BS: GUEST: Dave

Subject: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Jan 16 - 12:41 PM

with an avatar like Guest Dave you realize you have no address to send a PM. So...

There must be many alternative views on early cosmological inflation which do not agree with the recent South Pole Gravitational polarized wave telescopic data.

Here is one viewpoint in a language you may understand:


inflationary misconceptions


My interpretation shares much of this viewpoint but relies on a yet undiscovered aspect of space that can arrive at a common conclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,#
Date: 26 Jan 16 - 04:53 PM

"GUEST: Dave"

Dave's nothere.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 26 Jan 16 - 06:27 PM

He went for a beer

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,#
Date: 26 Jan 16 - 09:59 PM

Dave's not here.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 16 - 11:13 PM

notice how it was never Dave & Goliath ?
if it was, they'd have probably been good mates and drinking buddies.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 27 Jan 16 - 05:03 AM

Dave's trying to read up on some stuff before replying, that article derives somewhat (as it acknowledges) from a paper by Davis and Lineweaver. Now they are not without their critics, hence I need to do a fair bit of reading. As you may have guessed, I am not a cosmologist, still less a theoretical one, so this stuff isn't at my fingertips.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 27 Jan 16 - 09:13 AM

How was the beer my friend

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 27 Jan 16 - 09:41 AM

Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 27 Jan 16 - 10:09 AM

Don, the assumption of the article is that the universe will expand or contract in a linear manner. However it may be multi dimensional
Expansion of a degree that far exceeds our understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 27 Jan 16 - 11:26 AM

The distance will change but not light speed, like drawing a line to each edge of a flat paper, but if you bend it you are right there instead of transversing the entire length. Worm holes work that way in theory, moving distance not speed

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 27 Jan 16 - 11:30 AM

I don't think there is an outer edge of the universe but multiple universes with multiple dimensional properties each that are light squared

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Jan 16 - 05:13 PM

GUEST,Dave

---

(And best evidence shows Banbury, U.K.) NOT Acme

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 07:29 AM

Well...that's sorted that oot!!

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 08:53 AM

Banbury??? It has a cross,thats all I know about it.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 08:57 AM

the assumption of the article is that the universe will expand or contract in a linear manner.

There is no contraction, and the expansion is accelerating not linear so any such assumption is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,#
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 10:26 AM

Would someone please explain what 'in a linear manner' means?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 11:25 AM

We would my brother but then we would have to shoot you :)

Keith correct but the distance and speed regardless of acceration is assumed linear in this regard it doesn't account for the bending of time and space as we know appears around black holes. The universe is not linear but multiddimensional my assertion, distance speed and even time gets wacky out there

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,#
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 11:31 AM

SN 1604 would be a place to start then. We know when it happened and from that should be able to determine (on a smaller scale) what happens with expansion in space. How 'big' was it then and how big is it now would determine expansion rates, no?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 11:34 AM

When we talk the scale of a universe we cannot assume anything of a fixed nature as we preceive it. I am not talking planets or even galactic events, I am talking full scale universe

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,#
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 12:04 PM

OK then. So let's start with where the universe is right now and go back to when it started. If indeed light is a constant then we should be able to makes really good guesses/estimates about expansion rate, present size, etc. Or maybe light isn't the constant we think it is.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 01:52 PM

Nothing can move faster than light, but space can expand faster than light.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 02:11 PM

Then you are assuming a fixed space which it is not, correct nothing moves faster than light so to assume space expands faster, you have to assume a fixed space.. Ie linear.. It is far more complex

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,#
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 02:18 PM

"Nothing can move faster than light . . ."

Maybe. But that is different than determining just how constant it is. I suggest that light is a variable constant.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 02:26 PM

if you aim a torch at a brick wall, does it stop the light dead in it's tracks,
or do light particles continue on through the wall ?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 02:35 PM

One of the points of Davis and Lineweaver (and I think others before or since) is that many of the galaxies we observe in the distant universe are moving away from us at faster than the speed of light, and always have been.

There is quite a good semi-popular explanation of this here.

That blog links to the preprint of Davis and Lineweaver for those with time on their hands.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 02:39 PM

"if you aim a torch at a brick wall, does it stop the light dead in it's tracks,"

Most photons will be absorbed by the atoms and molecules in the wall and converted to heat. Some will be reflected, allowing you to see the wall. None will continue through the wall unless its a glass wall.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 02:43 PM

Damn.. so are we never going to get those X ray specs that look through bathroom walls.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 03:52 PM

X-ray photons have higher energy than visible photons, so can go through things that visible photons can't, like flesh. But you need a detector on the other side to detect them, such as a photographic emulsion or Charge Coupled Device. I wouldn't think they could easily go through a brick wall though. A plasterboard wall, maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 04:02 PM

Too many assumptions based on three dimensions in this debate when time as a dimension is even visibly apparent, let alone deduced.

The speed of light is not and since Nils Bohr pointed out 100 years ago ever had been a limit. The "luxon wall" had been denounced as irrelevant even before the phrase existed. It isn't at present possible to conceive MATTER having a displacement beyond it, but instantaneous electron spin "sympathy" has been demonstrated. In any event, matter is wave if quantum theory is to stand.

Linear? Logarithmic? Neither will do, too dimensionally limiting. Not my field as it happens. (My field was vibration) but close enough to see the flaw in mixing Newtonian with modern physics where you can't separate.

Does space expand? Semantics but space is by definition accommodating of need so why would you need to put a limit on it? Why would you need yo alter it when it is by definition variable? It only expands "faster than light" if your need becomes greater for whatever you are resolving hence it never altered in the first place...

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 04:14 PM

Exactly, my pet theory involves dimensional shift and I will figure out the math to state it eventually, I hope anyway so I can publish

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 28 Jan 16 - 04:21 PM

http://www.space.com/18811-multiple-universes-5-theories.html

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 07:18 AM

Does space expand?

Yes. The universe used to be much smaller, and the expansion can be faster than light.

The expansion is not linear, it is accelerating.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 07:55 AM

So if God is omnipresent and the Universe is expanding, does that mean it's because He is getting older and fatter ?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 08:13 AM

Lol maybe

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 11:29 AM

If there is a God, He is not subject to the confines of space and/or time.
The expansion and ageing of our universe would be an irrelevance to Him.

Do we need another thread discussing religion?
Really?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 11:53 AM

It was a joke, God has a sense of humor, he made me and a giraffe

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 12:13 PM

Keith - I asked the fat god question.. it was me.. [forgot to type name again]

Of course it was a joke.....

but.. in an age where physics and religion attempt to coexist

The "Fat God Theorem" does have a ring to it.... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 12:16 PM

He made Palin, Jones, Cleese, Chapman and Gilliam if he made anything at all. And they made Life of Brian. 😇

Methinks Keith is assuming space must contain matter in order to be space in the first place. If that is the case, then space isn't expanding or otherwise, it just is. It is displacement of matter that is in debate here, and matter of course cannot breach the luxon wall until or unless it is infinite. Good job it has duality wave /particle status then.

Keith is right. You cannot bring fantasy and superstition into a debate about reality.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,#
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 12:50 PM

Too many people just don't seem to comprehend the gravity of the situation ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 03:06 PM

Lol perfect Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jan 16 - 07:06 PM

High energy photons compared to low energy photons will out pace its counterpart by almost 3 seconds after traveling 5 billion years.

significant variability, I think not. The quantum lumpiness of space is more likely the cause.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 05:17 AM

Methinks Keith is assuming space must contain matter in order to be space in the first place.

Methinks you are wrong in assuming my assumption.
Matter occupies only a tiny proportion of space.

If that is the case, then space isn't expanding or otherwise,

Wrong again.
There is really no question that space is expanding. It is.

It is displacement of matter that is in debate here,
What displacement of matter?

matter of course cannot breach the luxon wall until or unless it is infinite.

I think we all know that matter can not be accelerated to light speed.
How can matter be infinite? What are you talking about?

Good job it has duality wave /particle status then.

It just does, and we all knew that too.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 06:53 AM

Donuel, Dr Robert Wagner, of the Max-Planck-Institut für Physik, München, found that there was up to a 5 second gap between low energy and high energy photons coming from an active galactic nucleus (Markarian 501) SEVEN billion light years away. This is not to say that this is definitive proof, as Dr Wagner notes "We cannot exclude, however, the possibility that the delay we find, which is significant beyond the 95% C.L., is due to some energy-dependent effect at the source."

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 09:23 AM

Keith you are correct . The variability of time it takes various photons in that measurement is most likely caused by the quantum effects of quantum "graininess"

A low E photon is like a 1 inch wheel rolling through space compared to a 20 inch wheel that gives a smoother more direct ride.

Old Dude, I agree with most, approaching all of what you say except cosmic green jello.
What annoys me about what you say is that you are saying many of the same things I am saying BUT you say it in an opposite way I would say it.
Its as if you describe the mirror versions of certain ideas I endorse.

It is possible I am the mirror and your choice of words like distance are more straight forward.

What holds space in check is another kind of space force not discussed in today's physics.
What holds matter in check/balance are forces of both mass and force particles.

Both space forces interact with mass and mass interacts with space on a space time basis.

It is my contention that space is reacting to the ever growing acceleration of the number of black hole formations.

We have a measurement of the accumulation of more black holes over the last 7 billion years compared to the early 1st 7 billion years.

Inside black holes is one hell of a lot collapsed space and not just mass. But it is kind of space that is not just the distance kind of space we find it easy to think about. It is a kind of anti space That is adjacent to all points in space and does not have a distance dimension attached to it.

This the kind of space in which atoms can be entangled.

Even Black Holes can be entangled! This is why black holes are for all purposes just an elementary particle.

Some of the above ideas are exactly what is difficult, from my perspective, for other people to understand.
Maybe it may become clear to more people but finding evidence for anti space is what I have a hard time proving. That is my quandary.

I can describe anti space by what it is not but that is not scientific.
It is not an anti de sitter space that serves as a canvas to make certain interactions more clear. Rather it is a space that does spooky things compared to the space normally associated with distance.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 09:46 AM

Don, agree

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 09:47 AM

We are on same page

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 10:45 AM

How spooky is anti space?

It is so spooky it caused inflation which is the event that expanded the early universe from the size of a dime to a finite but gargantuan universe that allowed enough cooling to form atoms and eventually the stage for the next bang of matter and anti matter.

Other theories of inflation create complex ideas of a one time only existence of anti gravity or gravity waves before bosons even existed.

So how did anti space help make the universe?

The early big bang could have had a re-collapse of space and a re- explosion creating enough cooling for matter to form and enough space for the universe to evolve.

Once again a more simple big picture view with the existence of anti space works better than many of the theories that have tried and failed to make the big bang work, even after millions of dollars of grant money.

If a predictive math can prove the existence of anti space and its effect it has on both distance dimension space and matter we would have an advantage to explain many of the conflicts modern physics has had problems unifying.

Contributions are welcomed by many different people each with different disciplines be it history, sci fi, artists, astro physicists and others. Understanding can not only come from the top down. Sometimes a takes a very simple idea.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 11:05 AM

Keith, do you have a reference for that paper? This is all done with MAGIC (name of a telescope) and they write many papers, each with between 140 and 250 authors, listed in alphabetical order. Robert Wagner is on most of them.

I can find a paper by W. Bednerek and R.M. Wagner proposing a synchrotron self-Compton model for explaining the time delay between the arrival of low energy photons and high energy photons.

The thing though Donuel is that its the lower energy photons which arrive first, thats the observation and the theory.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 11:20 AM

You know I suspected I had it backwards the whole time, but time is limited to double check. For this mistake I do not blame dyslexia but instead plain ol sloppiness with a side dish of stupidity.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 11:33 AM

Listening in to discussions among Keith, Dave and others is an enjoyable educational opportunity.

Do you folks agree that current inflationary theories are grossly lacking substantive proof despite Nobel prizes or initial praise?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 12:20 PM

Yes   I do

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 12:53 PM

My own personal view is that there is a lot of modern cosmology where the ideas and the maths are running way ahead of the observational tests to either verify or falsify the theories. Its probably a minority view amongst professionals, but i would regard all of inflation, dark energy and dark matter as interesting ideas on which the jury is still out.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 01:43 PM

Dave,
Probing quantum gravity using photons from a flare of the active galactic nucleus Markarian 501 observed by the MAGIC telescope

J. Albert et al. (for the MAGIC Collaboration), John Ellis, N.E. Mavromatos, D.V. Nanopoulos, A.S. Sakharov, E.K.G. Sarkisyan

Donuel,
Do you folks agree that current inflationary theories are grossly lacking substantive proof despite Nobel prizes or initial praise?

There is substantive proof of expansion.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 03:14 PM

Yes, in the conclusions of that paper:

"Observations of a single flare cannot distinguish the quantum-gravity scenarios considered here from modified synchrotron self-Compton mechanisms [23, 31]."

[31] is Bendarek and Wagner, published the same year (2008). Both of those authors are on both papers.

They need more observations, as they say, to distinguish between Quantum gravity effects and plasma effects.


I don't think anybody doubts that the universe is expanding. What I think needs further proof is that it is accelerating.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 03:18 PM

I'll give you some definite proof.

Buy a pair of Crocs, and within 12 months the bloody things will have expanded at least 2 sizes.

Now apply quantum maths to this observable phenomenon.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 03:40 PM

Expansion of course, even the recent acceleration of expansion but the mysterious theory of inflation that stands at the heart of modern cosmology for which we can not see having the size of the universe go from a speck to a boundless expanse.

I am not alone in being skeptical of the BICEPS telescope and program That may have measured nothing more than dust and not proof of an inflation event. Even a founder of that program is suspect they only measured dust..


Serendipitously but not surprisingly my question about the central issue of inflation is the cover story for Astronomy Magazine March 2016. I read it just a moment ago.
It is titled the Race to Cosmic Dawn. The writing flows nicely compared to my gross abbreviated style with most of the main characters in the race to understand inflation including Guth.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 04:13 PM

If you bought a pair of crocs I would think the damn things would breed, let alone expand.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 04:35 PM

AN INTRODUCTION TO DIRECTIONAL SPACE AND HOW WE HAVE AGREED TO MAKE IT FLAT.


how is space flat?

Once you go flat you never go back!

but add another form of space and things open up.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 05:20 PM

It is because the jury is out on the matter of; dark energy, inflation and dark matter is the reason why a simple explanation of all three mysteries with the addition of one unseen force of an anti space is so intriguing and enticingly elegant.

Actually the mystery of dark matter may revolve around the left over energies and non interactive particles left over from duality explosions like matter anti matter.

Inflation, dark energy and expansion mysteries may involve the new aspects of space we have not considered until now.

While the jury is out we can rely on some measurements we already have and add our own 2 bits.

For now everyone can play.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 05:43 PM

Dave,
Carlton Baugh, Professor of physics at Durham University, says
"We know that our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, but what causes this growth remains a mystery. The most likely explanation is that a strange force dubbed "dark energy" is driving it."

"In the 1990s, astronomers studying exploding stars – supernovae – in galaxies far away discovered that the universe's expansion was accelerating. This came as surprise, as scientists at the time thought it was slowing down. With no obvious solution at hand, scientists argued that there must be some sort of mysterious force – dark energy – pulling the universe apart."

Are you aware of any cosmologist who share your scepticism?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 30 Jan 16 - 06:22 PM

What I like about all the theories is people are thinking and offering ideas, even ones we cannot prove as of yet hold merit for some day we may. My feeling is the universe is far more complex than we can guess. Expecially if it is part of a multi dimensional universe of multi universes

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 04:13 AM

Keith, from a recent preprint:

"Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae"

by: Jeppe Trøst Nielsen, Alberto Guffanti, Subir Sarkar


Abstract:

"The "standard" model of cosmology is founded on the basis that the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating at present --- as was inferred originally from the Hubble diagram of Type Ia supernovae. There exists now a much bigger database of supernovae so we can perform rigorous statistical tests to check whether these "standardisable candles" indeed indicate cosmic acceleration. Taking account of the empirical procedure by which corrections are made to their absolute magnitudes to allow for the varying shape of the light curve and extinction by dust, we find, rather surprisingly, that the data are still quite consistent with a constant rate of expansion."

http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.01354


I don't know the first two authors, but Sarkar is Professor of theoretical particle physics and cosmology at Oxford University, and extremely eminent.

Dust has long been one of the big caveats with this result.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 05:06 AM

Thanks Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 04:43 PM

As more black holes are generated at an exponential rate more space is being drawn inside them. I contend that a distance dimensional space outside the black holes has to stretch outward and larger to balance the tremendous loss of space to achieve an equilibrium with the counterpart of space which is a form of anti space.
It is a reaction to increasing entropy.

Once again, without even accepting this theory, can you picture this process in your own mind as an explanation for dark energy?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 04:28 AM

Why do you say that "more black holes are generated at an exponential rate ?"

Also, their gravity distorts space but does not "draw" space in. Space is expanding not diminishing.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Feb 16 - 08:23 PM

Both the rate of stellar black formation and the growing of supermassive black holes and mergers are increasing. Data can confirm this.

Why is directional space expanding ?

As volumetric directional space is pulled and compressed into black holes the amount of this kind of space is thinned out in the rest of our universe. If we assume there is another kind of space (anti space) that balances out the energy of space just as charge keeps matter in check and prevents it from spontaneously exploding, then the outward push of anti space no matter how small will push on the normal volumetric space and cause "space" to expand.

This is my explanation for dark energy but I have had no direct input or response from people who ought to be able to have the imagination to see this process as I described or present their own ideas how dark energy might work. I have seen other proposals from around the globe how dark energy may exist but found wanting.

This is a bit like saying a certain boson is respondsible for mass but it is invisible. Anyone know how to look for antispace?
Its properties include having no dimension of distance, The origin of antimatter comes from the mass-shell condition E^{2} - p^{2} = m^{2} and in particular the presence of the taking the square.
in units where c=1, it would be an environment in which time is negative so things happen instantly with no time at all , like the reactions of entangled particles.

So OK let me have it, is this just the illusion of knowledge? Did this idea just take a dump in my skull or does this explain more than you thought?

If you can't repeal and replace at least you can criticize based upon the data you possess.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 04:12 AM

Donuel,

1) What data confirm that the rate of stellar black hole formation is increasing?

2) Antimatter (positrons, antiprotons etc.) does not have negative mass it has positive mass. It is distinguished from normal matter by having the opposite charge (and some other esoteric properties).

3) The bit about antimatter traveling backwards in time appears to be the Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation. Now these were seriously clever guys, but really its a mathematical formalism rather than a physical reality. But if thinks travel negatively in time this does not mean things happen instantly with not time at all, they take the same amount of time but in the opposite direction.

4) A consequence of the Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation would be that the gravitational force between matter and antimatter would be repulsive. This would be difficult to test, Health and Safety legislation being what it is.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 05:00 AM


Both the rate of stellar black formation and the growing of supermassive black holes and mergers are increasing. Data can confirm this.

Perhaps you can share that with us.
Have you dropped "exponential?"

Also I am not familiar with a concept of "volumetric space."
Is it your own?


As volumetric directional space is pulled and compressed into black holes

Is that your too?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 11:23 AM

Keith. All cosmologists share scepticism. Unlike God botherers, the job description requires it.

Tsk.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 11:55 AM

Also historians Musket, but on some facts there exists consensus.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 12:43 PM

Consensus can be a dangerous thing, if there is consensus on something which is wrong, or even, as in this case, on something which the data do not require.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 01:01 PM

You showed us there was no consensus on that Dave, but there is consensus on many things.
We now know what quasars are, and what caused that weird, pulsing signal discovered by Bell Burnell.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 02:10 PM

Keith, as far as Quasars go, there is a series of papers by Roberto Terlevich and collaborators suggesting that at least some sources classified as Seyfert 2 galaxies and quasars are not powered by non-thermal radiation from black holes but by a number of compact supernova remnants from massive stars. Roberto moved to Mexico some years ago and I don't know whether he is still working on this.

Pulsars are a case where the basic physics is pretty well understood, and there is consensius about the basic components, but its magnetic fields and general relativity, so in detail there is quite a lot of discussion about the nature of the emission and the details of the origin of the rotating neutron stars.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 04:27 PM

Dave is absolutely correct. By the way I saw an interesting show on one of the Kepler planets that is so close to a star no one can figure out how it happened. No planet could form that close according to our understanding. Way cool actually

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 05:43 AM

As with history, you get consensus on the main issue but debate about the fine detail.
There is consensus on what quasars are, and what caused that pulsing signal discovered by Bell Burnell.
There is consensus on public support for WW1 and the generally good leadership of the army.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 05:59 AM

I think that the difference between the black hole model and the starburst model for quasars is a little more than fine detail. Personally I would back Lynden-Bell's model (the black hole model), but I would be prepared to be shown to be wrong.

Even with pulsars, there are various options for the energy source, rotation, accretion, and magnetism. All three are thought to be important, and dominant in different objects.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 12:43 PM

Dave, Health and safety laws being what they are... Ha ha

The LHC seems to have special dispensation.

The idea of linking protective forces like charge in sub atomic particles in matter with space having a similar protective force like an anti space is my idea but is unrelated to anti matter. Anti space speculation is a concept I am still trying to find meaningful comparisons to describe. I am currently visualizing anti space as a dimension but nothing so grandiose as having anti space time qualities where time runs backwards, although Albert would probably say "however the math does not disallow it".


Keith, The word 'exponential' is indeed hyperbole I used to modify the word number. While you are right it could not be truly an exponential growth in the number of black holes over time, speaking of such enormous power and mind shredding distances of the universe does tempt me to exaggerate a glimpse of the big picture of black hole formations and growth.

Data of growing numbers of black holes:

First, once a black hole is formed it has been determined that it will exist for trillions upon trillions of years. So every time a stellar black hole is formed or black hole mergers create super massive black holes it is all the existing holes plus one more.
I am reasoning that that constitutes growth.
The Keplar telescope would give us actual data but there are other ways to see the obvious. Got one I can use?

Tracing the curve of more black hole formation with the beginning acceleration of space started around the 7 billion year mark of the age of the universe.

btw Keith since space can exceed light speed and is what causes a black hole to b black , space is being sucked into black holes.
call it extreme space time but gravity is taking space along for a ride.

I have some demolition work to do, bbl.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 12:49 PM

I have always wanted to know what and where Donald Bell's Great Attractor is. I think it is a very interesting question.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 01:57 PM

btw Keith since space can exceed light speed (Yes)and is what causes a black hole to b black ,(No) space is being sucked into black holes No.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 04:18 PM

It is gravity that makes black holes black, but I suppose you could say that it is the distortion of space by gravity that prevents light escaping.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: olddude
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 05:23 PM

There is some solid math that says black holes may not even exist.. See our last discussion thread

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 10:05 PM

O D
Saying there are no black holes is like saying space is flat, which is true, but more like a technicality and an artifact of glitchy metaphors in language. You seem to think it is a mathematical truth ergo you could defend a non existence of all black holes. (wince)

By similar reasoning some mathematicians contend nothing exists except Math. Lets agree a concept is just a concept but a perspective can include a lot more. Another example is from Stephen Hawking who said the universe is like a hole you dig in the back yard. The empty hole is equal to all the stuff you just shoveled out of it. Space and matter when added together is basically zero. ( I would add that if the hole were to accelerate in its size there is something causing that balance to no longer be zero.)

Big picture perceptionalism and field mechanics can go where classical physics can not go.



Keith, this is not the first time you resist/deny the notion that space and its embedded matter can secede from your perspective faster than light, leaving nothing for you to see except an energetic event horizon.

Is there a reason you believe gravity can not cause space to react in such a remarkable manner?


On a different matter, there is a young man who came up with an idea that the one uncompressible expression of matter is the neutrino.   this is a significant contribution to understanding a black hole's interior, gamma ray bursts and the radiation of neutrinos around these
holes.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Feb 16 - 04:31 AM


Keith, this is not the first time you resist/deny the notion that space and its embedded matter can secede from your perspective faster than light, leaving nothing for you to see except an energetic event horizon.

Space can indeed expand faster than light.
That does not create " an energetic event horizon."

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 06 Feb 16 - 11:11 AM

Comparing the expansion of space to the speed of light is not very meaningful. See teh blog post by Sean Carroll which I linked to on January 28th.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Feb 16 - 11:50 AM

OK, nice Monty Python moment.

The twist here was I was talking about collapse and you , expanding,


Missing the point is an ongoing human problem, whadyyagonnado.

I point out again there is a search to unify our understanding of the very large and very small but there are too many contradictions and exceptions to do so. EXCUSES ARE PROPOSED like time scaling differently at very small distances or dimensionalities influencing differently on different scales or as I propose a field of force that exists but we have been unaware of its influence.
Classical physics has reached a limit without this missing piece.
Of course on going measurements will continue to expand understanding of our changing universe over time but will be skewed by a fundamental flaw of missing an unseen force.

The phrase the universe is too mysterious to even be able to imagine is defeatist and betrays the human mind which after all was created by the universe.

In an effort to begin again a different insight may provide a big picture perspective with all its parts rather than getting bogged down on the ground and re run things we have already tried.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Feb 16 - 11:55 AM

Dave, here is a quote from Dave Rothstein, a former graduate student and postdoctoral researcher at Cornell who used infrared and X-ray observations and theoretical computer models to study accreting black holes in our Galaxy.

"The fact that galaxies we see now are moving away from us faster than the speed of light has some bleak consequences, however. Astronomers now have strong evidence that we live in an "accelerating universe," which means that the speed of each individual galaxy with respect to us will increase as time goes on. If we assume that this acceleration continues indefinitely, then galaxies which are currently moving away from us faster than the speed of light will always be moving away from us faster than the speed of light and will eventually reach a point where the space between us and them is stretching so rapidly that any light they emit after that point will never be able to reach us. "

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/616-is-the-universe-expanding-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-intermediate

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 06 Feb 16 - 02:20 PM

Sorry, that Cornell blog is a little confused. here is an extract from the abstract of Davis and Lineweaver:

"We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light. We explain why this does not violate special relativity and we link these concepts to observational tests. "

So the reason that we can observe galaxies which are moving away from us faster than the speed of light is not, as the Cornell blog asserts, because "the galaxy was not moving faster than the speed of light at the moment the light was emitted".

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Feb 16 - 02:31 PM

Dave, you said, "Comparing the expansion of space to the speed of light is not very meaningful."

The expansion of space can be greater than light speed, and galaxies do recede beyond light speed. That is a meaningful statement.

I made no comment about how such galaxies are visible.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 06 Feb 16 - 04:27 PM

No, yes, no, and they are, in that order.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 16 - 09:17 AM

So the expansion rate of space can exceed light speed and so does the recession of some galaxies, as I said.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Feb 16 - 09:47 AM

This has become a series of refutations of what was never held in contention and a Wizard of Oz giving short retorts.
Where are the explorations of new ideas, where is the fire in the belly? It is like vacationing in the same hotel and beach for a dozen years.

The challenge sirs is to see with new eyes and not just grasp at one's own turf yelling MINE.

PS The day our sun becomes a red giant and swallows the Earth will be close to the time the stars will have receded leaving an all dark starless sky, and then it will be too late to be creative.
All will be unreachable unless...we consider what is both new and true.

Lets first start by measuring the force it takes to push space from the inside out.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 07 Feb 16 - 11:03 AM

The expansion of the universe is never faster than the speed of light:

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2015/10/13/the-universe-never-expands-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/

The bit about the recession of some galaxies is true though.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 07 Feb 16 - 11:11 AM

"The day our sun becomes a red giant and swallows the Earth will be close to the time the stars will have receded leaving an all dark starless sky, and then it will be too late to be creative."

Not true for two reasons:

1) The main sequence lifetime of the Sun is roughly twice its current age so the universe will have expanded by a about factor two.

2) Although the galaxies are moving away from each other (some caveats, locally the Andromeda galaxy is approaching because of the gravitational attraction between the two), stars in our galaxy are not. They are evolving, but not receeding.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 07 Feb 16 - 02:12 PM

For anyone interested in Physics or Astrophysics, there are very, very strong rumours that the discovery of gravitational waves by the Advanced Ligo detector will be announced this coming Thursday.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Feb 16 - 02:35 PM

This thought of galaxies receding at more than the speed of light infers that relatively, the distance between us and it increases over time at factor that is more than the speed of light, which is of course not quite the same thing.

Many learned constructs have been dismantled over the years but e+mc2 is still a rough and ready guide, and it takes more than mass/wave duality to get around the infinite mass inferred in sweeping statements such as some of those above.

The other part of this debate I struggle with is the concept of space expanding faster than anything to put in it. Space is merely a product of what goes into it and rather than expanding "faster" it merely accommodates. If it didn't you could never calculate for it anyway.

Unless you play dice of course..

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Feb 16 - 05:23 PM

A LIGO announcement would be cool since their upgrade and relative silence. woowhooo!

Re: the sun going giant Vs. a black night sky could be 5 to 10 billion years apart but close enough for jazz. I would think our own galaxy will be visible until all the hydrogen is used up.

Dave Excellent Sean Carrol post
btw who had S=K.log W on their tombstone?

"Many "misconceptions" in physics stem from an honest attempt to explain technical concepts in natural language, and I try to be very forgiving about those."- its exasperating to me though. because I do it too.

To me Inflation is a contradiction and a ill defined event that demands a better answer , so I try to think of one.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST: Dave
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 08 Feb 16 - 01:57 PM

I was thinking it had to be Boltzmann, Wikipedia confirms that this is right.