitomi, a Japanese-led X-ray telescope. If confirmed with future observations, this may represent a major step forward in understanding the nature of the mysterious, invisible substance that makes up about 85% of matter in the universe. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-12-dark-tale.html#jCp the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.01684.pdf Rudolf Peierls Centre for Theoretical Physics, University of Oxford, 1 Keble Rd., Oxford OX1 3NP, UK Hitomi observations of Perseus with the Soft X-ray Spectrometer (SXS) provide a high-resolution look at the 3.5 keV feature reported by multiple groups in the Perseus cluster. The Hitomi spectrum – which involves the sum of diffuse cluster emission and the point-like central Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN) – does not show any excess at E ∼ 3.5keV, giving an apparent inconsistency with previous observations of excess diffuse emission. We point out that 2009 Chandra data reveals a strong dip in the AGN spectrum at E = (3.54 ± 0.02)keV (cluster frame) – the identical energy to the diffuse excess observed by XMM-Newton. Scaling this dip to the 2016 AGN luminosity and adding it to the diffuse XMM-Newton excess, this predicts an overall dip in the SXS field of view of (−5.9 ± 4.4) × 10−6 ph cm−2 s −1 at E = 3.54 keV – a precise match to the Hitomi data when broadened by the dark matter virial velocity. We describe models of Fluorescent Dark Matter that can reproduce this physics, in which dark matter absorbs and then re-emits 3.5 keV photons emitted from the central AGN. DE of course is a total mystery, although many reputable professionals believe it to be the CC of Einstein fame. Edited December 23, 2017 by beecee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 23, 2017 Author Share Posted December 23, 2017 Quote Personally, I don't think I have mentioned anything about any multiverse, but yes, it is still a speculative subject. Did anyone say anything different? Remember most current models and theories started off as speculative. Well, this forum exists for people, who like to participate in a scientific discussion (at least I do). And that's what we do right now. Entire thread proposes a loose dialogue about theoretical concepts of Universe - more like philosophy, than lab science. There wouldn't be any discussion, if all would agree with eachother. Well, I'm the one, who disagrees. I prefer the plasma cosmology and magnetohydrodynamics. Instead of Einstein, I admire people like Alfven or Tsynagenko - they are for me REAL scientists. MHD is the only part of space physics, which actually works and most people didn't even heard about such thing... But I will have to create a new thread for my alternative concept of gravity... Quote Hmmmm...I'm not going to comment any further on your magnetic field obsession, other then to ask you if you are align with, or proposing that long defunct and totally debunked Plasma/Electric hypothetical? Is that your agenda? Here's a bit of your "totally debunked" plasma physics: https://mfu5.sciencesconf.org/conference/mfu5/pages/Dolag.compressed.pdf https://static.zooniverse.org/gzconf.galaxyzoo.org/posters/Nakamura.pdf https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.4521 http://www.aip.de/groups/MHD/publications/02/aa1845.pdf https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B%3AASTR.0000045019.24124.91 And I could post 20 other links. Without MHD, you won't be able even explain the spiral arms of galaxies. It's all about plasma and magnetic fields Debunked? Those are the same laws, as here: And you talk about some dark matters and black holes, while MHD explains 75% of space physics. You can literally create a MHD simulation of Universe in a bowl of water with a baterry and a magnet... Maybe that;s why I'm so obsessed with magnetism ? You just need to improve the concept of gravity and you have the entire mechanism in a single model... But science preferes to come out with fantastical theories about 11D multi-verse, instead trying to fully explain the 3D One... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 23, 2017 Author Share Posted December 23, 2017 (edited) Just look at those two links: http://exonews.org/half-the-universes-missing-matter-has-just-been-finally-found/ http://www.cita.utoronto.ca/~pfrommer/Talks/Pfrommer_review_Stanford14.pdf " by Leah Crane October 9, 2017 (newscientist.com) • For decades physicists have been searching for “dark matter” to account for half of the matter in space between galaxies that was missing from their calculations. • Two different teams of scientists have both found this missing matter, and it is contained in the filaments of gasses that link galaxies together. • The filament strands are so thin that can barely be detected. • Astrophysicists point to this as proof that their theories on how galaxies are formed are indeed authentic. • This study supports the “Pan-Magellanic Bridge” of magnetic gas that was found connect our Milky Way galaxy with our nearest neighboring galaxy. (see article: For the First Time, Astronomers Have Found A Giant ‘Magnetic Bridge’ Between Galaxies) Debunked ... Universe is a neural network, of interconnected magnetic fields. It's a goddamn brain... Science proves God - deal with it now... Edited December 23, 2017 by Unified Field -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Unified Field said: • This study supports the “Pan-Magellanic Bridge” of magnetic gas that was found connect our Milky Way galaxy with our nearest neighboring galaxy. (see article: For the First Time, Astronomers Have Found A Giant ‘Magnetic Bridge’ Between Galaxies) Science proves God - deal with it now... Ahh, the other part of the agenda now exposed! Just as I thought. The issue is that we have many hypothetical papers on many aspects of cosmology, that have never yet surpassed the BB and GR for powers of matching observational data and making successful predictions, and certainly do not invalidate DM, DE, the BB or GR.. The BB and GR still stand supreme despite the many aspects of your agenda. Perhaps its that issue that you really need to deal with. Edited December 23, 2017 by beecee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 23, 2017 Author Share Posted December 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, beecee said: Ahh, the other part of the agenda now exposed! Just as I thought. The issue is that we have many hypothetical papers on many aspects of cosmology, that have never yet surpassed the BB and GR for powers of matching observational data and making successful predictions, and certainly do not invalidate DM, DE, the BB or GR.. The BB and GR still stand supreme despite the many aspects of your agenda. Perhaps its that issue that you really need to deal with. This is why I want so much to see the images from radiotelescopes... You can support your theories with "hypothetical papers", but facts speak for themselves... There's simply no need of dark matter and black holes to hypothetically exist... I just want to see your face, when it happens. How do you think, why there's such a delay in the publication of results...? And if I'm wrong, then what? I don't have any scientific career to loose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Unified Field said: Universe is a neural network, of interconnected magnetic fields. What, just because they l’ok superficially similar? That’s not how science works, I’m afraid. 1 hour ago, Unified Field said: Science proves God That’s an impressive leap. Science works and therefore your personal idea of god exists? Why your god, why not Odin or Amaterasu? 28 minutes ago, Unified Field said: This is why I want so much to see the images from radiotelescopes... You can support your theories with "hypothetical papers", but facts speak for themselves... Being able to image the event horizon will be impressive. But I think the size and mass of the central object is already constrained such that a black hole is the only possible explanation. That is based on "facts" just as much as direct imaging would be. 28 minutes ago, Unified Field said: How do you think, why there's such a delay in the publication of results...? Because they don't have any results yet. And whatever the results are, it will be an advance for science: if it shows a black hole of the predicted size, yet more evidence supporting GR. If it shows there is nothing there at all: yay! New science. If it is much larger than expected, then that is also exciting. Edited December 23, 2017 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Unified Field said: This is why I want so much to see the images from radiotelescopes... You can support your theories with "hypothetical papers", but facts speak for themselves... There's simply no need of dark matter and black holes to hypothetically exist... I just want to see your face, when it happens. How do you think, why there's such a delay in the publication of results...? And if I'm wrong, then what? I don't have any scientific career to loose You can repeat your nonsense adinfinitum and it makes no difference to the real science and scientific models and theories that are supported by the maths and observations. Obviously as a no body on a public forum, you do not have anything to lose, and the same goes for all the up and coming young physicists that would early like to make a name for themselves and possibly win a Noble, if they could realistically over throw the present cosmological model. You see, the facts are that GR is being put to the test continually and is still passing with flying colours. I also on another forum had an Astronomer by the name of Geraint Lewis tell me that it is most likely that any future QGT will entail all that the BB does now, but obviously extending its zone of applicability. And the hypothetical papers you mentioned are simply those that still fall behind GR in the power of prediction and in many cases like the Plasma/Electric universe hypothesis, languishes in oblivion. PS: I have also read the book, "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric J Lerner, which was promoting the Electric/Plasma model and consequently also had it totally refuted and debunked, by other professionals including the previous mentioned astronomer. 3 hours ago, Unified Field said: Of course. I just wonder, what all of you would make, if there won't be anything on those images from radiotelescopes. Besides, I just love to expose all the holes in theoretical physics... In all honesty I must say that before you attempt to expose any holes in the current model, you need to be totally update with and totally knowledgable of that current model, In that regards, you failed at the first hurdle in not even knowing that gravitational waves have been now seen six times, five by colliding BH pairs and once by Neutron stars. Edited December 23, 2017 by beecee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 15 hours ago, Ben Robberecht said: 1) Black Holes and Photons. 1 a)In layman's terminology: Black Holes attract simply though gravity. Is this correct? 1 B)Gravity can ONLY be applied to ANYTHING containing mass, but NOT to anything that is massless. Is this correct? 1B is not correct. Gravity affects everything, including light. 15 hours ago, Ben Robberecht said: 2 a) Speed and mass: Basically, once the speed of light has been reached, mass would become 'indefinite'. Correct? It would, in principle become infinite, not indefinite. But that can never happen, so it is irrelevant. 15 hours ago, Ben Robberecht said: Particles are being fired at 99.999% the speed of light through these tiny pipes, but despite travelling near the speed of light, they are been kept in their track. If the above rule was fact, these would have torn a massive hole in these pipes, not to mention Earth, as the mass of these would be extremely high, TOO high to be contained as per in Cern? This is where relying purely on "logic" (by which I assume you mean something like common sense) isn't really enough. You really need to work out exactly how much the effective mass of the particles would increase by. So at 99.999% the speed of light, the mass would increase by a factor of about 224. A proton would still only weight 4 x 10-22 grams. Not really devastating. Obviously stronger fields are required to keep them on track and accelerate them. But the required strength of these is exactly as predicted by theory. 15 hours ago, Ben Robberecht said: By my approximate guess, the mass of these particles would be, say, about a few 100 times the mass of say VY Canis Majoris, if the ruling indeed was correct. Nowhere near. Guesses are just not the right way to do science. 15 hours ago, Ben Robberecht said: 2 b)Speed of light and perception: If one sees a light from a stationary point, we perceive light as just that, as per it's definition. If this was seen at the speed of light, it would be perceived as standing still. Going faster as light, would be perceived as going backwards in time. As nothing can travel at or faster than the speed of light, this thought experiment is irrelevant. But your guess that it would be seen as going back in time is just wrong. I guess this is based on Superman films, or something, rather than science. 15 hours ago, Ben Robberecht said: c)Also, if my theory about photons having mass is correct... we'd be in a universe of trouble, seeing the rule about speed of light and mass. We'd be bombed by photons having unseen, or literally INFINITE mass continuously. Which (despite the flaws in the logic) is evidence that they don't have mass. 15 hours ago, Ben Robberecht said: 3 a)I agree... from our point of perception. From what I gather, time is relative, it has no specific 'time elapse' as gravity for instance has an effect on time. This is acknowledged by all. Then... how can the absolute speed of light be... 299,792,458 mps? The fact that time is relative (depending on gravity, relative speed, etc) is a result of the fact that the speed of light is invariant. It only requires quite simple logic to show this for speed. But you don't want any theory, so I will skip it. 15 hours ago, Ben Robberecht said: Or have i missed something? Science lessons at school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, Unified Field said: Can you then tell me, how could they determine a possible source, if they still can't point out a possible direction? They can only calculate, what can it be. Could be any objects with high mass. No one knows for example what couldf happen during a collision of 2 magnetars - do you? From what I do know, they have mathematical templates that correspond to different cosmological entities that I would guess also include Magnetars. Quote I don't care about calculations. That statement alone illustrates your obvious god driven agenda. Very silly indeed. Quote Here's a bit of your "totally debunked" plasma physics: None of your links say anything about Plasma/Electric hypothetical being more accurate then GR, and yes most certainly, it was debunked at least two decades ago. Quote And I could post 20 other links. Without MHD, you won't be able even explain the spiral arms of galaxies. It's all about plasma and magnetic fields Wrong. Galactic spiral arms and their formation are generally now described as "density waves" analogous to traffic jam, in which conglomerations of stellar dust, stars etc pile up before moving on to the next spiral arm. Quote For decades physicists have been searching for “dark matter” to account for half of the matter in space between galaxies that was missing from their calculations. • Two different teams of scientists have both found this missing matter, and it is contained in the filaments of gasses that link galaxies together. • The filament strands are so thin that can barely be detected. These "rivers of gravity" have been known for a while now, and account for part of the missing mass that we label DM.... http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/02_releases/press_073102.html They do not though account for all the missing mass. Edited December 23, 2017 by beecee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 28, 2017 Author Share Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) To moderators of this forum: I'm sure, that you are aware, that you decided to close the thread about gravity, due to: Quote Moderator Note seeing as you have only reiterated your claim, without model or evidence, this is closed. Do not reintroduce the topic . just after I told, that I'm about to conduct an experiment and take some actual measurements. I already made the first attempt and guess what... ...Of course, I was right... Be sure, that after I will finish recording the results of experiment (day or two), I will make a new thread, called: "Practical experiment - using General Relativity, to prove, that Einstein was wrong" - or something of this kind. There won't be a single word about any theories - only an assumption and direct visual observation (confirmation)... I wonder, how you will deal with it - probably you will simply block my account, as this is exactly, how world of science reacts to unpleasant Truth... http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/47672-practical-experiment-test-if-general-relativity-theory-fact-correct.html#post611111 Edited December 28, 2017 by Unified Field Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 Experiment involving a rubber sheet is a test of an analogy, not a test of relativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 28, 2017 Author Share Posted December 28, 2017 1 minute ago, swansont said: Experiment involving a rubber sheet is a test of an analogy, not a test of relativity. It is being used, as a correct model of gravity, as it correctly represents this: And this is our current model of gravity... If you know any better and more correct way, to represent gravitational field, I would love to hear about it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts