http://www.amazon.co.uk/Five-Ages-U...+the+Universe:+Inside+the+Physics+of+Eternity
Or, if you insist upon driving on the wrong side of the road:
http://www.amazon.com/Five-Ages-Universe-Physics-Eternity/dp/0684854228
Astronomy / Space Found: a black hole 12bn times the size of the sun
- Thread starter Jakester13
- Start date
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Five-Ages-U...+the+Universe:+Inside+the+Physics+of+Eternity
Or, if you insist upon driving on the wrong side of the road:
http://www.amazon.com/Five-Ages-Universe-Physics-Eternity/dp/0684854228
Just to take the wind out of your sails!
Theories in science are usually backed up with mathematics, evidence, and experimental data.
I'd be happy with 'My thoughts are ...'
Fred Hoyle had a theory: Steady State theory. I think he was good scientist - bit vain, but aren't we all.
Sounds like they're working on an update, judging by the book's Wikipedia page.
Didn't see that coming.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
So good to hear about your daughter. I hope she doesn't take up AI programming for ED! Another like Sarah and we're done for! ;-)
Where do you come up with this?
No, I've been interested in the self-supporting aspects of science since I was a kid. When I was in my 30s I got interested in the philosophical problem of knowledge, epistemology, and I re-appreciated the scientific method in all its wondrous beauty.
You'll notice in my comment that my approach to describing the topic of scientific knowledge is backward-looking as well as forward-looking. Your understanding of your theory must work backwards by not contradicting any past observations (or showing that they were wrong) and forward by predicting future observations and not being contradicted by them. The reason that's so important is because the forward-looking aspect of science allows us a degree of inductive reasoning, which is a huge problem in epistemology.
Let me explain it this way: how do you know The Sun will rise in the east tomorrow?
a) Because it always has, more or less.
b) Because there is an entire body of knowledge around orbital mechanics and physics that indicate that it will rise tomorrow and that the only way it wouldn't would be if some tremendous force were applied to the Earth or The Sun to prevent it; there is no such force that we see any sign of - no black hole or rogue star or rogue planet coming to knock The Earth out of its orbit - therefore we can safely say that it will rise tomorrow. More importantly, if it somehow doesn't, we'll have a framework that will explain why it didn't. (e.g.: rogue black hole we didn't notice, whatever)
I'm not an astrophysicist, I'm just a big fan of astrophysics and most of the sciences, so I have gained a working surface knowledge of a lot of related stuff.
Do you understand how scientists know that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are there?
They bend light.
Which means that there is substantial mass to them. For all intents and purposes in Einstein's universe we could say that having mass means you exist.
You're going to have to do a whole lot better than that to overthrow Einsteinian relativity (which is what the big bang rests its foundations on)!!! For one thing, what you just described is as if you mistook Hollywood entertainments like "Interstellar" for documentaries. They are not.
What is on the other side of a black hole? Nothing. A black hole is just a great huge mass in a very small space that warps local space-time hugely. If you fall into a black hole you don't come out the other side, you become a very tiny scum of collapsed matter on the surface of the singularity and that's pretty much it. In fact we know that to be true! Because observation ("look! black holes are spinning!") matches theoretical prediction ("matter infalling through an accretion disk will impart its momentum, however tiny that may be, to the black hole") ... sure enough, most black holes with accretion disks are spinning at close to the speed of light. How cool is that? It's also confirmation that mass that infalls into a black hole behaves as mass is wont to do, and stays there.
Please if you want to trot around and try to pretend that modern cosmology is based on circular reasoning, you shouldn't display such ignorance in the lime-light; it's embarrassing.
You're trying to imply that there is circular reasoning going on when, in fact, it's exactly the opposite - the backward-looking aspects of the theory go back to basic principles of physics and forward as logical consequences of them. The CMB is not a "result of the big bang" as much as it's a "predictable stage in what would happen if there had been a big bang" and the fact that that predicted stage happened is supporting evidence.
That is word salad to me.
Maybe you can do better. Do you realize that if you really think you can disprove the big bang, at this point, you would be a more famous physicist than Einstein and Bohr and Feynman combined? You'd be right up there with Newton. So don't publish it here, do it in some academic journal not a game forum.
- - - - -
Actually, it may. Watch that Lawrence Krauss video I linked earlier.
It appears that Dark Matter/Energy have enough push to continue to speed up the expansion of the universe - past the speed of light - which will have some very very interesting side-effects.
- - - - -
Your theory appears to be conclusively wrong.
That's why the discovery of Dark Matter/Energy is so important. It appears we are in an expansionary universe that will not contract. It is actually accellerating its expansion.
Last edited:
Inflation is not needed to allow continual big bangs. Remember, the big bang didn't really occur "in this universe" - the universe occurred in the big bang. It appears that the big bang happened as a result of instability in 'nothing' There's an infinite non-amount of nothing not out there where big bangs can occur, and we're nowhere not near them and there's nothing we'd ever know about it. Krauss explains it pretty well; it appears that something can come from nothing fairly easily - we're a sort of lopsided knot of nothingness.
^^ The preceeding was my attempt to paraphrase Krauss' talk down into a bit of silliness; it's not accurate. The point I was trying to make is that we simply don't have words for a lot of this stuff.
Sorry I missed that one, earlier.
The reason we know Dark Matter/Energy exists is because they have mass, which means gravity. We can see that gravitational effect as it bends light. There is no gravity that is not gravity.
Meanwhile, scientists have no idea what dark matter is. Isn't that amazingly cool!? Literally, cause for wonder!!!
There is something, that weighs more than galaxies, yet co-exists* with them and we can't detect anything except for its gravitational effect.
(*"exist" may not be the right word; our vocabulary for speaking about dark matter is weak)
Last edited:
What, don't you guys all have google news search terms set up for "black hole"???! I do!:
http://natmonitor.com/2015/02/28/stunning-find-missing-link-in-black-hole-evolution-discovered/
Excerpts: (my comments in red)
Scientists have found a celestial body that could be the long-sought missing link in black hole evolution.
The object, a moderately sized black hole called NGC-2276-3c, sits on the arm of the spiral galaxy NGC-2276 100 million light years from Earth. The black hole has an estimate mass of between a few hundred to a few hundred thousand suns, compared to the giant black holes that are at the heart of galaxies and are the size of billions of suns
I hate hate hate it when journalists refer to astronomical objects using evolutionary terms. First off, "missing link" is a nonsense term even in evolutionary biology but it really really really does not apply to stars. Stars have predictable lifecycles, they don't evolve. Nothing in astrophysics changes as a result of differential survival and reproduction except for life.
Researchers also noted that a powerful radio jet blasting 2,000 light-years into space from the black hole has cleared a path among young stars for about 1,000 light-years, which indicates that it cleared out clouds of gas and prevented them from forming into stars.
"DEATH BEAM" It's a mother!&(!&#ing DEATH BEAM! M-87's is bigger tho.
The team conducted a separate study to look into NGC 2276-3c’s origin, using Chandra to find that about five to 15 suns are forming each year in the galaxy, a high rate that indicates the galaxy collided with another smaller galaxy, which can cause stars to form rapidly. This means that NGC 2276-3c may have been located near the core of the dwarf galaxy.
http://natmonitor.com/2015/02/28/stunning-find-missing-link-in-black-hole-evolution-discovered/
Excerpts: (my comments in red)
Scientists have found a celestial body that could be the long-sought missing link in black hole evolution.
The object, a moderately sized black hole called NGC-2276-3c, sits on the arm of the spiral galaxy NGC-2276 100 million light years from Earth. The black hole has an estimate mass of between a few hundred to a few hundred thousand suns, compared to the giant black holes that are at the heart of galaxies and are the size of billions of suns
I hate hate hate it when journalists refer to astronomical objects using evolutionary terms. First off, "missing link" is a nonsense term even in evolutionary biology but it really really really does not apply to stars. Stars have predictable lifecycles, they don't evolve. Nothing in astrophysics changes as a result of differential survival and reproduction except for life.
Researchers also noted that a powerful radio jet blasting 2,000 light-years into space from the black hole has cleared a path among young stars for about 1,000 light-years, which indicates that it cleared out clouds of gas and prevented them from forming into stars.
"DEATH BEAM" It's a mother!&(!&#ing DEATH BEAM! M-87's is bigger tho.
The team conducted a separate study to look into NGC 2276-3c’s origin, using Chandra to find that about five to 15 suns are forming each year in the galaxy, a high rate that indicates the galaxy collided with another smaller galaxy, which can cause stars to form rapidly. This means that NGC 2276-3c may have been located near the core of the dwarf galaxy.
Last edited:
Wow Badger, you've been busy. Some good posts there with good sound reasoning, well maybe not the DEATH BEAM . Radio Jets now theres a phenomena that really is mind bogglingly powerful and actually quite frightening not that there is any object capable of producing one close to us.
. Radio Jets now theres a phenomena that really is mind bogglingly powerful and actually quite frightening not that there is any object capable of producing one close to us.
Last edited:
I hate hate hate it when journalists refer to astronomical objects using evolutionary terms. First off, "missing link" is a nonsense term even in evolutionary biology but it really really really does not apply to stars. Stars have predictable lifecycles, they don't evolve. Nothing in astrophysics changes as a result of differential survival and reproduction except for life./QUOTE]
Look, not everyone is 'scientific' Surly_Badger! And they are to writing to an audience the majority of whom are 'non-scientific'. They will get their sciences mixed up too.
The term 'evolve' can mean many things in the natural course of conversation. An author of a novel may well speak of evolving a character they have created. We speak of the age of a star, a star is old or young and there is 'growth' between these concepts. All these terms give can give rise to a different analogy in each person's mind which may or may not further their understanding.
You have yourself just wrote 'predictable lifecycles'. A star is not a living biological entity is it? So why do we use lifecycle?
Only be scientifically pedantic with scientists. Live long and prosper.
Wasn't Dark Matter invented to account for missing mass. It was not discovered any more then someone has discovered an infinite mass singularity. It was invented to solve the equations.
As you state, light bends. There is no doubt we can detect that. But we could not find the appropriate physical mass/gravity large enough to be causing this observation. So Dark Matter and Energy were Invented by the math wizards to solve the factual failure of then current simulations to explain the light bending by celestial gravity mass alone.
As you state, light bends. There is no doubt we can detect that. But we could not find the appropriate physical mass/gravity large enough to be causing this observation. So Dark Matter and Energy were Invented by the math wizards to solve the factual failure of then current simulations to explain the light bending by celestial gravity mass alone.
So, please enlighten us: how do you explain those phenomena - and how your explanation fits observations better than the theories you so readily dismiss as mathematical trickery?
There are multiple lines of evidence that point consistent amounts of dark matter and dark energy. It's not just solving one problem. It's killing several birds with one (or two) stone.
It's been on the cards for a while, but no actual new yet. Let's just hope it isn't a cheap re-write to try to make a bit more money of of the original idea.
I was in fact, originally put onto the notion by Brian Cox.
I tried watching that video, I really did. The guy seemed to spend almost as much time attacking theology as he did talking about physics. And he even got that wrong.
I'm sorry I couldn't take the guy seriously. Even putting aside his introduction by Dawkins. A man who's stupidity is masked by his arrogance is masked by his contrived persecution complex.
They may have a point about theology, they may not. In any case, to spend a considerable amount of their time referencing it suggest their understanding of theology is as questionable as their grasp of physics. Such charlatans could only be a product of the Tenure system.
If you can reference the point in some text, preferably available online, I will be most grateful
Same thing with gravity we really do not know what the heck it is, but the math fits.
The various references to Dark Matter and Dark Energy bring to mind the innovation of Aether. That was a necessary construct to explain the movement of radiation in a vacuum. Though it is now dismissed, it was, at the time, necessary to develop a crude device, to fill gaps in what was then known.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy are essentially the same. Constructs to explain observations, in this case, the apparent gravity lensing of some galaxies and the increasing expansion of the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(classical_element)
Undoubtedly, the puzzles will eventually be solved and both of these exotic notions will one day be replaced, but for the time being, they would appear to be adequate to fill gaps in knowledge.
In the mean time, it is tempting for the mysterious nature of these constructs to be construed to give them potential properties which are more for SiFi that a discussion of what is. So, it may be useful to view it as a construct rather than as an actual entity, not yet fully examined.
Last edited:
I think that analogy is false. Aether never had any experimental support. "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" sent it to the trash heap. The theorists experimental predictions were quickly ruled out by observation. Dark energy may be a bit closer as a placeholder to Aether it is smooth but it does not have a "place of rest", it looks the same no matter how you travel through it. Dark matter is just the opposite. Forced by observation, not theory. Predictions based on the dark matter/energy models are proving true concerning observation of gravitational lensing and the cosmicmicrowave background. Just as described in the links you provided. Sean Carroll certainly killed a lot of theorists dreams.
Our devices are not so crude as they were over one hundred years ago. We know a bit about particle/wave behavior and have a fairly nice sized accelerator on the planet.
Last edited:
You can not dismiss the unknown.
Just to take the wind out of your sails!
Theories in science are usually backed up with mathematics, evidence, and experimental data.
I'd be happy with 'My thoughts are ...'
Fred Hoyle had a theory: Steady State theory. I think he was good scientist - bit vain, but aren't we all.
Anybody can have theory can't they? Yes its just an idea, a mere thought, a simple suggestion or even a dream. I used the word theory and I don't see a problem with the words I choose I can't help it if others do though.
P.s there was no wind in my sails and I don't pretend to be a scientist. I am just stating my thoughts on a forum. I appreciate the feedback though. I still like my theory.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Isn't the earth 10000 years old
Last edited:
This is a rather more intangible approach to the same problems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory