BS: One for the astrophysicist

Subject: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 01:07 PM

Did the galaxies form stars or did the stars form galaxies?

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 01:24 PM

Yes.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 01:28 PM

this should be interesting.....

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 01:32 PM

Just have pete check with God & then give us the straight dope. Easy.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Will Fly
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 01:47 PM

The universe is composed of at least a billion galaxies, and each galaxy contains billions of stars.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 01:49 PM

And all of 'em only 10,000 years old.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 02:04 PM

Well didn't Stars form first so galaxies followed you/I would guess.My belief is consciousness came first which in turn formed everything.Just not consciousness as we humans currently understand it.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 03:08 PM

And all of 'em only 10,000 years old

I thought it was 6,000? Even the ones in Hubble's Extreme Deep Field image which reveals galaxies that span back 13.2 billion years in time.

Go figure.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Fergie
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 03:12 PM

Guest Time stamp: What evidence can you provide for your assertion that "consciousness came first which in turned formed everything"?

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 03:21 PM

I think consciousness is euphemism for God. I prefer my universe utterly devoid of man-made concepts like consciousness or divinity so we can marvel at things like GRAVITY which is so much more amazing than make believe. And they're still figuring it out.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 03:44 PM

I thought it was 6,000?

I was allowing God a margin of error.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 04:01 PM

Error? Heaven forfend! The date of Creation is October 23, 4004 BC. Four years older than Newton believed, seemingly...

Read all about it on WIKI.

Subject: Lyr Add: EVERYBODY (John Prine)
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 04:08 PM

EVERYBODY
Written by John Prine
As recorded by John Prine on “Diamonds in the Rough” (1972)

1. While out sailing on the ocean, while out sailing on the sea,
I bumped into the Savior and He said: “Pardon me.”
I said: "Jesus, you look tired." He said: "Jesus! So do you.
Oh, sit down, son, 'cause I got some fat to chew. See...

CHORUS: “Everybody needs somebody that they can talk to,
Someone to open up their ears and let that trouble through.
Now you don't have to sympathize or care what they may do,
But everybody needs somebody that they can talk to.”

2. Well, he spoke to me of morality, starvation, pain, and sin.
Matter of fact, the whole dang time I only got a few words in;
But I won't squawk; let 'em talk. Hell, it's been a long long time.
Any friend that's been turned down is bound to be a friend of mine. ‘Cause...CHORUS

3. Now, we sat there for an hour or two, just a-eatin' that gospel pie,
When around the bend come a terrible wind and lightning lit the sky.
He said: “So long, son; I gotta run; I appreciate you listening to me.”
And I believe I heard him sing these words as he skipped out across the sea: “Hey,… CHORUS


(Thanks, John Prine)

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 04:24 PM

Hi Fergie, remember I wrote my belief. Either later on today or soon when I have more time, I will try and explain why I lean towards what I said.Been a while since I gave it serious thinking so need time to express it cohesively.I am open to be educated if persuaded otherwise.
          @Jack--" " -I think consciousness is euphemism for God. I prefer my universe utterly devoid of man-made concepts like consciousness or divinity so we can marvel at things like GRAVITY which is so much more amazing than make believe. And they're still figuring it out." "
          I'm usually in agreement with the majority of what you post Jack,but can we keep personal notions of God out of it, or it will go tits up. Trying to define "God" gets fekin tedious quick. 8)

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 05:17 PM

current general opinion

" The "top-down" model on the origin of the galaxies says that they formed from huge gas clouds larger than the resulting galaxy. The clouds began collapsing because their internal gravity was strong enough to overcome the pressure in the cloud. If the gas cloud was slowly rotating, then the collapsing gas cloud formed most of its stars before the cloud could flatten into a disk. The result was an elliptical galaxy. If the gas cloud was rotating faster, then the collapsing gas cloud formed a disk before most of the stars were made. The result was a spiral galaxy."

Thus, 'most', if not all, stars were created after the basic galaxies assumed their shapes.

(I have watched 5-6 TV programs which say as much,)

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,henryetta
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 05:31 PM

"Did the galaxies form stars or did the stars form galaxies?"

I think the stars formed galaxies. As soon as you have two stars, they exert a gravitational pull on one another, and that's going to lead to galaxy formation, when there are enough stars.

But before you have two stars, you have one star, and that one star is the beginning was the predecessor of the galaxies.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 05:42 PM

Just a quickie, as finding it hard to get quiet time at mo due to busy house.
So Bill do we call these areas of overdensities galaxies,or do they become galaxies once stars and matter are pulled into them.You have me thinking now.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 05:50 PM

you need to know what a galaxy is first

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Rumncoke
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 06:30 PM

I think - so far, no one has managed to work out just what is going on, and how we got from the start to where we are now - the numbers are wrong for how the universe is unfolding.

I have to confess to a certain wicked satisfaction over this difficulty.

When the galaxies are studied, quantified and their velocity and acceleration calculated insufficient mass is visible to account for the way they move.
Basically, they aren't shiny enough.

\I think that galaxies have to have formed first.
At the start, everywhere and everything was all in the same place, and then there was light.
At first there wasn't light because there was nowhere for it to be, or do its thing.
Nothing could happen because there was nowhere for anything to happen, so probably time could not go either.
Then - bang - as they say, and everything was up and running away from everything else, and matter separated into smaller bits and gravity began to make the spaces between the bits larger, so there were galaxies, and then began the great dance where there was movement and meetings, and the term orbit became interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 06:40 PM

There is very little matter between the galaxies.
The galaxies are clumps of matter within and from which stars formed.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 06:57 PM

Read this Keith,as you sound so sure with your opinion,apologies if I'm reading you wrong.
       http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-are-galaxies/
          " "the Universe was composed of radiation and subatomic particles. What happened next is up for debate - did small particles slowly team up and gradually form stars, star clusters, and eventually galaxies? Or did the Universe first organize as immense clumps of matter that later subdivided into galaxies? " "
    As DMcG stated above we need to define Galaxy.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 07:47 PM

If we just go by the dictionary definition.
   " galaxy
ˈɡaləksi/

noun: galaxy; plural noun: galaxies

    a system of millions or billions of stars, together with gas and dust, held together by gravitational attraction.
    synonyms:        star system, solar system, constellation, cluster,"
      ---------
What has to be present for something to be called a galaxy ? would be a simplistic way of answering the OP.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 08:09 PM

A Galaxy.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 08:20 PM

Read this Keith,as you sound so sure with your opinion

Always is. Knows everything, and knows nowt.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 08:29 PM

"The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp


no beginning, no end? 

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 08:36 PM

The question of how dense & organized a 'clump' must be to be called a galaxy is not the crucial thing. It's like debating whether Pluto should be called a 'planet' or not. There seems to be two possible directions a clump might take as stars begin to form, as described in the link, but no experts seem to think that stars just developed in some lonely isolation, then 'got together'.
What is important to understanding the universe is how they formed and what particles were involved and where all the matter that seems to to be mathematically required, but is not evident, might "be".


And Henrietta, "I think the stars formed galaxies. As soon as you have two stars, they exert a gravitational pull on one another..."... it just don't work that way. That's the kind of 'rational guessing' that people did before we had all the data of the last 20-30 years. Particles have a small, but significant 'gravity', and they needed to coalesce into large clumpy areas BEFORE they formed the smaller clumps that became stars.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 09:48 PM

Bill Some stars do form in isolation,and stars do gravitate to one another,but I understand what your saying.Black holes exert influence too as does the universes accelerating expansion.
       I'm starting to get out my depth here, but couldn't the missing matter be stars and black holes consuming their mass.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 09:48 PM

Greg. It might help the general atmosphere here if you treated this forum and those of us who enjoy it with a little bit of respect. It is not a lot to ask, it is how decent people behave toward each other.
If there are a lot of galaxies, what is between them or are galaxies connected ?

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 09:49 PM

You're...8)

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 10:45 PM

Quite a lot is up for debate about exactly how early galaxies formed, but there is no debate about the fact that stars are still forming within galaxies.

The "original" stars that formed are mostly designated "Population II". Population II stars tend to be older, and to contain a much smaller percentage of heavy elements than Population I. Often found in galactic nuclei and globular clusters.

Population I stars are younger, and usually richer in heavy elements. The consensus is that they formed from the debris left over from nova and supernova explosions of Population II stars, which would have, by the time they went nova, have fused a fair percentage of their original hydrogen content into heavier elements.

They're still being formed now...we can observe this in certain nebulae. They tend to be found in the spiral arms or outer areas of galaxies, and it's likely that they're the only stars that would be able to support the formation of rocky planets.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 11:00 PM

Ed T: I think the "new model" is described in that link in a very simplistic way. The comment that it dispenses with the possibility of a "big crunch" is unnecessary, as the current models indicate that the universe is neither "open" nor "closed" but "flat".

This short clip goes into that at a layperson's level:

Laurence Krause Lecture Extract

It also answers to some extent HiLo's question about "what is between galaxies?". To elaborate a bit, galaxies tend to occur in clusters, and there is nothing much visible between these clusters. In fact, even within clusters, most galaxies are widely separated. But then we get into discussions on dark matter and dark energy.....

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 11:15 PM

Interestingly, one of the guys I was at university with was involved in the antarctic and other balloon flights that produced the data Krause is referencing in that clip.

I do geodesy and geophysics now, but my first degree was in astrophysics, and I still take an interest in it when I have time. IMO it's well worth looking at Lawrence (mis-spelled it above)Krause's full "Universe From Nothing" lecture if you have an interest in the subject:

Full Krause UFN Lecture

And also reading his book of the same title, which is one of the most "understandable by the lay person" books on cosmology I've ever come across.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 11:31 PM

I'm surely struggling with the correct spelling of LAWRENCE KRAUSS's name today! Been in Russia too long. Home next week, at last.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 07:25 AM

The word "form" is ambiguous. A question precise enough for science may be: "Whenever a star is initiated, does it belong to a clearly defined galaxy system until it ceases to radiate?" Answer from the above experts: not necessarily.

We should be very careful with the word "cause" and related notions such as "A formed B". They are not properties of reality, but of concepts of reality.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 10:16 AM

What's being discussed here can't be stated accurately in anything but the language of mathematics. However, physicists toss out a hypothesis and see it shot down by peer review (that's the way it's supposed to work). Then, based upon the rubble of previous thought*, new data suggests new approaches and things.

Me, I don't know yet. I would very much like to go out there and poke around and find out.


*Not all "old thought" is wrong. Newton's gravitation works well in the macro universe but fails in the quantum physics. Izzy was right and wrong; physicists, at least the good ones, recognize that.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 10:52 AM

Greg. It might help the general atmosphere here if you treated this forum and those of us who enjoy it with a little bit of respect.

Will take it under advisement, Hi, just so soon as certain individuals give facts a little bit of respect.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 11:42 AM

Mudcat Quantum Entanglement-one adversary posts, somewhere, causing a related reaction by a nemesis. While it may make a lot of theoretical sense to those involved, the logic escapes those not so engaged.

Unfortunately, if you take a peek, or even don't look, the action-reaction action does not go away, trancending the expanse of the mudcat universe.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 12:25 PM

Your obsession with Keith is childish and tedious. He does provide facts. I was just hoping you would be respectful of all those who post.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,henryetta
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 12:58 PM

Guest, thanks for the beautiful image. It certainly opens doors to new definitions of a galaxy.

Bill D, look at the big picture. I may have missed the details about sub-atomic particles, buy my post stopped the silly people who want to sneer about Bishop Ussher and brought in people who actually wish to discuss the universe.

Rob, whatcha been doing in Russia?

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 05:00 PM

@Fegie. Can't think of a way of getting into what you asked without taking the thread way off course.Tried it before in an appropriate thread but nobody could/would engage,as there is loads to consider and it is a minefield.
    I suppose I can say this though.There is a very large group of people who have experienced something regarding consciousness/awareness that they want science to address.This experience gives a perspective that reveals something about existence, they think, and my thinking heavily leans that way too.
       Here is a clip of someone trying to convey it.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV5Vptx0iJw

Apologies and carry on.8)

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 05:24 PM

Your obsession with Keith

Not so - there are others. Keith may occasionally present facts- usually ones irrelevant to the point at issue- but still has no respect for those that do not support his preconcieved notions.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 05:42 PM

I should have thought that the only way you could conjecture a universe from nothing, is to change the definition of nothing. And I see that one of the earliest comments on the Krause video makes exactly that point.                                             Can anyone point to Greg posting anything constructive ?   Put downs and mockery are not constructive !

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 06:18 PM

Did the stars form galaxies or galaxies form stars????

Neither. They were both formed by a process which
all started with the reasonably assumed Big Bang.
Stars are results, not active causes. Galaxies are
other results, and didn't "cause" anything.

Which class can be argued to have formed before the
other is irrelevant. "Predecessor" is not the same as "creator".

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 06:42 PM

Put downs and mockery are not constructive !

Nor is belief in utter nonsense.

I would offer that calling out nutters is rather more constructive than the futility of attempting to engage them in rational discourse.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 07:37 PM

Dave O : Which class can be argued to have formed before the
other is irrelevant. "Predecessor" is not the same as "creator".

Absolutely!

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 29 Jul 15 - 07:48 PM

Pete: I should have thought that the only way you could conjecture a universe from nothing, is to change the definition of nothing. And I see that one of the earliest comments on the Krause video makes exactly that point

He's not changing the definition of "nothing" at all. He means precisely what *you* would mean when he says that in a "flat" universe the total energy is zero, and that because of that the universe could actually self-generate from "nothing". He hasn't re-defined "nothing" at all. If you think he has then you're misunderstanding what he's saying.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Mr Red
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 05:17 AM

a Galaxy is (was?) what we, in the UK, call a people carrier. (Ford variety, aka Seat Alhambra, aka Volkswagen Sharran).
Which for the Milky Way we are part of, is very apposite.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 05:20 AM

There is no such thing as "a universe from nothing". Time itself is a function of the universe, as well known since Einstein's time. If the Big Bang theory holds, time starts "immediately" after it. Postulating anything "before" is as meaningless as dividing 1 by 0 (what mathematicians call a "singularity").

Spiritual ideas must be considered somewhat detached from physical time. "Eternal life" is such a concept.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 06:15 AM

Scientific theory is informed & peer reviewed conjecture; as long as theory holds, then fine but once it is overturned, out it goes. Take Dark Matter, of which it is believed 96% of the cosmos must be composed because, according to Newtonian Dynamics, it wouldn't work otherwise. No one has ever seen Dark Matter; it's existence is purely mathematical.

I was reading the other day about MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) as postulated by Modehai Milgrom which could reproduce the rotation of galaxies without dark matter*. ESA are taking this seriously enough to launch a probe this autumn to put MOND to the test...

For more see WIKI : Modified Newtonian dynamics

* Bold type lifted from BBC Focus magazine 284, August 2015 p.82

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 06:37 AM

So, what powered inflation?

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 06:45 AM

Time Stamp : but can we keep personal notions of God out of it, or it will go tits up. Trying to define "God" gets fekin tedious quick

Just spotted this. All notions of God are subjective, belonging to the realms of superstition, make-believe, folklore, religion, mythology & general bafflement. They offend when believers attempt to make them objective; to make physical reality the subject of a fictional deity when nature needs no such a personage other than in terms of metaphor : even Stephen Hawking persists in his use of the term and in science the Cosmos is often referred to as Creation which I find unfortunate given the associations with fundamentalism & fundamentalist thinking on the whole.

That said, as an Atheist I know exactly what sort of God I don't believe in : Gods of myth and patheistic religion which become the only-too-human monotheistic idiot despotic God of Christian & Abrahamic Tradition. I do not preclude the numinous from the universe, but readily concede that, in human form, I am as likely to have any conception of it as our kitchen slugs have of the Large Hadron Collider. Through science, I feel communion. In the Egyptian Book of the Dead it says Existence is for all Eternity*; someone else said Matter can neither be created or destroyed. The material Cosmos is a wonder that inspires all wonder; in the face of which the human adventure really is only just beginning. Religion is the darkness into which science shines its light.

* Spot the quote folk fans! Actually, it's inscribed in hieroglyphics on the inner bag of Robin Williamson's 1972 solo album Myrrh. Did it make it onto the CD edition? I only have the vinyl, much cherished naturally...

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 07:04 AM

"She believed in nothing. Only her scepticism kept her from being an atheist." 
― Jean-Paul Sartre

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 07:38 AM

27% dark matter, 68% dark energy, 5% normal matter.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 08:25 AM

Sorry, Keith - I was lumping Dark Energy & Dark Matter together as (from what I can gather) both would be negated if MOND is accepted (although Dark Fluid Theory says Dark Matter & Dark Energy are one and the same thing). How does it work? As Vic Reeves would say : I don't know - but it does.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 09:16 AM

Keith MUST be right! All the living historians say so.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 09:20 AM

(sigh)

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 09:31 AM

Bravo Keith! That's the most intelligent post you've mde in months, if not years.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,henryetta
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 10:41 AM

A galaxy is a group of stars held together by gravity. It can be compared to a city, held together by human behavior.

Q: Which came first, some buildings or the city?
A: The buildings.

Similarly, which came first, the galaxy or some stars? Answer is, the stars.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 01:43 PM

A galaxy is a group of stars held together by gravity. It can be compared to a city, held together by human behavior.

I'm sorry??? That's about the most facile argument that I've ever heard. It's entirely wrong. Try doing some reading before posting inane crap.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 01:55 PM

"27% dark matter, 68% dark energy, 5% normal matter."

And, a lot of "don't matter"
lol

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 05:39 PM

I think I get what you are saying, grishka, but it seems to assume that there can be nothing, and then bang, there is something. I am not a scientist, but best I can see the Big Bang theorises the impossible.   So by my reckoning, the analogy is not 1 divided by 0 , but 0 divided by 0 !          And it seems to me that anyone who thinks 0 divided,added or subtracted by 0 , believes some superstitious stuff, as do the anti theists who a-priori discount a creator God. That don't strike me as being particularly scientific.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 06:03 PM

Here's the thing folks.... we can build fancier telescopes, bigger Hadron colliders, faster super computers (new one just ordered) and play with all sorts of math & imaginative theories.... and we can thus learn more & more about what we can see and/or measure.

What we cannot do is come to any definitive conclusion about stuff we can't see, measure or find. This means that "dark matter" 'may' remain dark and never be more than a mathematical prediction. It means that multiple universes, "membranes", string theory and the big one... what came before there was anything.. may always be just interesting games.

Even IF someday there is a "theory of everything" that everyone likes and agrees with, universal agreement is not the sort of proof that science accepts. Edmund Husserl made the point that the **Philosophically prior question** is Why is there something, rather than nothing?. That is, it is the question that all philosophy reverts to if pushed far enough. This doesn't mean we know to go about answering it in any way that can't be disputed by anyone saying.."But what about THIS idea?"

We have notions of 'singularities' of 'Supreme Creators', of recurring Universes that expand & contract into ∞³... but our finite minds sometimes trick themselves into believing that once we name a concept, the concept has some sort of independent status... sort of like Plato's "forms".

We (some of us) invoke religious concepts to defend the idea that there must be a "first cause", and that it must be conscious, immortal, all-powerful...etc...all the properties that we can define as valuable, necessary, etc... that WE can name and conceive of. *shrug*... maybe... but 'it' has very little to say about the issue.

It's interesting to play with ideas... and more--or less--- interesting to observe, measure and create 'stuff'. It's also important to keep some perspective about which we are doing, and the limits of each.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 06:16 PM

42.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 31 Jul 15 - 04:11 PM

Well bill, that certainly seems a whole lot dogmatic than what krauss suggests.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Jul 15 - 06:36 PM

I am only dogmatic about exaggerations and careless logic & reasoning. I don't KNOW what all the answers are... but I am kinda dogmatic about my opinion that no one else does, either. ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,henryetta
Date: 01 Aug 15 - 09:23 AM

"inane crap"

Unnamed Guest, you're over the top, or else you've scraped bottom. Next time, try a little charm, and perhaps you'll acquire some beauty.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Aug 15 - 12:18 PM

henryetta... "guest" was impolite, but if its post had ended at " It's entirely wrong. ", would you have felt better? And would you have explained or defended your assertion?

We need to discuss the facts, not politeness and/or attitudes.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Aug 15 - 05:39 PM

" impolite" , bill ,IMO ,is putting it politely !

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Aug 15 - 08:08 AM

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: EBarnacle
Date: 02 Aug 15 - 02:57 PM

I find it interesting that although people have been discussing gravity, the Big Bang, nebulae, etc. no one has mentioned turbulence. If the level of energy were flat, there would be no movement to encourage gravity to not only pull things together but to impart motion in other than linear directions.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,henryetta
Date: 02 Aug 15 - 03:33 PM

Actually, I think my post about galaxies and cities was right. We don't have time to write a whole book here, ya know.   

Guest is frustrated because my post took a little independent thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 15 - 04:03 PM

Henretta,
A galaxy is a group of stars held together by gravity.

A galaxy is more than just stars.
If you swirled up a mass of hydrogen but somehow prevented stars forming in it, you would still have a galaxy.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Aug 15 - 04:53 PM

.....though it would be dark until lit up by stars.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Aug 15 - 10:09 AM

From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 02:04 PM

"Well didn't Stars form first so galaxies followed you/I would guess.My belief is consciousness came first which in turn formed everything.Just not consciousness as we humans currently understand it."


From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 04:24 PM

". . . can we keep personal notions of God out of it, or it will go tits up. Trying to define "God" gets fekin tedious quick. 8)"

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Aug 15 - 10:17 AM

Which stars and which galaxies? Our own sun for instance is younger than our own galaxy, it is a Population I star (paradoxically one of the younger ones). It is a star which was formed out of a "solar nebula" already enriched with heavy elements (metals to an astrophysicist, for whom a metal is anything which is not Hydrogen or Helium). Its not a coincidence that we orbit one of the rarer Population I stars, as the elements with which they are enriched include all of those of which rocky planets are made, and all of those (bar Hydrogen) necessary for life.

It is likely that there were stars around before our galaxy was formed. All stars that we have analysed in our galaxy contain some heavy elements, even the older Population II stars. As far as we know these elements are only formed in stars, so there must have been an earlier generation of Population III stars, probably before any galaxies as we know them were formed.

Majority consensus is that the formation of galaxies is "bottom-up" rather than "top down". And the first things to form are dark matter halos, which form in small units and them merge to form larger ones. Gas accumulates in these dark matter halos forming stars and then small units (maybe like dwarf galaxies) which them merge to form larger ones. These bottom-up models are very good at explaining the spatial distribution of galaxies, less so their individual nature.

Having said that, there are a substantial minority of astrophysicists who would favour a different model, such as a top-down model which does explain better some of the properties of galaxies (for instance the concentration of heavy elements in their centres). And there are some as Jack Blandiver pointed out who would reject the need for dark matter altogether, preferring instead modifications (of which Milgrom's is the best known) to the theory of gravity.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Pete frown seven stars link
Date: 03 Aug 15 - 11:42 AM

My grasp on all that is a bit tenuous , Dave . But I don't suppose there is so much variety of opinions as to established experimentally verified theories like gravity, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Aug 15 - 12:11 PM

established experimentally verified theories

And like evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Aug 15 - 01:04 PM

Pete,

Its quite easy to verify gravity (the inverse square law, which goes back to Newton and Hooke of course) on familiar length scales, and at familiar accelerations. Such was done by Henry Cavendish in the early 19th century, and he (probably) measured the universal constant of gravitation, G. Also Newton's model explains very well motions on larger scales, such as the motions of the planets. Or nearly. It was found in the 19th century that the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. Einstein's theory of General Relativity modifies Newtonian gravity at high accelerations (thats a bit of an oversimplification) and it models the precession of the perihelion of Mercury very well. And predicts some other things later verified by experiment such as the gravitational deflection of light (those photos of gravitational lenses that the Hubble Space Telescope produces).

So thats all very well, but what about the limit of low accelerations? Low accelerations mean large distances, so here you can't make experimental verification on earth, or even on the Solar System (though there is the Pioneer anomaly). But if you look at the motions of galaxies in clusters of galaxies, then Newton's laws clearly don't explain these, unless you postulate a large amount of hidden mass. Dark matter, which we have never detected directly, despite a variety of very expensive experiments to do so. So either there is dark matter or there is a modification to Newton's laws in the low acceleration limit, hence there is a variety of opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Aug 15 - 01:08 PM

Its no just clusters of galaxies of course, its the rotation of spiral galaxies, the motions of stars in the outer parts of our own galaxy, and a few other things. Historically the problem was discovered in clusters of galaxies by Fritz Zwicky.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 03 Aug 15 - 01:24 PM

From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 02:04 PM

"Well didn't Stars form first so galaxies followed you/I would guess.My belief is consciousness came first which in turn formed everything.Just not consciousness as we humans currently understand it."


From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 28 Jul 15 - 04:24 PM

". . . can we keep personal notions of God out of it, or it will go tits up. Trying to define "God" gets fekin tedious quick. 8)" "

       Guest10:09 AM, I know you think you have made a point,and I can understand why you think that.But ... when I say consciousness I don't mean God.I do though understand why people would think it is the source or God of their culture when experienced in its purest form.
   Imo and a lot of others now and through the ages, for valid reasons, think/thought that if we can just get a better grasp/understanding on consciousness mankind will make a big leap in both science and our nature (what it is to be a human being).At the moment we live stunted half lives.
   Back to the OP,I'll say again when I say I think consciousness is the source of evolution, the universe,the all, I don't mean God as I've ever seen written. Attaching human qualities to what I'm talking about should be resigned to the past.
   If you want to expand further guest, start a thread.8)

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Aug 15 - 01:40 PM

Time Stamp,

That is absolutely not back to the OP, the OP asked a reasonable question which I have attempted to answer, but in that answer I have to highlight disagreements. The OP did not once mention either consciousness or God, only stars and galaxies. Goodness knows how young earth creationism came into this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 03 Aug 15 - 01:47 PM

Goodness knows how young earth creationism came into this thread."
   That's nothing to do with me.You're obviously not quite understanding.That said you do have a point though I suppose,and not too fussed about challenging it.I'm done carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Aug 15 - 02:04 PM

Keith A says:

"There is very little matter between the galaxies.
The galaxies are clumps of matter within and from which stars formed."

Surprisingly, this isn't right. Even if you ignore the putative dark matter, if you look at a cluster of galaxies, there is about 6 times as much mass in hot gas (mainly hydrogen and helium, but also rather surprisingly including heavier elements) between the galaxies as there is in the stars in the galaxies themselves. We know this because the gas is hot and emits X-rays, which can be observed by X-ray satellites. But its only been known since about the 1980s.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Aug 15 - 03:53 PM

Thanks Dave, but I found this on the Hubble site,
"I wrote above that the space between galaxies is mostly empty because it depends on where one looks. Along the filaments and nodes of the cosmic web, there is some normal matter and dark matter, but at much lower density than in galaxies. In the voids, there is only extremely low density material."

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 03 Aug 15 - 04:46 PM

Goodness knows how young earth creationism came into this thread.

Might have been me. Did I point out that Newton believed the Cosmos to be around 10,000 years old? Of course he was operating within the limits and conventions of his time,the sort if thing that passed as learning rather than the entreated idiocy of young earth creationism of our present time.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 05:01 AM

Ok, Keith, the slight issue there is that because any material in filaments and nodes will be cold, it is very hard to detect. In clusters of galaxies it is hot and we do detect it. Where this statement comes from is simulations of the universe (such as the Millenium simulation, though as you can tell from its name its not the most recent project here). In the simulations run on computers, which reproduce very well the distribution of galaxies, though less well their properties, there is very little matter between the filaments. In the real universe it can't be measured because any such material will be cold and unobservable. If its molecular hydrogen especially.

So this statement may be right, but its not verified by observation. In clusters of galaxies we know there is lots of gas, although still at a lower density than in galaxies. But the volume is much higher, and the total mass is greater.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 09:34 AM

Ok, Keith, there is the Warm-Hot Intergalactic medium (WHIM), I don't know much about this but have been looking it up. This is gas at maybe 100,000 degrees (not as hot as that in clusters of galaxies). It can be found in X-rays by a satellite such as Chandra, or detected by its absorption of light from quasars behind it (by the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph on Hubble). I am not up with this stuff, but will read up more, but it seems to be that it makes up maybe half or more of the non-dark matter in the universe. There was a big press release from Chandra about 4 years ago saying that they had found loads of it.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 03:15 PM

Thanks Dave, that is really interesting.
I know stars are often thrown out of galaxies. Could a star actually form in that medium or is it too rarefied?

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 04:39 PM

the " idiocity " to which the fount of all knowledge alludes to, certainly was believed by newton , but there is quite a long list of scientists of the current day who also are creationists , and to call such accomplished people idiots, only serves to demonstrate the scientifically closed minds of those calling them idiots. and if certain parties will desist from such jibes, I wont feel the need to call them on it.    meanwhile, thankyou dave for your post. admittedly too tech for me, though I did know that Einstein improved on newton theory. but , I presume that this does not relegate the theory of gravity to non experimentally verified science. ie, it is not generally argued and debated about, as competing cosmology/astrophysics theories are.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 04:44 PM

Stars are thrown out of galaxies yes, mostly by tidal forces when galaxies pass close to each other. Gas is thrown out of galaxies by "galactic winds", driven by heating of the gas by supernovae. Also, if there is gas there anyway, and a galaxy runs into it quite fast, more is stripped out (gas is sticky, stars are small so mostly pass straight through). But, here is the interesting thing, the gas in clusters of galaxies has lots of heavy elements, and these are only made in stars, so a lot of that gas must have been in stars at some time, and therefore in galaxies).

I don't think stars form in the rarified medium between galaxies, the gas is too rarified and too hot (stars form mostly out of gas which we would call "cold", though its a few hundred degrees). There are stars there, although we can't see a star at those distances even with Hubble, we can see a planetary nebula, which forms at the end of the life of a star, and there are some numbers of these between the galaxies. But I think people believe that they have been thrown out of galaxies by tidal forces.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 05:31 PM

Pete,

I really don't think that there is a long list of scientists who are creationists, though there is a much longer list who are Christians. A.S. Eddington for instance, and later people like C.A. Coulson, John Polkinghorne, John Barrow, Jocelyn Bell-Burnell, George Ellis, Charles Townes. Of course the Vatican runs its own observatory, and the Jesuit order has many prominent scientists. But I can't think of a credible figure, at least in the physical sciences who is a young earth creationist.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 05:58 AM

only serves to demonstrate the scientifically closed minds of those calling them idiots

The term I used was idiocy, Pete - but if the cap fits...

Atheism and Secularism are hard won freedoms that do not demonstrate closed-mindedness. On the contrary - they are a means of transcending the dark superstitions of the past and turning our faces into the light of knowledge that will guide our species into the future. Sadly, the transition isn't painless, but we may take heart that whilst the religious impulse has manifest itself in countless thousands of contradictory ways down the aeons (of which Xtianity is but ONE), there is only one Cosmos, and one Science with which we might come to understand it.

Sure, it's an ongoing process; and sure Newton held some crazy ideas (didn't he spend much of his time mad with mercury poisoning as a result of his alchemical endeavours?), but he gave us our fundamental understanding of gravity which underpins everything. That said, whilst we can understand gravity in terms of Newtonian Dynamics and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, actually saying what it IS is proving totally elusive. Here we have this fundamental cosmic force of which were all subjects, barely aware of it because it's quite literally the only medium we know - we can measure it, predict it, watch it smashing our coffee cups to the floor or else use it to fling our spaceships to the outer reaches of the Oort Cloud* and yet no one really knows what it is. The nature of cosmic / natural reality is ultimately one of mystery and wonder that inspires a transcendent notion of numinosity that is utterly and empirically Godless. Furthernore, it is totally objective and inclusive of each and every one of us; crucially, it is true whether we choose to believe in it or not, and, most importantly, no one is going to spend eternity being tormented by sadistic demons if they choose not to.

* A theoretical region of the outer solar system which no one has seen; so vast that even flying at 11 miles every second Voyager 1 won't clear it for another 28,000 years. And all held in place by the sun's gravity.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 06:42 AM

Jack says:

"there is only one Cosmos, and one Science with which we might come to understand it."

Sorry, we don't even know this much. Both in science (the Multiverse hypothesis, brane-worlds) and in religious thought (for instance Hindu
thought) there are those who argue for multiple cosmoses.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 07:21 AM

Why sorry, Dave? It's all part of the same cosmos - complex layers of fluid theoretical thinking inspired by natural reality as revealed to us by science. All is one and one is all, as vast and baffling as that might be. The fact that we can speculate on such things is proof enough of that. To nab a WIKIquote from Feynman:

Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected. … The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth".

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 09:43 AM

Meanwhile, here on Earth 

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 12:28 PM

Pete... for about the 10th time... regarding this:

"...but there is quite a long list of scientists of the current day who also are creationists ,..."

They may be good at their basic job IN science, but when they make assertions about religious beliefs that affect their conclusions, they are no longer DOING science! Science, in order to be called science, must follow where evidence leads. If you reject evidence because it doesn't agree with 'some' interpretations of 'some' versions of 'some' religious documents, you are doing theology...not science. Doing so requires very awkward distortion of how data is understood.

IF a god "made everything", all science is trying to do it follow the details of the process... and many fine Christian scientists do just that while standing in awe of 'his' creativity. This does NOT require cramming all history into 6000-10,000 years.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars Link
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 03:32 PM

Well Dave , certainly there are less than those who subscribe to the ruling paradigm. But of course the ruling paradigm has been wrong enough times before. I do know that the list includes just about every discipline, including the one under discussion here. John hartnett and Danny Faulkner are two of which are qualified in this field. I presume they are " creditable" unless they a priori don't qualify by virtue of being creationists !.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 03:47 PM

"Doubt everything or believe everything: these are two equally convenient strategies. With either we dispense with the need for reflection." - Henri Poincare 

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 03:55 PM

one thing I can say about you jack, is you sure is eloquent. I also think you read like a religious mystic, with all your talk of wonder and mystery. and I wonder, if you have considered that given that you are thus conceding limits to even your knowledge , being such a hardline atheist is inconsistent , since despite the mystery you discount a creator.   even dawkins inserts a ...probably...to his no.
interesting sideline about newtons other theories now discounted, but we were not talking about them. " muddying the waters" is the term that comes to mind. and I should add, that , though a theory may not be fully explained, as you so very eloquently alluded to gravity, it can be [and in this is] verified by experimental, testable, repeatable ,observational science, and thus there is little debate about its verity. then there is the theoretical, you concede, oort cloud. correct me if wrong but since this is not observed it was introduced only to fill the holes in the theory.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 04:06 PM

. . .Oort cloud. correct me if wrong but since this is not observed it was introduced only to fill the holes in the theory.

Sort of like phlogiston?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 04:06 PM

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." - Bertrand Russell 

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 04:08 PM

101 ?
and bill, also for the whatever time.....
it is all very well saying that creationists are not accepting the evidence, but unless you can present said evidence, there is no evidence up for discussion. and of course, all those evolutionist scientists may be doing good science in their basic job of SCIENCE , but when their evolutionary faith gets in the way......
and if you want to follow the evidence where it leads, I concede that the YEC position cannot be conclusively proved, but I am sure the eons claimed by evolutionists are seriously challenged by the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 10:18 PM

And what evidence is that, pete?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 03:30 AM

Well I had never heard of Hartnett or Faulkner, so I looked them up on NASA ADS. Hartnett has done some nice work with Tobar on crystal oscillators, and some papers on Carmeli's metric. Faulkner is harder as its a more common name, but he seems to be someone who works on eclipsing binaries. But they both seem to be people with about 20 papers and about 200 citations. But lets face it, and not wishing to be unkind, not people at the top of the profession.

Martin Gaskell is closer, but he insists that although he is a fundamentalist in other respects, he is not a creationist.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 03:35 AM

Not been following previous threads, don ?                   There are plenty of evidences, but I have just used the ones I can get my head around.    For example, the many cases of preservation of soft tissue that should not be there under measured rates of decay. Same for reported DNA persisting past it's sale by date. That will do for starters. So , in return, what evidence you got for evolutionism ?. Darwin had conceded that his own ideas were not the only interpretation of the data. Has anything changed ?

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 07:47 AM

Pete,

Not going to get dragged into this, I have had my arguments with creationists in the past and I have them in the family, and I know well that you can refute every single argument but it will never satisfy them. The vast, vast majority of scientists think it is rubbish. The vast, vast majority of Christians think it is rubbish, I don't know so much about other religions (particularly Islam) but probably they do too. Every mainstream church thinks it is rubbish. Darwin's (and Wallace's) ideas, like Newton's, were ground breaking but no scientific hypothesis is ever the last word, and other ideas have been put forward (for instance by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge). But to say that because of these ideas you question the whole premise of evolution is as stupid as saying that because Einstein's ideas modify Newtonian gravity you don't have to worry about jumping off a cliff.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 11:56 AM

You have a funny way of not getting drawn into it , dave.
so to answer your points, and you can choose if you want to come back on it or not.....
it is irrelevant how many people believe it, unless it can be demonstrated to be the only interpretation of the data. science would be severely stunted if we had been satisfied with a theory just because most people believe it.
whether a scientist is at the very top of his profession or not is not the crucial point.   but , they are up far enough not to be discredited. the arguments validity is paramount.
the scientific and logical challenge to evolutionism is not framed on what we don't know primarily, but on what we do know.
and, it seems to me, your jumping off a cliff analogy seems irrelevant to the argument.    jumping off cliffs is experimentally verified as likely to be fatal!. there is nothing experimentally verified about the general theory of evolution, so I feel like I am on safe ground in questioning it.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 01:58 PM

challenge to evolutionism is not framed on what we don't know primarily, but on what we do know.

Well, pete: You may believe a lot of nonsense, but you don't KNOW shit.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 01:59 PM

The scientific method is that you make a hypothesis with falsifiable predictions, and then other set out to test these predictions. Biology isn't my subject, but standard cosmology may be subject to variations of detail (like whether there is dark matter or not), and the idea that the universe is only 6000 years old if falsiifed by numerous experimental observations, ages of the stars, redshifts of the galaxies, radioactive decay, plate tectonics, a very long list. Its a non-starter. I also don't see why people would need it. Even the theology is pretty dodgy.

Evolution, maybe modified by punctuated equilibrium is established.

Big bang cosmology, maybe with dark matter, maybe with out, is established.

Stellar nucleosynthesis, and the timescales involved in that, is established.

Plate tectonics, and the age of the Earth (to with maybe 10% accuracy) is established.

And I havn't even seen that your stated creationist scientists have argued against any of these things, at least not in anything indexed by the NASA Astrophysics Database. And I did look.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 04:19 PM

I also think you read like a religious mystic, with all your talk of wonder and mystery. and I wonder, if you have considered that given that you are thus conceding limits to even your knowledge , being such a hardline atheist is inconsistent , since despite the mystery you discount a creator.

In the Beginning... there was, and is, and always will be, HUMAN SPIRITUALITY - which is common to each and everyone of us & defines our very Humanity. It's there in our sense of Beauty, Awe, Mystery, Awe, Joy, Love, Sorrow, Numinosity, Empathy, Togetherness, Ethics, Wonder and Ecstasy. All these things precede and transcend religion; they exist without any need of either God or the Supernatural. Indeed, religion exists solely to exploit them, much as pornography exists to exploit our sexuality. Ergo - Religion is spiritual porn.

We began, however so many thousands of years ago, with poetic metaphors for a cosmos we weren't at all equipped to understand, a cosmos of which we a part and yet, of a sudden, by dint of language, art, cognition, culture & aforementioned spirituality, apart. Thus we started making things up. We told stories and personified Nature in terms of what was benevolent or malevolent to our interests. We made metaphors and created allegories. The roots of the GOD CONCEPT is in POETIC ALLEGORY MADE UP BY HUMAN BEINGS IN TIMES WHEN WE KNEW NO BETTER. All great fun, but RELIGION came along, gathered up all these things and took them LITERALLY.

So, as well as being spiritual porn, religion is a spiritual void. Believing in a creator is to discount all cosmic mystery. The more science reveals, the more mysterious and wondrous and awesome it gets. Simple and elegant and perfectly GODLESS.

Enough said.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 07:33 PM

The bottom line, we sort of know quite a few things, and there are a lot of interesting speculaions about the stuff we don't know. But there is far more stuff we don't begin to know or even begin to know we don't know.

Which I suppose is why it's all so interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 08:02 PM

Dave, seems to me from my reading that saying that standard cosmology may be subject to variations of detail, is somewhat an understatement. Apart from the unobservable dark matter, dark energy and Oort Cloud , I think predictions made have often been falsified by new discoveries.   Starlight in a younger universe is of course a favourite objection. However there are various suggested solutions, including ..starlight, time and the new physics...by dr john hartnett , complete with mystifying equations at the end !.   As I understand it, you have your own light travel problem, ie the horizon problem. I am not a scientist , but thankfully there are the simpler arguments.....which incidentally seem to have been sidestepped. I know a bit more theology though, so if you care to say why the theology is dodgy....?       Yes I know those things are established , some like plate tectonics by observational science, but evolutionism, whether by gradualism or jerks is only established in the sense of being the ruling paradigm.   THAT , truly is a non starter. 0 by 0 = 0 however you do the sum.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 09:17 PM

Say goodnight to the folks, Gracie.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 09:41 PM

but evolutionism, whether by gradualism or jerks

No such thing as "evolutionism", jerk.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 05:30 AM

Where Pete are the peer-reviewed publications by Dr. John Hartnett or anyone else proposing these ideas? If I knew what his mystifying equations were I could see whether they made sense.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 11:31 AM

Last night I spent a bit of spare time getting up to speed on this because it interested me and to confirm the sense Dave was making.I was taught Stars appeared first then after a shed load of time galaxies formed and that a collection of Stars was a galaxy.The word galaxy was implied to have a certain definition ie a cluster of Stars. In Henriettas defence I would imagine that's what the majority would assume without specifically researching it.Anyway a post of Dave.O/Dave (can't remember which one) has cleared up the OP's question (for me) so onto the thread drift 8)
            Religion,Spirituality whatever you want to call it needs science to keep it honest and relevant.If Religion is just a set of moral laws to live by then it should be relegated to the status of similar like AA or BoyScouts, current Masonry etc. If it is trying to deliver something else, then this something needs to be properly investigated and put under scrutiny.You see this thing that Religion is supposed to deliver becomes something else once spoken about.Science could one day explain most of what's occurring and give it more relevancy. It's not too much of a leap to see that at their heart Science and Spirituality are just parallel paths (up to a point) and both need to recognise this. Religion should not fear Science, most rational people don't. Science has got a lot wrong and will keep getting things wrong, but at least it looks to recognise its errors and evolves as more is understood and tested. I personally hope these great Religions get relevant as my worry is they will vanish and for me that would be a loss. Unfortunately in their current form most aren't much use and a mass of contradictions especially when voiced by some of their practitioners.
             Science needs Spirituality. Many reputable Scientists have now come to the conclusion that empirical evidence from the 5 senses is limited and another perspective is needed for us to progress.I'm not going to list them because it's a mighty list,but most of our " geniuses " in science have experienced different states of awareness that brought the disciplines of science on in leaps down through the ages. Both Science and spirituality are the search for truth. One is the search for truth in the physical world, the other the search for the truth of the nature of consciousness.There should be no conflict and one day in our future when science has mapped consciousness to the extent it has space,time and matter we will be in better shape, and the two approaches will be reconciled some.
             I can never get interested in the young Earth debate as it's pointless imo, but the how can something come from nothing question has always fascinated me.I currently think there has never has been "nothing" there has always been something .. but what is nothing.These folks here in this link explore nothing.I watched this a while back and just going to watch it again.
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OLz6uUuMp8

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 11:34 AM

" I currently think there never has been "nothing" 8)

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 05:18 PM

well dave, these papers are peer reviewed....but not by the mainstream committed to evolutionism review bodies , who would discount them a priori.    however, as you mentioned yourself, creationists have done work in your department. dr russel Humphreys made scientific predictions in 1984 which were validated when messenger flew by mercury in 2008. he states that these predictions were from a calculation assuming a 6000 yr old universe.
mercurys magnetic field is young! creation.com

its encouraging, timestamp, that you recognize the importance of the spiritual. the YEC debate may seem pointless to you , but I beg to differ, and see it rather as a conflict of paradigms..
what God has revealed vs mens unproven opinions..
and such questions have a bearing on the here and now, as well as the hereafter , as far as the my Christian faith is concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 06:16 PM

Pete I'm a Christian too, figure that one out.J.C if he did exist which I think he did,was a spiritually enlightened man.What he achieved we all can.I'm not going to debate you, like I wouldn't my Mother who has the same view as you I would guess,just she never voices it.If like her you gain fulfillment from it you are free to believe what you like for me.We will just have to agree to differ.
          PS If the Buddha and Christ were swapped and lived each others lives you would now be a Buddhist and the Buddhists would be Christians.They were both of their culture and could only operate within certain parameters dictated by their time and culture.Just so as you get where I'm coming from.GL

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 06:43 AM

right timestamp, I see where you are coming from , however, those certain parameters have not been absolute, and many people have changed. who knows, maybe your mums prayers for you will be answered one day !. nice to chat to you.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 04:38 PM

Mercury's magnetic field is young?

And how, exactly, do you date a magnetic field?

You can measure the field strength of a magnetic field, but there is no way you can date how long it has been in existence.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 05:00 PM

Don,

The magnetic field leaves an imprint in the rocks on the planet's surface. The NASA spacecraft Mercury Messenger as its orbit decayed was actually in low Mercury orbit, and could measure the residual motion in the rocks of the planet's crust. The conclusion is that the magnetic field is actually older than had been previously thought, about 3.7 billion years old. In 2017 the European Space Agency will launch a probe, BepiColumbo, which will make more precise measurements and will measure more precisely the age and strength of the magnetic field, which, like that of Earth, results from the dynamo effect of the iron core of the planet. But its 3.7 billion years old, to within 10%.

http://earthsky.org/space/an-ancient-magnetic-field-on-mercury

The idea that its less than 6000 years old is pure nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 05:04 PM

Sorry I hope that was the spellchecker not me, but that should read "residual magnetism in the rocks of the planet's crust", not "motion".

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 06:00 PM

One for the astrophysicist
two for the show

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 06:01 PM

Agreed on the magnetic field "dating" - it also helps determine directionality in continental drift on Earth over time. Billions of years.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 06:37 PM

Thanks for that, Dave. I was forgetting certain aspects of geology (which, of course, apply to planets other than earth as well).

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 07:53 AM

If the Buddha and Christ were swapped and lived each others lives you would now be a Buddhist and the Buddhists would be Christians.They were both of their culture and could only operate within certain parameters dictated by their time and culture.

The essential difference between Eastern & Western philosophy is that whilst The Buddha attains enlightenment by sitting peaceably beneath a tree, Christ does so in the tortured agonies of being nailed to one. In the East they talk of Yin and Yang, the unnameable Tao and Complimentariness; in the West its all good & evil, sin, and the oppositions of heaven and hell.

Maybe it's got something to do with the weather...

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 08:50 AM

Buddhish is not a traditional religion with a creator deity:

"Gautama Buddha rejected the existence of a creator deity,refused to endorse many views on creation and stated that questions on the origin of the world are not ultimately useful for ending suffering."

Wiki

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 08:51 AM

The Buddha attains enlightenment by sitting peaceably beneath a tree.
Christ and Christians do so in quiet prayer.

The crucifixion was about something else.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 08:53 AM

The Buddha attains enlightenment by sitting peaceably beneath a tree, Christ does so in the tortured agonies of being nailed to one." "
    Both statements are wrong Jack. Footy calls, but if you do want to get into it I would,despite my better judgment. First what is enlightenment, secondly how is it achieved. I seriously doubt you're that interested, which in turn makes me struggle to discuss it. 8)

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 08:56 AM

Christ prays does he?

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 09:31 AM

Yes ". Guest " , Romans 8 vs 34.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 09:51 AM

Romans 8:34New International Version (NIV)

Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

Where does it say "pray". To intercede is to act as an intermediary, to arbitrate, moderate or conciliate.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 09:58 AM

Pete, I think you would do better with Gethsemene

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,donuel
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 11:33 AM

Regarding the initial question; stars have always been formed with or without a nearby galaxy in a region of high density hydrogen gas in conditions of near zero energy we simply call mind numbing cold.

It is cool to see how such extreme cold will lead to extreme heat of an eventual star by gravity doing its slow and inexorable power.

As for astrophysicists, their job is to measure as much as they are ale to understand the nature of the changing universe.
Once they can no longer measure qualities of the universe that do not interact in measurable ways the cosmologist is better suited with the knowledge of the measurers to flesh out the unseen unmeasurable universe.

the evolution of the universe offers clues to the unseen cosmos and predicts what may be next.

Thread drift into the creationist viewpoint I view as answers for the least curious, least wondrous AND lazy, yet still valid to the point that the unseen does exist and poses forces greater than our 3D CORNER OF THE UNIVERSE.

I am glad this discussion has flowered despite my previous attempts to spur the fascination of how close we are to immense understanding thanks to the efforts of the measurers throughout the millennia and especial the 100 years.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 11:36 AM

Time Stamp said: " Science needs Spirituality"

No... some people need various forms of Spirituality to help them cope with the vagaries of life. Spirituality seems to have no one really explicit form, but is merely a generic way to express our wondering about the "why" of existence.
Science is concerned more with "how", and mixing Spirituality into its process leads to confusion and distortion about supposedly 'scientific' inquiry.
It is possible for a person to be both scientific and spiritual, but it works far better if they keep the two concerns separated and do not use either one to justify or explain the other.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 11:54 AM

Hey Bill, The multi disciplinary approach to cosmology needs philosophers like yourself along with mathematicians, science fiction speculators, astrophysicists, new quantum physicists, geometric scientists, common but uniquely insightful people and cosmologists with an open mind.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 12:08 PM

Donuel,

About 10-20 degrees Kelvin. And the cloud heats up by two processes, as it collapses under its own gravity, potential energy is converted to kinetic energy (energy of motion), and then to thermal energy, and to start with the energy is radiated away, but then the density increases and the cloud heats up, and when it has heated up enough nuclear fusion stars, and it becomes a star.

Complicating all this are things like turbulence and magnetism, which result in scary equations which can really only be solved by big, fierce computers. Here my knowledge runs out.

As to whether stars can form outside a galaxy, that may be so, and probably must have been so in the distant past, but as far as I know its not been observed. Its quite difficult to do so, due to us living in the middle of one, regions outside galaxies are far away and often obscured.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 12:27 PM

HiLo

Hello


All galaxies are connected.

What connects them is what current scientists call filaments of dark matter and black holes. The universe looks like a close up picture of a sponge where there are strands and interactions of material made of galaxies and black holes.

It looks very organic !


On a very high level I will tell you that we are the leaves of a tree, while the unseen universe composes the branches of this "tree".
Explaining this is a very lengthy task that I hesitate to do, not out of rudeness, but only the confines of time.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 12:43 PM

Dark matter yes (although see caveats above), black holes no. Black holes that we know about are either created at the end of the life of massive stars, or they are in the centres of galaxies where they grow by swallowing stars. Primordial black holes are unlikely, if they were very small they would evaporate, or if larger at least be detected, owing to Hawking radiation. If there were lots of them then the Fermi gamma-ray satellite would have seen them by now.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 12:45 PM

My nephew is an astrophysicist, currently doing his PhD. I'll ask him. Nice to see all the usual suspects spouting all the usual bollocks. Must mean all is well with the world. Hopefully the weather will stay fine as well :-)

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 12:54 PM

Dave, you are a kindred spirit.
You uniquely know the problem of over simplification on one hand and getting lost in minutia on the other.

Certainly early on in the universe it is fair to say most stars were born independently and later on as galaxies grew abundant most star birth regions lie within galaxies.


By way of introduction to another view of our acceleration universe,
the accelerating formation of black holes and their influence on the dimensions of space is a reveaaling field of research, and yes I intentionally pluralized the word space.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 01:35 PM

Deliberately not getting involved in the weather thread DtG.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 01:41 PM

Both statements are wrong Jack

Both are cherished episodes of transcendence from material concerns in their respective mythic traditions and are, therefore, analogous as far as those traditions can be analogous. It was you who drew the comparison - I was just pointing out how very different they actually are.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 06:42 PM

Jack--"" Both are cherished episodes of transcendence from material concerns in their respective mythic traditions and are, therefore, analogous as far as those traditions can be analogous. It was you who drew the comparison - I was just pointing out how very different they actually are." "

Here I will try get you up to speed and as easy to understand as I can. What you typed there is irrelevant,not trying to be a smart arse just we could get bogged down.
                "Spiritual" Enlightenment is when a human being experiences pure consciousness. When experienced all realise that consciousness is not quite how most of us think it is. I'm getting no more descriptive than that except to say it feels like home. It is so familiar that it feels more like rediscovery than discovery.Are we born in this state ? I dont know.
                  To experience this the bodies of Christ or Buddha will of gone through a physical process. The physical process has been mapped to some degree and labelled kundalini. I'm going to give you a link but ignore the terminology they use like "Spirituality" and words like Chakra,as they have baggage, what you have to do is see past this. Dispassionately look to the process mapped. People go through this process without knowing about "Chakras" or being spiritual. Far healthier imo is to view it as the intelligence of the body,but this deep intelligence is stopped from happening because of our conscious thought. Your conscious thought needs to be stilled long enough for your body to do its thing. It is very subtle when it starts most of the time but gets very unsubtle as it progresses . Part through it, the brain starts to resonate (for the want of a better term) differently and it is quite intense. When you have reached this state visions,demons,angels,aliens,leprechauns, fairies etc is imagined and a host of other phenomena.This is a truly fascinating state but you can't indulge it as after a period of time all this delusion stops. I and many others think this is us navigating our subconscious and a lot of it is culturally implanted. Once you and the intelligence that is your subconscious has been navigated/ stilled your brain kicks up another level and you see reality and it is experienced as Heaven,Nirvana,Bliss etc..enlightenment.
                  The period of delusion experienced has gotten mixed up in a lot of religions which hasn't always been helpfull to us.There is no one right way,many tribes and people have had no religion,there are many paths grasshopper 8) Wasn't it you who posted that you had started tai chi the last time I was reading here... a few months back. If I'm mistaken well never mind,but if I'm right google Tai Chi and enlightenment. Tai Chi seems a very gentle healthy way of exploring this. Warning though sometimes it can be a long drawn out affair that can be a serious problem for a while.
                Your probably going to think this a crock of shite but remember many many people from every generation go through this and always have.It needs addressing and we need Science to go after it to clear it up as much as it can,because it's not going to go away. The God helmet (google it) might of been a way to start understanding this as it seems to trigger part of the kundalini process phenomena, but no real hard data as yet.No one is going to be told this,but by studying the process it is a way of starting to understand it,once understood look for it in all religions, traditions,practices and it's there. Ignore labels, imagery, conclusions,look for the process. Written far more than I wanted and skimmed over a lot, but any further chat is fruitless.If you're interested you will make your own enquiry.
Rgrds
          Don't know if it was intentional but your reply to Pete, Dave, was back of the net,also the 40 days in the desert episode which was Jesus raising the kundalini.
          Busy all next week so that's me done.GL... Was that a "Thank Christ for that ! from DtG I hear 8)

--kundalini link,not that informative but it's a starting point...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundalini

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Time stamp
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 07:03 PM

don't" and probably a few more typos. 8)

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 07:11 PM

Well maybe , Dave , but the the question was asked in the present tense. Don't know about you, but if see no problem in intercession being a facet of prayer in theology or common English usage.....but if guest don't, that's fine with me!.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 08:17 PM

"Your head's like mine, like all our heads; big enough to contain every god and devil there ever was. Big enough to hold the weight of oceans and the turning stars. Whole universes fit in there! But what do we choose to keep in this miraculous cabinet? Little broken things, sad trinkets that we play with over and over. The world turns our key and we play the same little tune again and again and we think that tune's all we are." 
― Grant Morrison

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 10 Aug 15 - 03:57 AM

You probably going to think this a crock of shite

You got that right.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Aug 15 - 01:43 PM

"Hey Bill, The multi disciplinary approach to cosmology needs philosophers like yourself...."

Thanks Guest... we know that, *grin*.. but the standard mind-set is to "pick a side" and defend it.Our (my) attempts to sort out the awkward bits of fallacious reasoning and rhetorical language are usually considered either boring or not helpful to their debates.
Everyone with an ax to grind is impatient with someone trying to correct their syntax and logic.

Ah well..........

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 11 Aug 15 - 05:57 AM

Don't you just love Dr Margaret Ebunoluwa "Maggie" Aderin-Pocock, MBE?

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Aug 15 - 10:30 AM

Wow... she is impressive! That took a lot of drive.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 09:33 PM

Dave I would say that primordial black holes were called Quasars.
Very old and very far away.

Massive black holes come in many varieties like super massive black holes and some even larger.

That black holes behave like elementary particles is paramount to understanding what they are and how our universe is governed by their existence.

In the early universe the relative rareness of black holes compared to a universe today where the number of black holes continues to grow exponentially is effecting the fundamental behavior and evolutionary accelerating growth of our universe.

It is my hypothesis that this increase in black holes creates a response of space itself to accelerate its expansion. This balancing act phenomena is what some people call the mysterious dark energy.
Sooner or later the energy limits of trying to seek stability is surpassed and a entropy event will occur.

This concept was long in the making but I feel confident that it ranks with the other explanation of dark energy which is "haven't the foggiest".

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 09:52 PM

Maggie is dyslexic, an advantage in her field.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 10:17 PM

Have you ever felt that a book needed to be written to introduce a new idea?
And you find it by accident?

This one of those.
http://www.ted.com/talks/patricia_burchat_leads_a_search_for_dark_energy

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 06:22 AM

Could be that dark matter & dark energy go the same way as the Luminiferous Aether...

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 02:23 PM

http://www.ted.com/talks/patricia_burchat_leads_a_search_for_dark_energy

Pat talks about the limits of classical physics and logic

One of those books that was needed 10 years ago

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 02:56 PM

A good way to explain the idea of the counter balanced universe between space and mass is with the words of
Steven Hawking.

Picture digging a hole at the begging of the universe, for every shovelful full of mass you dig out you leave space in the form of a hole.
Over time you have a huge hole and a big pile of mass. The hole space equals the mass pile.

A stable universe will always seek to keep this balance of the energy of space with the energy of stuff.

In our universe a ittle tiny bit of stuff is equal to and enormous amount of space.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 12:46 PM

Jack says:

"Could be that dark matter & dark energy go the same way as the Luminiferous Aether..."

Jack, you may be right, but to say this in professional circles doesn't make you very popular. There is lots of professional, emotional, and not least financial investment in dark matter and dark energy. But there is certainly a similarity between the situation of cosmology today, with ever increasing complexity being invoked to preserve a favourite paradigm, with the late 19th century leading up to the Michelson-Morley experiment, and even slightly after this before the formulation of special relativity in 1905.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 06:26 PM

Happily, then, we're not in professional circles!

BUT the ESA are taking things seriously enough to be launching a probe in the autumn to put Milgrom's Modified Newtonian Dynamics to the test. Whilst not eliminating Dark Matter / Energy from the equation entirely, if correct, MoND would seriously change the way we see (or rather DON'T) see it. Exciting stuff I think.

As the poet said - Gravity begins at home.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 06:45 AM

Jack,

If you mean Lisa Pathfinder the yes it will be a test of MOND, though to be fair thats not its original purpose, its a test of technology for detecting gravitational waves from space.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 07:39 AM

All I know of it is an article I read lately in an astronomy magazine (I randomly buy several when I'm out & about and I can't remember which it was - Sky at Night? All About Space?) in which they said Milgrom could receive a Nobel Prize if his MoND theory proves correct.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 07:41 AM

It was actually the BBC Focus magazine, edition no. 284, August 2015 p.82.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Aug 15 - 09:10 PM

I have spent over 40 years playing with thought experiments that would give me a handle on dimensions.
Concepts like directions that we can not go and visualizing a hypercube were all difficult in their time.
Lea sets that spin perpendicular to their last shape 42 times are a real mind trip.
Most challenging of all are the 11 dimensions that String Theory suggests.
Graphic representations of a double Klien bottle looked cool but all of these did not seem
to fit with the dimensions that the data on our universe seems to suggest.

The challenge of describing dimensions that interact strongly or weakly and all with each other seemed almost impossible.
At the hazard of sounding a bit prejudiced with anthropomorphic bias,
I now found a means of describing the dimensional interaction in our universe with a trick you can do with your own two hands.
Just because you can do the trick with your hands does not guarantee understanding but at least you will have a framework.

So lets try the hand position first and explain the cosmology of the dimensions in our universe it suggests last.

Look down at your hands palms up with your little fingers torching at the tips.
Now close both your thumbs and index fingers together and finally close your middle and ring fingers together.
If your hands look like two live long and prosper signs you did it wrong.

Explanation; By interlacing all your fingers together you are demonstrating the over arching interaction between all space energy and all mass energy. I bet your left thumb is on top :)
Each finger represents a dimension. Each joining of two fingers stands for a segment of space in which there are weakly interacting forms of energy
which are not necessarily visible to the other.

Starting on your left hand your thumb represents our 3D mass and our index finger is dark matter.
The left middle finger is dark matter interacting with negative space energy.
Your pinkies represent the space energy interacting weakly with extreme space energy prime (which exists within black holes
Your right middle and ring finger is the segment of extreme space prime and extreme mass prime (which exist deep within black holes.)
Lastly the right index finger is mass prime and 3D mass.

A partical physicist could fill in the particles in our 3D space but to fill in the particles in dark matter you would need an unparticle scientist.
The difference between particles and unparticles is that particles are described by whole numbers and unparticles are in fractions.
Our 3D universe is as though our mass is like the leaves of a great tree. The unparticles form the {invisible to us) the trunks and branches.
The dimensions of space are normal space and space prime under extreme forces of collapse and expansion as in black holes. The energy of each force is influenced by its counterbalancing force.
All of this information is but a shorthand abbreviation of the cosmological theory of a ring of dimensions which account for the whole universe, 90% which goes unseen.

The fractal nature of dualities within dualities and the whole also being a counterbalanced duality of mass and space are omnipresent even in the quantum world. Stable like a pyramid triangle the stability changes as certain other forces coalesce and change in this dynamic cosmos.
While equivalency changes along the Plank scale the different dimensions of forces also exist.

Visualizing dimensions in this manner is much easier than seeing them curled up within one another.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Aug 15 - 04:11 PM

Picturing the dimensional structure of our own universe is fairly easy as I demonstrated with ten fingers.

Trying to imagine all of space and all the infinite number of multiverses expanding into 11 dimensional space as explained by string theory and having all of these universes co habituating the same space we are in but in different dimensions is damn hard to visualize.

It is said the concept of string theory came 200 years before we may be able to understand how it works.

Based on observation be it indirect or direct there is still a chance to understand the grand unified theory mystery of uniting large forces like gravity to the quantum universe.
I think there is still a clue in the math result of Einstein equations that when extrapolating them to quantum gravity they give a result of: infinity plus infinity plus infinity...for infinity.
Mathematicians claim the result to be nonsense and a total breakdown of physics that apply to the large observable universe.

The clue is that on small scales the fabric of space is so dynamic and random all results at once is a valid answer.

How small is the space fabric we are talking about?
if an atom were the size of a football stadium its proton would be a pin head and a quark is magnitude smaller than the proton.
Now imagine a billion billion billion times smaller than that and we are approaching the plank scale of ultimate smallness. The existence of anything this small in a world of fluctuating space time fabric would be like a particle ,if large, fluctuating like the planet Mercury jiggling back and forth to the orbit of Pluto and back.
WE HAVE MEASUED THE NAture OF QUANTUM SPACE, by seeing high energy large photons arriving 5 seconds before photons of low energy(small) because the small protons had a bumpier ride over the 7 billion years it took to get here. Just like large wheels have a smoother linear ride than tiny wheels go up and down al the time.

In short we can learn even from what other people consider to be a mathematical mistake. When an astrophysicist decides what to measure they still take a leap of faith in their imagination that they may reveal a fundamental truth. Their imagination is no more expansive than yours. Keep dreaming.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 11:45 AM

To make progress in seeing what we can not see with our eyes can be undertaken with a method that I have always treasured which is called morphological analysis. This method developed by Fritz Zwicky was instrumental in his proposing Super novas, neutron stars and gravitational lensing objects long before they were observed.

By using morphological analysis along with as much new data as possible almost anyone can make remarkable predictions that are outside the box of linear thinking. Many times partial truths seem totally irrational like quantum theory but are still totally true within that framework. The process of morphological analysis helps open the human mind to think with clarity in these areas of irrational truth.

For example when presented with real world problems in astrophysics and cosmology like where did dark matter come from the answers with practice virtually present themselves.

After analysis the proportion of dark energy came from the remnant energy from the annihilation of the explosion of matter with anti matter.

As in my prior analysis of the acceleration of the expansion of space is in proportion to the condensing of matter into black holes at an exponential rate, which is a curious way space responds ans seeks balance with mass Energy.

Try morphological analysis for your self. YOU may be pleasantly surprised.


oogle the google for terms and names that are new to you.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,#
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 11:52 AM

I'll get right on that as soon as I know what you're talking about.

I have one question: will it work on the stock market?

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 12:11 PM

google the name fritz zwicky or morphological analysis 1974


JOKE OR NOT THE ANSWER IS YES. There are several programs that are based upon the entirety of the www and then deduce winners and loses.
They even combine these programs/algorithms with speed trades on a micro second basis.

My life overlapped Zwicky's by about 20 years but I only learned of him at my mid point.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 12:28 PM

The main point is that while 99% of people would naturally find my predictions either audacious or crazy to propose actual answers to the two most unknown phenomenon (dark matter & energy)...










there is a method in my madness.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 12:39 PM

Donuel, matter/anti matter annihilation yields just ordinary energy.
Dark energy is something quite different, but no-one knows what.

" condensing of matter into black holes" does not happen.
Giant stars collapse to make them, and matter that gets too close falls in is all.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Nov 15 - 01:09 PM

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-87617-2_14#page-1

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 03:29 AM

Donuel: "The main point is that while 99% of people would naturally find my predictions either audacious or crazy to propose actual answers to the two most unknown phenomenon (dark matter & energy).."

I'm not crazy...it's the rest of the world...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,#
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 10:03 AM

Physical things in our universe happen the way they do because they have no choice but to happen the way they do. Are you saying it could be otherwise, Don?

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Nov 15 - 11:08 AM

See the last couple of dozen posts in the "Pope in America" thread for more on things like this. (I'm aware that some are avoiding that thread to stay out of other issues... but it keeps changing)

It is hard to deal with new ideas when the line between useful ones and.... others ....gets fuzzy

take a look at these, but be careful, lest your brain fries...
http://www.insolitology.com/topten/georgehammond.htm

http://www.edconrad.com/

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 06:02 AM

Fritz Zwicky, where do we start? I can't say I met him, did attend a talk by him, he died soon after my career began. His best work was done in collaboration with Walter Baade, who was a more down to earth character whose practicality harnessed the best of Zwicky's ideas, which ranged from the genuinely insightful to the downright bonkers. And these two between them realised that supernovae were the result of a collapse of a star at the end of its life, and that neutron stars were the end result. They were also the first to suggest that supernovae could be used as standard candles. Zwicky noticed that the motions of galaxies in the Coma cluster implied a much larger mass than could be accounted for by galaxies themselves, leading to later theories of dark matter. The expansion of the universe illustrates the difference between Zwick and Baade, Hubble discovered the correlation between redshift and distance, but his estimate of what we know as the Hubble Constant was much larger than the one we have today. Zwicky saw that the expansion implied was too large, and produced instead a "tired light" theory in which photons lost energy as they traveled through space. Baade spent the best part three decades making careful measurements of Cepheid Variable stars, which gave more accurate measurements of galaxy distances, and concluded that Hubble had overstimated his constant by a large factor, and that the expansion rate implied was reasonable.

Zwicky was known for his strong views, particularly about other people. If you get a chance, in a serious academic library, have a look at the text to his "CATALOGUE OF SELECTED COMPACT GALAXIES AND OF
POST-ERUPTIVE GALAXIES" (sorry for the caps that is a cut and paste) which is basically a tirade against most of the other leading astrophysicists of the day, including his long-time collaborator, Walter Baade.

Morphological analysis has its uses in Astrophysics even now, but taken outside this field I am not so sure. Zwicky had some great ideas, but some daft ones also.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 01:36 PM

Good for you Dave, meetings with remarkable men enriches your lifetime.

Part of Fritz's method was to abandon all prejudice and take a fresh look which may at times produce what you call bonkers.

In addition to your brief remarks regarding Zwicky's prediction he nearly had the exact amount of dark low interactive matter to make galaxies rotate cohesively as they do.

When analyzing dark matter it is necessary to ask where did it come from and how would this matter be mathematically expressed.
I have proposed both questions are answered by a proses that had no choice to happen and a astrophysicist who has devised a means to describe the subatomic particles in dark matter as fractions. He would poetical describe normal matter as the visible leaves of a tree while dark matter particles comprise the branches.

As you know the majority of mass in the universe is dark matter. Where it came from is the annihilation of anti matter and matter.
The product of this process is at first vast amount of energy some of which will stay as energy but a large amount of that energy will distill down to mass of a form that will not interact anymore with matter. You know the relationship between E and M which virtually makes it essential that dark matter developed by the process I suggest.

I see this as a conceptual break through that can be built upon.
It is very simple but radical idea in its simplicity.

What do you think Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 01:59 PM

I think Zwicky's method could be applied to environmental healing.
His hope to eliminate all war is admirable but challenging beyond the human scope.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,#
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 02:05 PM

Doesn't answer my question but thanks anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 08:19 AM

Donuel, the annihilation of matter and antimatter is observed in detail.
It does not yield new matter.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 05:43 PM

Donuel,

It was not Zwicky who showed that the rotation of spiral galaxies requires dark matter in their outer parts, that was Vera Rubin and Kent Ford. And as Keith says, matter-antimatter annihalation does not produce dark matter, it produces (normal) energy.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 15 - 11:09 PM

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March10/Garrett/Garrett7.html

The math is straight forward

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 04:09 AM

Yes, well not fantastically straightforward! There is a lot of effort (and serious money) going into measuring the constant in the equation of state of the universe (lower case omega in the fourth equation down).

But please forgive me if I say I will not take dark matter as a given until one of the direct detection experiments (which are also costing serious money) produces a positive result rather than an upper limit. It all feels too much like aether before the Michelson-Morley experiment. Not that I am quite old enough to remember that.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 05:55 PM

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314006364

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 06:54 PM

Dave, I know about Vera and in her day she was quite a dish.
There were still others that claim they deserve to march in that discovery parade.


Keith I am always willing to say oops I didn't know or yes I am absolutely wrong, however the claim that we clearly observed the annihilation process of matter and anti matter is not to be taken at face value.

First; the universe was still an opaque soup prior to star formation.
Second; the explosion residue could be s invisible as dark matter.
Third; the amount of matter left behind after the grand annihilation was less than one part per billion while 99% parts per billion turned into energy. As it expanded and cooled the energy can turn into mass, not all of it but enough dark mass (non interactive) to equal normal mass.
It is obviously a mass that gives no visible radiant or reflective light but it has nearly equal to greater gravity as visible matter.

Without prejudice or need to claim superiority of any kind, I think there is room to see the genesis of dark matter.
That is unless you believe entire galaxies were made of anti matter prior to annihilation. But there is no evidence of that.

Most people who want to know expect that dark matter is still a very fundamental type of particle like neutrinos but considering its genesis it may be much more.

Subject: RE: BS: One for the astrophysicist
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 09:26 AM

Donuel, when I said, "the annihilation of matter and antimatter is observed in detail" I meant in the laboratory.