BS: One for the astrophysicist

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.

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: GUEST
Date: 08 Nov 15 - 05:55 PM

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

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: 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: 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: 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,#
Date: 06 Nov 15 - 02:05 PM

Doesn't answer my question but thanks anyway.

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: 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: 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: 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,#
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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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,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,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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:08 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: 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: 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.