Cosmology: Expanding universe (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Tuesday, April 17, 2012, 01:47 (4605 days ago)
Using quasars to proe the point, not supernovas as before- http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/04/16/3476013.htm
Cosmology: Dark matter proven?
by David Turell , Saturday, July 07, 2012, 15:37 (4523 days ago) @ David Turell
Dark matter lensing is the technique used. Clever idea:-http://phys.org/news/2012-07-cosmology-group-evidence-dark-filament.html-If you can't see it use its effects
Cosmology: Dark matter proven?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, July 07, 2012, 20:43 (4523 days ago) @ David Turell
"Because there was nothing else in the area, the only possible explanation was that dark matter in the shape of a filament was the cause."-God did it.. :P-Why is that the only possible explanation? It is the only possible explanation because any other possible explanation would require them to admit that there is a flaw with their model overall?
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Cosmology: Dark matter proven?
by David Turell , Saturday, July 07, 2012, 22:19 (4523 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
"Because there was nothing else in the area, the only possible explanation was that dark matter in the shape of a filament was the cause." > > God did it.. :P > > Why is that the only possible explanation? It is the only possible explanation because any other possible explanation would require them to admit that there is a flaw with their model overall?-Gravitational lensing fits all theories so far. we are stuck with it.
Cosmology: Dark matter proven?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, July 08, 2012, 00:04 (4523 days ago) @ David Turell
"Because there was nothing else in the area, the only possible explanation was that dark matter in the shape of a filament was the cause." > > > > God did it.. :P > > > > Why is that the only possible explanation? It is the only possible explanation because any other possible explanation would require them to admit that there is a flaw with their model overall? > > Gravitational lensing fits all theories so far. we are stuck with it.-Not really.. I have been kicking around a thought about this for a long time, and I admit to having absolutely no more evidence than a hunch, but my gut tells me they are wrong. -The best I know how to explain the basis for this hunch is this. For all of the so called fundamental forces, we can directly measure them in some way. All of the except gravity. Mathematically, gravity makes sense. It fits... I get that. But, we don't have any direct method of measuring it. The premise behind it is really weird as well. Something that has mass exerts a force on another object, yet we can make no direct measurement of that force nor can we come up with any reasonable answer of how that force is generated. There is some hoohah bout it being a bend in space time or an inherent property of mass, but that just means we don't have a friggin clue. So what they are doing is basing their interpretation on an assumption of an non-observable 'mass' that is supposed to make up for the fact that there is another unobservable force for which we have no explanation except a mathematical model based on no solid evidence.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Cosmology: Dark matter proven?
by David Turell , Sunday, July 08, 2012, 01:31 (4523 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
"Because there was nothing else in the area, the only possible explanation was that dark matter in the shape of a filament was the cause." > > > > > > God did it.. :P > > > > > > Why is that the only possible explanation? It is the only possible explanation because any other possible explanation would require them to admit that there is a flaw with their model overall? > > > > Gravitational lensing fits all theories so far. we are stuck with it. > > Not really.. I have been kicking around a thought about this for a long time, and I admit to having absolutely no more evidence than a hunch, but my gut tells me they are wrong. > > The best I know how to explain the basis for this hunch is this. For all of the so called fundamental forces, we can directly measure them in some way. All of the except gravity. Mathematically, gravity makes sense. It fits... I get that. But, we don't have any direct method of measuring it. The premise behind it is really weird as well. Something that has mass exerts a force on another object, yet we can make no direct measurement of that force nor can we come up with any reasonable answer of how that force is generated. There is some hoohah bout it being a bend in space time or an inherent property of mass, but that just means we don't have a friggin clue. So what they are doing is basing their interpretation on an assumption of an non-observable 'mass' that is supposed to make up for the fact that there is another unobservable force for which we have no explanation except a mathematical model based on no solid evidence.-Gravity exists and they discuss gravity waves. The force of gravity is the weight of the Earth, the distance from the sun, our orbital speed all calculated.
Cosmology: Dark matter proven?
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, July 08, 2012, 02:16 (4523 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
"Because there was nothing else in the area, the only possible explanation was that dark matter in the shape of a filament was the cause." > > > > > > God did it.. :P > > > > > > Why is that the only possible explanation? It is the only possible explanation because any other possible explanation would require them to admit that there is a flaw with their model overall? > > > > Gravitational lensing fits all theories so far. we are stuck with it. > > Not really.. I have been kicking around a thought about this for a long time, and I admit to having absolutely no more evidence than a hunch, but my gut tells me they are wrong. > > The best I know how to explain the basis for this hunch is this. For all of the so called fundamental forces, we can directly measure them in some way. All of the except gravity. Mathematically, gravity makes sense. It fits... I get that. But, we don't have any direct method of measuring it. The premise behind it is really weird as well. Something that has mass exerts a force on another object, yet we can make no direct measurement of that force nor can we come up with any reasonable answer of how that force is generated. There is some hoohah bout it being a bend in space time or an inherent property of mass, but that just means we don't have a friggin clue. So what they are doing is basing their interpretation on an assumption of an non-observable 'mass' that is supposed to make up for the fact that there is another unobservable force for which we have no explanation except a mathematical model based on no solid evidence.-I'm going to be posting in greater depth about the interplay between math and physics soon, but in the discussion here, if Einstein's theory of gravitation were wrong, gravitational lensing wouldn't work. The only hole that exists in the totality of physics in regards to gravity is a quantum description of gravity--which the Higgs gets us a giant step closer to. As David explained,gravity is measured perfectly fine, and we can perfectly predict what gravity around an object should be when given its mass. -The fact that gravity bends light as Einstein predicted is confirmation of the curved space-time explanation in physics. It is not hogwash.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Cosmology: Dark matter proven?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, July 10, 2012, 11:35 (4520 days ago) @ xeno6696
I am not saying that the numbers are wrong, just that the explanation for the numbers is lacking. All of the other fundamental forces can be explained as a function of certain processes, except for gravity. That is to say, we know what GENERATES all of the other fundamental forces, except gravity. If we can't explain the source, then basing further claims upon it seems silly. -The simple fact that there are 'gravitational waves' to me is indicative of something more than a simple 'inherent property of mass'.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Cosmology: Expanding universe
by David Turell , Thursday, December 03, 2015, 01:55 (3279 days ago) @ David Turell
Another measurement by a different method:-http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo35/sure-signs.php-"An international team of astronomers has recently determined the rate of expansion for the universe based on studies of HII regions (star-forming gaseous nebulae) in 69 galaxies over a broad range of distances. This seems to be a straightforward scientific determination, but it is loaded with philosophical implications. Here's why: Since the cosmic expansion rate measured is at least approximately constant, the inverse of that rate: (1) establishes that the universe had a beginning, (2) yields the amount of time that has transpired since the cosmic beginning, and (3) implies that a cosmic Initiator must exist to have set the cosmos in motion.-***-"The research team proved the reality of cosmic inflation to 6.075 standard deviations. That number of standard deviations translates into a certainty measure for the reality of cosmic inflation. Thanks to the team's measurements, we now can be 99.9999999 percent certain that the universe indeed went through a hyper-inflation expansion event when it was only about 10^34 seconds (a super-brief moment) old. However, this certainty measure does not take into account possible systematic effects. Consequently, astronomers are pursuing independent methods of determining cosmic inflation measurements. -***-"Personally, I do not put a lot of confidence in a scientific result unless it has been established by experiments, observations, and theory, and I see consistency among all the observations and experiments. In addition, I expect to see the results becoming progressively better as the error bars, both random and systematic, shrink."-Comment: Pinning down the creation point, does not prove a creator. That requires more evidence.
Cosmology: Expanding universe
by David Turell , Friday, April 29, 2016, 02:18 (3132 days ago) @ David Turell
A good description of black hole theory: - http://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/where-nature-hides-the-darkest-mystery-of-all - "In a meaningful sense, a black hole is its event horizon, since we can't observe anything inside it by any method. The interior is nature's biggest secret, enshrouded by a barrier that lets everything in but nothing out. - "To make black holes even more enigmatic, they are also perfectly featureless, according to general relativity, our best explanation of how gravity works. They may be born from situations as different as the deaths of stars and the gravitational collapse of huge amounts of gas in the early universe, but the result is the same. Even the chemical composition of what gets sucked into and forms it is irrelevant. The only properties a black hole exhibits to the wider cosmos are its mass and how fast it's rotating. - "This result is puckishly known as the “no-hair theorem”: Whatever is going on in the interior, no “hair” sticks out of the event horizon. (The name was coined by prominent physicist John Archibald Wheeler, obviously not a man sensitive about a receding hairline.) That theorem presents a challenging conundrum: We don't know whether a black hole actually deletes its autobiography, “forgetting” its past and its progenitor's composition, or preserves it somehow in a way we don't know yet. If that information is destroyed, it's a violation of one of the principles of quantum mechanics; if it's preserved, it requires a theory beyond general relativity. - *** - "We can't penetrate the bald event horizon, but that doesn't mean we know nothing about a black hole's interior. We're pretty sure black holes don't contain a portal to another region of space (a wormhole) or another reality, whatever sci-fi may have told us. Most physicists are also reasonably certain that a full description of the interior of black holes will require quantum gravity, a theory unifying quantum physics and general relativity—or possibly a modified version of our current model of gravity. - "One hybrid approach was put together by Yakov Borisovich Zel'dovich, Jacob Bekenstein, and especially Stephen Hawking. Without a quantum theory of gravity, they used particle physics in combination with general relativity to show that the event horizon has a non-zero temperature and therefore glows, albeit very faintly. This glow is known as Hawking radiation; it arises when partnered particles—one electron and one positron, pairs of photons, etc.—are created in the intense gravitational field. One particle falls into the black hole, while the other escapes. - *** - "We see black holes like V404 Cygni by the matter surrounding them: Material stripped off companion stars, for example, heats up as it orbits the black hole, emitting strong X-ray and radio radiation. Thanks to high-resolution observations made last year, astronomers have measured swirling gas at very close orbits to the giant black hole in the galaxy M87. And the dance of stars and plasma near Sagittarius A* reveals the presence of the black hole that helps keep our galaxy together." - Comment: To weird to be real, but with the latest methods they can be identified by their meals!