Gravitational waves created by black holes in the centre of most galaxies

April 3, 2018, Royal Astronomical Society
Gravitational waves created by black holes in the centre of most galaxies
Sagittarius A*, the black hole at the centre of our own galaxy. Credit: NASA/CXC/MIT/F. Baganoff et al.

Gravitational waves may be produced in the heart of the galaxy, says a new study led by Ph.D. student Joseph Fernandez at Liverpool John Moores University. He sets out the work in a presentation on 3rd April at the European Week of Astronomy and Space Science in Liverpool.

Gravitational waves are small ripples in space-time that spread throughout the universe. When there is a change in air pressure on Earth, this change moves outwards in the form of sound waves. Analogously, when pairs of compact objects like or neutron stars form binaries and rotate around one another, the gravitational field around them changes, producing gravity waves that also move outwards.

This phenomenon was predicted by Albert Einstein in 1915. The amplitude of these ripples was predicted to be so small that Einstein thought they would never be detected. However in 2015, a century after making the prediction, gravity waves were observed directly for the first time

These originated from a pair of stellar mass black holes (around 30 times the mass of the sun each), which fell together, and eventually merged.

Since then, another four confirmed observations of gravity waves have been reported to originate from these systems, and with the LIGO and VIRGO improvements currently underway, we expect to see many more in the near future.

These observations show that are commonplace in the universe. However, researchers are still not sure how these sort of binary systems form. This is because they need to be on very close or very eccentric orbits in order to collapse in such a way that are observable.

Fernandez and colleagues, including another Ph.D. student Brown, have shown that the orbits of binaries can be changed by the black hole that lies in the centre of most galaxies, including our own.

A massive black hole results in very intense gravitational fields and extreme physics. If a compact binary were to have a close encounter with one, then in most cases it would be disrupted and its component black holes or stars would be separated.

However, this isn't always the case.

Binaries can emerge from the tidal encounter undisrupted under certain conditions, with their orbits suffering severe modifications. By using Monte Carlo simulations, Fernandez has shown that surviving black hole binary systems can become tight and eccentric, reducing the merger time by over a factor of 100 in 10 percent of cases.

This could be sufficient to force binaries that wouldn't merge within the lifetime of the universe to do so sooner, leading to observable .

This process can also flip the binary system orbital plane, making the black holes orbit in the opposite direction to their initial conditions. This can lead to negative effective spin values, which could be used to distinguish this mechanism from others.

Explore further: Black hole pair born inside a dying star?

Related Stories

Black hole pair born inside a dying star?

December 19, 2017

Far from earth, two black holes orbit around each other, propagating waves that bend time and space. The existence of such waves—gravitational waves—was first predicted by Albert Einstein over a century ago on the basis ...

Recommended for you

Where to search for signs of life on Titan

July 20, 2018

New findings, published in the journal Astrobiology, suggest that large craters are the prime locations in which to find the building blocks of life on Saturn's largest moon, Titan.

Did a rogue star change the makeup of our solar system?

July 20, 2018

A team of researchers from the Max-Planck Institute and Queen's University has used new information to test a theory that suggests a rogue star passed close enough to our solar system millions of years ago to change its configuration. ...

Traveling to the sun: Why won't Parker Solar Probe melt?

July 19, 2018

This summer, NASA's Parker Solar Probe will launch to travel closer to the Sun, deeper into the solar atmosphere, than any mission before it. If Earth was at one end of a yard-stick and the Sun on the other, Parker Solar ...

185 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

milnik
1 / 5 (9) Apr 03, 2018
Gravity waves can not exist, because gravity has nothing to do with the properties of matter, neither is it a particle or a wave. Gravity is the interaction of a part of matter with the substance AETHER, from which matter is formed.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2018
^^^^^Go write it up, gobshites. Otherwise, please shut up about stuff that you don't understand. Yes?
alexander2468
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2018
As long as we cling to the fallacy gravity is ripples in space time, were not making any in headway in gravities gravitons. We live in present, the past is a memory and the future hasn't happened it doesn't exist, we know from our experience this true. It's sad to think we only live in present and time is only in our imagination, but there it is. Sad but true!
milnik
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2018
Can anything come from nothing? Every human will know it's absurd. Then science as a powerful weapon to find out the true causes of phenomena in the universe must avoid such traps, because they move us from the direction of our consciousness.
Why did ether not be able to form a wave?
Aether is neither matter nor energy. It can be moved through high vibrations when strings are formed in three spatial directions and in their cross sections a solid state of -3KG particles (3 quarks and 3 gluon binders) is formed. This state of the aether is caused by the appearance of GRAVITATION.
Likewise, some of your fabrics originated in Einstein's textile industry, and these are some complexities of space time, which are "scientific cancers" that destroy our mind and consciousness and return us into the form of any animal.
milnik
1 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2018
What energy should be used to understand what gravity is and do not think something illogical and non-existent in a university. What does gravity with photons have to do with it? Where there is no photon, there is no graviton, but you do not know that gravitons do not exist at all. There are several energy states of photons, but it needs to know what is happening to Aether when matter is formed from it.
humy
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2018
Gravity waves can not exist, because gravity has nothing to do with the properties of matter, neither is it a particle or a wave. Gravity is the interaction of a part of matter with the substance AETHER, from which matter is formed.

milnik

What are you on?
Are you aware that gravity waves have been detected? If so, how can you assert "Gravity waves can not exist"? And "matter" is "formed" from "AETHER"!? -again, what are you on?
The old aether theory has been long since been scientifically totally discredited and science has for long moved on; -welcome to the modern aether-free physics.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2018
Ether, obviously.
humy
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 04, 2018
Can anything come from nothing? Every human will know it's absurd.

Science doesn't say something can "come from nothing" and anyone who truly understands modern physics correctly wouldn't insist that something can indeed "come from nothing".
And, despite many people having the misconception of the contrary, even 'empty' space is "something".
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2018
If you carefully investigate Newtons laws of motion to the exclusion of everything else so your mind is clear and uncluttered, you will answer your first question - Can anything come from nothing?

milnic> Can anything come from nothing? .

antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2018
Can anything come from nothing?

Senseless question. The difference between "anything" and "nothing" is the difference between one and zero.
While one is a descriptor that you can attach to something zero is not.
Zero (of something) is an *abstract concept*. Or more precisely a limit if you think of 'ever smaller numbers of something'
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2018
This called being dogmatic, you have investigate what milnic has been asked to investigate in the manner he has been asked to investigate, once you see it in Newton's mathematics you will metaphorically so to speak go and hit your head on the wall in dismay!
Can anything come from nothing?

Senseless question. The difference between "anything" and "nothing" is the difference between one and zero.
While one is a descriptor that you can attach to something zero is not.
Zero (of something) is an *abstract concept*. Or more precisely a limit if you think of 'ever smaller numbers of something'

granville583762
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2018
antialias_physorg:- It will remain an apparent senseless question as long as you look at its a senseless question, when you look at it in all seriousness, then you will approach Sir Isaacs Newton's laws of motion with an uncluttered mind, then and only then will you approach the laws of acceleration with your pocket calculator, it's so straight foreword you do not even need to write it down, the mathematics are just a mental exercise.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2018
Hmmmm, let's give that question, "Can anything come from nothing," another look.

Vacuum fluctuations come from nothing. And we know they're there because of the Casimir effect. So I would have to answer, "Yes," given the evidence. Of course, they go back to nothing quite quickly, but they have definite effects before they do, so even though they are evanescent they are not nothing, and vacuum is as close to nothing as nothing gets in our universe. Assuming of course the universe doesn't spontaneously experience vacuum decay to zero vacuum energy, always a possibility but not a very likely one.
humy
1 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2018

Vacuum fluctuations come from nothing.

No, they come from the laws of physics.
And the laws of physics didn't 'come'.
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2018
Getting warmer you're on the right track, but it is not in the quantum fluctuations, but in Sir Isaac Newton's laws of motion.
Hmmmm, let's give that question, "Can anything come from nothing," another look.

Vacuum fluctuations come from nothing. And we know they're there because of the Casimir effect. So I would have to answer, "Yes," given the evidence. Of course, they go back to nothing quite quickly, but they have definite effects before they do, so even though they are evanescent they are not nothing, and vacuum is as close to nothing as nothing gets in our universe. Assuming of course the universe doesn't spontaneously experience vacuum decay to zero vacuum energy, always a possibility but not a very likely one.

granville583762
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2018
Da Schneib:- you are the only one so far, who has the fore thought of mind to approach Sir Isaac Newton's laws of motion. It is only in Sir Isaac's Newton's laws of motion and nowhere else, which is why it requires a clear uncluttered mind free from the quantum fluctuations, Casimir effects, vacuum decay, space time to name but a few. As it complies with Sir Isaac's Newton's laws of motion the energy in the motion is also compliant with the conservation of motion. As you can see Da Schneib, I have inkly typed at great length in five comments and I have not made any reference to the quantum fluctuations concerning Sir Isaac's Newton's laws of motion.
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2018
Da Schneib:- if some told me that in the equations of Sir Isaac's Newton's laws of motion are energy of motion, presumably I would be expected to investigate Sir Isaac's Newton's laws of motion and not seek diversionary innumerably numbers of rabbit warrens of holes in the quantum fluctuations seeking the answer that is only to be found in Sir Isaac's Newton's laws of motion. if Sir Isaac's Newton was here today as he knows the solution is in own laws of motion and he wanted the details to remain secret while telling all the professors around him of its existence, and there would be plenty of professors around him, he would soon cotton on that all he has to do to keep it secret is tell everyone it's in his laws of motion knowing everyone will look everywhere else but his laws of motion.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2018
Vacuum fluctuations come from nothing.

We do have spacetime which is not 'nothing'. (We also have dark energy which is not 'nothing') Having no particle or no measurable energy at some point does not mean there is 'nothing'.

The question of "how can something - like the universe - come from nothing gets a pretty 'easy' solution when you consider whether the state of 'nothing' is even possible.

A state has a position and a length of time. But if we were to consider something before* the universe (i.e. something without spacetime) it seems to me that you quickly run into the question "how long can something without spaceTIME exist?"...it can't. It'd be over instantly because it has no time.

Nothingness isn't a default state (from which something then arises). It's an impossible state.

Or to losely translate Heidegger (or Hegel, I always confuse the two) on 'Nothingness'.
"Existence exists because its opposite can't."
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2018
Just as a side note:

quantum fluctuations, Casimir effects

Energy and time are conjugate variables which are related via:
delta E * delta t >= h / (4*Pi)
(A more commonly known relation of this type is between position and momentum in the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. But there are quite a few such conjugate variable pairs besides position/momentum)

So you can't really reduce delta E to zero (which would be required for a true state of 'nothingness' to persist), because otherwise there would be no delta t that would satisfy the above equation.

granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2018
antialias_physorg:- it is in Sir Isaac Newton's laws of motion and now where else i.e. (f=ma a=f/m where a =v/t where E=0.5mv* and more specifically d=0.5at*) it is in these formulae and nowhere else, I said it was not complicated and as you can see, it is only algebra.
Just as a side note:

antialias_physorg> quantum fluctuations, Casimir effects

Energy and time are conjugate variables which are related via:
delta E * delta t >= h / (4*Pi)
(A more commonly known relation of this type is between position and momentum in the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. But there are quite a few such conjugate variable pairs besides position/momentum)

So you can't really reduce delta E to zero (which would be required for a true state of 'nothingness' to persist), because otherwise there would be no delta t that would satisfy the above equation.


granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2018
antialias_physorg:- It is the nature of understanding that people cannot told, they have to learn and realise it for themselves, it is the only way we can fully understand even simple concepts, as I pointed out "Sir Isaac's Newton would soon cotton on that all he has to do to keep it secret is tell everyone it's in his laws of motion knowing everyone will look everywhere else but his laws of motion" and that is what is exactly what is happening – thank you for not looking in Sir Isaac's Newton's laws of motion.
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2018
antialias_physorg:- Now how did I know that! - that everyone will look everywhere else but his laws of motion?
granville583762> antialias_physorg:- It is the nature of understanding that people cannot told, they have to learn and realise it for themselves, it is the only way we can fully understand even simple concepts, as I pointed out "Sir Isaac's Newton would soon cotton on that all he has to do to keep it secret is tell everyone it's in his laws of motion knowing everyone will look everywhere else but his laws of motion" and that is what is exactly what is happening – thank you for not looking in Sir Isaac's Newton's laws of motion.

granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2018
It is almost as though everyone does not want to know, despite material emerging out the quantum fluctuations being readily accepted, but emerge out the quantum fluctuations into the light of day, the same intellectual thought gone into the quantum fluctuations is not as readily applied to Isaac Newton's calculations. Thank you again for not looking in Sir Isaac's Newton's laws of motion, keeping it secret!
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2018
So far there has been 17 comments on milnics observation - "Can anything come from nothing?" and so far no has looked into Isaac Newton's calculations, even milnic himself has shown no interest in his own observation, and no one can be not aware that Sir Isaac's Newton would soon cotton on that all he has to do to keep it secret is tell everyone it's in his laws of motion knowing everyone will look everywhere else but his laws of motion because from the comments so far have steered so far from Isaac Newton's calculations their thought only exist in the quantum fluctuation as this a point of fact observed by reading all the comments!
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2018
This is certainly a lesson in how to keep a secret while heads are buried in the quantum fluctuation!
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2018
t is in Sir Isaac Newton's laws of motion and now where else i.e. (f=ma a=f/m where a =v/t where E=0.5mv* and more specifically d=0.5at*) it is in these formulae and nowhere else, I said it was not complicated and as you can see, it is only algebra.

Well, for one: Newton's laws are calculus - not algebra. He invented calculus specifically for that, remember? (Or Leibnitz...or both...whatever floats your boat on that particular issue)

For another: Newton's laws help absolutely nothing in the realm of quantum physics.

So i'm pretty sure your house of cards is missing its entire bottom row.
rrwillsj
1.5 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2018
I think this controversy is a limitation of our comprehension of what we are observing.

An example. You are at the flight line of an airport. A propeller-driven aircraft in front of you has kicked over it's engine preparing for take off . You watch as the propeller starts to revolve.

As it gets up to speed and becomes a blur, suddenly the blurred propeller appears to be rotating in reverse.

There are three real phenomena occurring in contradiction.

The propeller is rotating. Your view of it is a blur. However the propeller is unchanged. It is your vision of it that is a blur.

When, suddenly it appears to you that the rotation in one direction, has suddenly reversed?

The physical propeller has not changed in any way. The direction of rotation for the propeller has not changed.

What has changed is how your brain is interpreting the flow of the blurred image. As contradictory as it appears, all three phenomena are 'real'.
milnik
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2018
@hymu,
and others, I asked the question because many scientists and their theories say there is an empty space. By the term "empty space", I mean a space in which there is nothing.
What you see as "empty" is the substance of Aether, which you do not know or hold, as you do not perceive the existence of the Spiritual Entity, and therefore do not have the possibility of grasping the true causes of the phenomenon. Science has left the Aether research because they do not possess the consciousness that the Spiritual Entity gives to those who believe in it and what is the power to understand, create and discover the true causes of the phenomenon.
This "empty" space = Aether, with the form of matter that causes magnetism, forms everything that you call "virtually",
milnik
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2018
forms all kinds of electro and magnetic fields and phenomena, you just need to know how it works. All of you who say that Aether is dead, you will never understand many phenomena, and Newton's law relates to the interaction of bodies composed of a large amount of matter, that is, the attraction of two bodies, but the notion of gravity is somewhat more subtle than Kepler did not give the exact formula and explanation of the motion of the celestial body.
And it needs to be corrected. Therefore, it is necessary to abandon the "scientific pesticides" as soon as possible: the complexity of time, the expansion of the universe, the appearance of BB, the existence of gravitational waves and the like. If he realizes gravity, it will reject the appearance of gravitational waves.
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2018
antialias_physorg:- thank you for your persistence, this is how it started, Sir Isaac Newton's laws of motion, because now you're actually quoting them, as I pointed out you have to find it you're self as it is the only way people can understand concepts, with no argumentative diversionary tactics, calculus, quantum physics proves the point you have to find this independently of other people., you have to ask the right questions - the main point it is not in the quantum world. As you get on right track you will ask the right questions leading to the answers.
.

antialias_physorg> Newton's laws help absolutely nothing in the realm of quantum physics.

granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2018
antialias_physorg:- I am not giving up in despair as i know you are finding it "Can anything come from nothing" you have made the first step in right direction, though considering it is investigating such respected laws, it does surprise me some what the air of dismissiveness without fully looking first.
.

Newton's laws help absolutely nothing in the realm of quantum physics.

humy
3.3 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2018

I asked the question because many scientists and their theories say there is an empty space. By the term "empty space", I mean a space in which there is nothing.

No, empty space contains space. Space is not nothing. Space is something.
If a box is emptied, does the space inside cease to exist?
Your logic is flawed

What you see as "empty" is the substance of Aether,

I say yet again, science, more specifically relativity which HAS already been experimentally verified, has long disproved the old aether hypothesis and has long moved on.
If the old aether hypothesis was correct, relativity would be wildly wrong and nuclear power stations wouldn't work.

which you do not know or hold, as you do not perceive the existence of the Spiritual Entity, and therefore do not have the possibility of grasping the true causes of the phenomenon.

What are you on?
humy
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2018
No, empty space contains space

correction; I think should have said that as "No, empty space is still space, not nothing".
Not sure but I think there might be something logically wrong in saying space "contains" space? -sounds circular to me.
antialias_physorg
3.2 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2018
the main point it is not in the quantum world.

seeing as Newton's laws don't get you far in the quantum world I'd say you're wrong. (and every experiment ever done will support me on this)

it does surprise me some what the air of dismissiveness without fully looking first.

Newton's laws are taught in school. They are by no means the pinnacle of current human knowledge. They are an (important) stepping stone but have long since been superseded by Relativity and QM.
(Newton's laws would require superluminal information interchange and aren't invariant under Lorentz transformation)

Newton's laws are sorta like the Bohr atom model. You teach it to children to get a first grip on what an atom is...but to get at what an atom really is and how it behaves (according to what is observed) you'll have to go to Schroedinger's wave equations...under which an atom looks nothing like the Bohr model.
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2018
This is your question milnic, have you made any progress on Sir Isaacs Newton's laws of motion concerning your question " Can anything come from nothing?"
milnic> Can anything come from nothing? .


milnik
1 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2018
@hymu,
space is a place for the accommodation of matter and for its movement. If there is no substance or substance from which matter is formed, then there is no space. The space has nothing to do with matter or substance Aether, which fills the space of the entire infinite universe. Thus, an empty space can not exist at all. If there is nothing in the space, there is no room or nothing can be gained from anything. The fact that former researchers have concluded that there is no Aether, it causes great dilemmas and disagreements about something that must exist, and of this unknown (aether), matter is formed and this process takes place in a closed circle (the origin and disappearance of matter).
milnik
1 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2018
If you empty the space from matter (you can never achieve it), then the substance from which matter is formed remains in that space. All the particles in the particle collisions originated from Aether, but this does not understand science because it does not know the process of forming and dissolving matter.
As far as Njutin's law is concerned, it is not set to apply in subatomic sizes, which you call quantum, although this is also wrong. Kepler's Law needs to be corrected because it does not correspond to the right paths of the celestial bodies, and from Newton's Law comes the way of finding a correction of Kepler's laws.
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2018
So we have found the source of resistance to Sir Isaac Newton's laws of motion and gravity, it is for little children
I think if Sir Isaac Newton was here to today antialias_physorg, he would clock you one for that remark!
.

.


antialias_physorg> Newton's laws are sorta like the Bohr atom model. You teach it to children to get a first grip on what an atom is...

antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2018
he would clock you one for that remark!

And that is supposed to prove...exactly what? If he would 'clock me one' that doesn't make his laws any more useful/applicable to studying the nature of the universe.

Science is not a boxing contest. I'm not knocking Newton's achievements. He was one of the greatest scientists ever. Period. But that doesn't mean science stopped with him. It didn't.

If you want to stop your education at "Newton's laws" then that is your choice. Many who don't go for any form of higher education do. But don't expect to get anywhere in the scientific world (or understanding the universe at a deeper level) with that stance.
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2018
Why a secret remains a secret - when it's for little children

So now we know why the secret is remaining a secret, because it is in Sir Isaac Newton's mathematics and no graduate worth their salt can approach Isaacs's mathematics because it is for little children - thank you antialias_physorg for keeping "can anything come from nothing" secret.
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2018
Talking of little children, when I was at junior school I have always pondered on this secret secret, as to why it is eternally remaining secret, and it was in front of my very nose as I counted the candles on my birthday cake!
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2018
Wow! What you learn in kindergarten.
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2018
Now we have got our little children angst out of our system

This is about milnics question "can anything come from nothing" and the solution lies in Sir Isaac Newton's mathematics concerning his laws of motion specifically acceleration.
This like "ground hog day", we start from scratch every day as though yesterday had not happened.
mackita> The Newton law is not any secret -

granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2018
Isaacs's mathematics and laws are for little children

Now we have got our little children angst out of our system, it lies in Sir Isaac Newton's laws of motion. As everyone has pointed out Isaacs mathematics and laws are for little children, it is obviously a simple exercise for any graduate worth their salt to untangle Isaacs law of acceleration in a quantitative fashion which reveals the answer to milnics question "can anything come from nothing"

mackita> inertia law, about explanation of inertia laws by underlying collective motion of hidden invisible particles.

antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2018
Newton's mathematics and no graduate worth their salt can approach Isaacs's mathematics because it is for little children

An author once dubbed it "lies to children". You have to feed children little lies in order to make them ready for bigger truths (or if you want to be picky: "bigger lies", because we're certainly not at an end with our knowledge of the universe). You have to go *through* Newton's laws to get up to speed.

You can't start off teaching kids about Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. It's just too complex to grasp without some fundamentals first. You need to get them there in baby steps. The important thing is not to stop after the first baby step, though.

thank you antialias_physorg for keeping "can anything come from nothing" secret.

There's no secret here. It's just a nonsensical question like "what color is thursday?" or "what was before the beginning of time?"
If you want to waste time on nonsensical questions - be my guest.
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2018
Roll on ground hog day

Concepts are like electrical currants, they have the equivalent of inertia in inductance in the windmills of our minds
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2018
I took you to be able to see above the written quotations of Isaac's laws, maybe I was mistaken – sorry if I have taken up any of your time.
antialias_physorg > Newton's mathematics and no graduate worth their salt can approach Isaacs's mathematics because it is for little children

.

alexander2468
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2018
Puzzles are best
Newton's law of acceleration, move a nano metre is 0.5at*= a nano metre! What's every body's problem? Now you work out the energy…. a femto metre 0.5at*= a femto metre! What diameter a graviton, 0.5at*= a graviton….what's its energy? "kindergarten" is to simples.

granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2018
Was that intentional, how did you work that out, no one else has managed to it, do you have a degree in mathematics or what…
alexander2468> Puzzles are best
Newton's law of acceleration, move a nano metre is 0.5at*= a nano metre! What's every body's problem? Now you work out the energy…. a femto metre 0.5at*= a femto metre! What diameter a graviton, 0.5at*= a graviton….what's its energy? "kindergarten" is to simples.


granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2018
thats the first step in quantification but can you go the next step in quantification
alexander2468
3 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2018
Simples again; 1kg at 1m/s =0.5J, in four steps =0.25m/s = 1/32J times, four steps =1/8J four times 0.25m/s=1m/s. I thought everyone knew that
milnik
1.3 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2018
@mackita,
what is the model of a dense ether, and who and when did it establish, when science rejected the existence of this substance? Again, we need to discuss my question: can anything come from nothing? "something" must exist in space, and "nothing" means that "something" = 0. Space in the universe must be filled with this "something". All these prices on the empty space, about the virtual particles and fields generated by these virtual particles, is proof that science does not know the clock can all be obtained from the mutual relations of a particular kind of matter and Aether. Why do you all reject the existence of Aether? You believe in the wrong estimates of those who performed some experiments 80 years ago and when the technique was at a very low level of development. I have a very simple proof that Aether works. But what do you think anybody would have to do if it proved to be true?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
Vacuum fluctuations come from nothing.
No, they come from the laws of physics.
And the laws of physics didn't 'come'.
Errrrr, actually, both those statements are wrong, @humy.

Vacuum fluctuations come from the zero point energy of the universe. That there is zero point energy is proven by the Casimir Effect and this has been known for decades.

The laws of physics come from the dimensionality of the universe; see Noether's Theorem, and the duality of symmetry of results over spatial displacement and conservation of momentum, or the duality of symmetry of results over time and conservation of energy, or quite a few other really basic laws I could name. These are the most important, defining laws of quantitative physics: conservation laws. You can talk to a lot of physicists who are pretty sure that these symmetries, and their associated conservation laws, are about as basic as basic gets.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2018
As far as arguing about whether vacuum is nothing or not, as I said above it's as close to nothing as it gets in this universe. I see any further argument as footless navel gazing.
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
You can get something from something and nothing from nothing

There is only one addressing the question alexander2468, "can anything come from nothing" everyone else is ignoring it in preference to quantum fluctuations of a vacuum. You can get something from something and that something can get smaller and smaller till in theory it's so small it's the smallest quantum of energy which is that something you get from something but you cannot get something from nothing, there has to be something there in the first place as alexander2468 has shown.

Da Schneib> As far as arguing about whether vacuum is nothing or not, as I said above it's as close to nothing as it gets in this universe. I see any further argument as footless navel gazing.

granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
Science is not the art of Conjuring, Nothing comes from nothing

There is a long list of descriptive that are the haze of the vacuum fluctuations, virtual particles, darkmatter with its accompanying darkenergy and as the lure of Nobel prizes raise's its irresistible head the list of non entities grows as to what the imagination can imagine in its unlimited imagination.

The point is, only nothing comes out the vacuum of space which is also the vacuum fluctuations or virtual particles, did not Julie Andrews say in her famous timeless film "Nothing comes from nothing" we always get down to the sensible world of little children.

As far as arguing about whether vacuum is nothing or not, as I said above it's as close to nothing as it gets in this universe. I see any further argument as footless navel gazing.

alexander2468
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2018
Lies begets lies
Teach children lies, to teach them out of nothing comes all their little teddy bears.

.

antialias_physorg An author once dubbed it "lies to children". You have to feed children little lies in order to make them ready for bigger truths (or if you want to be picky: "bigger lies", because we're certainly not at an end with our knowledge of the universe). You have to go *through* Newton's laws to get up to speed.

You can't start off teaching kids about Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. It's just too complex to grasp without some fundamentals first. You need to get them there in baby steps. The important thing is not to stop after the first baby step, though.

.

granville583762
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
That is classic, I didn't spot that one, teach children lies to teach them the bigger lies of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. At least confession is good for the soul, your place in eternal peace with the angels is ensured, but I doubt it will earn you any favours in the Nobel Prize ceremonies.

antialias_physorg> An author once dubbed it "lies to children". You have to feed children little lies in order to make them ready for bigger truths (or if you want to be picky: "bigger lies".
.

.

antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2018
That is classic, I didn't spot that one, teach children lies to teach them the bigger lies of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. At least confession is good for the soul, your place in eternal peace with the angels is ensured, but I doubt it will earn you any favours in the Nobel Prize ceremonies.

Erm..here's a secret. the phrase "lies to children" was coined by two scientists.
https://en.wikipe...children

It does not mean one should lie. It means that you need to teach simple things before you teach complex things - and that while you're teaching the simple things you necessarily omit some complex issues ("lying by omission" in the process).

You need to teach Newton before you can teach Einstein. (and you'll probably need to teach Einstein before you teach whatever will supersede it). Stopping at Newton, though, is just stupid when something better exists.
granville583762
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2018
Leaps of Faith are essentially a lie!

That is the point antialias_physorg your making, no lying or lying by omission is needed for Newton, but it is inherent in Einstein that lying is part and parcel of his theories as they take leaps of Faith which is essentially a lie!
That is classic, I didn't spot that one, teach children lies to teach them the bigger lies of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
You need to teach Newton before you can teach Einstein. (and you'll probably need to teach Einstein before you teach whatever will supersede it). Stopping at Newton, though, is just stupid when something better exists.

granville583762
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2018
The mind set of physics

antialias_physorg:- children have an instinct for science that far exceeds are ability, and their instints being naturally inclined are more correct than ours, teaching children untruths does no favours for scientific advancement at all, it warps the mind as children's minds are growing rapidly that when they reach our age their minds are fixed as ours are, but when you realize this fact the mind is adaptable and can get out the rut it is in. But not all people are not adaptable like yourself, they get stuck in the scientific rut
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2018
no lying or lying by omission is needed for Newton

Teaching Newton *is* lying by omission. because Newton dowsn't work when you get to close the speed of light (or generally everywhere where there's relstive speed involved). Newton's aws e.g. have no problem with accelerating something to any speed - even speeds greater than the speed of light. But the universe shows us that you can't do this. When theory clashes with observation then the theory is wrong - it's simple as that.

Proof: if you were to base, say, the paths in particle accelerators on Newton's laws instead of Relativity then they wouldn't work.
On the larger side: If you base the calculations of the path of Mercury on Newton's laws then you get the wrong answers. In both cases you need to take Relativity into account.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2018
nd their instints being naturally inclined are more correct than ours

No. Children have brains. Brains are a result of evolution. Evolution never had a use for making sense of a double slit experiment.

You've been through this yourself. In school they teach you whole numbers.
Then negative numbers.
Then rational numbers.
Then real numbers.
Then complex numbers.
Then hypercomplex numbers
..at which point (at the latest) it dawns on you that 'numbers' isn't something natural but rather sets of systems made up for specific purposes in mathematical contexts.

You can't start off teaching children hypercomplex numbers in grade 1. That's not going to work. So you have to lead up to it slowly.
Same with Newton. It's one of the simply systems that leads up to a more encompassing (and more correct) complex one. It is by no means the end of the line.

If you want to talk science you'll have to leave Newton behind at some point.
humy
3.3 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2018

space is a place for the accommodation of matter and for its movement.

what do you mean it is "for" that?
Are you implying some kind of 'purpose' to space?
If there is no substance or substance from which matter is formed, then there is no space.

Where did you get that idea from? Explain your reasoning.
The space has nothing to do with matter or substance Aether,

what do you mean by "space has nothing to do with matter"? In what sense "nothing to do with"? Matter exists in space, right?
And are you aware that the experimental proofs of relatively has long since proven the old aether theory completely wrong?
which fills the space of the entire infinite universe.

How do you know that the universe is infinite?
That has yet to be scientifically determined and there is currently no known logical reason why it cannot be finite (but still unbounded in the 3 dimensions).
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
Children are sponges, they learn faster than adults

antialias_physorg:- The kinetic energy of a moving particle, Einstein's kinetic energy formula increases infinitely to its maximum velocity the speed of light, children do not know either Newton's or Einstein's formula for kinetic energy, seeing as Einstein's kinetic energy formula works from zero to the speed of light why teach children Newton's kinetic energy formula which only works up to about 1/4 the speed of light, because children know no different, suppose Newton had never existed and Einstein wrote the laws of motion ,gravity and energy you would have to teach children Einstein formulas because Newton would have never existed. Therefore there is no need to teach children lies, children are like sponges they learn faster than adults!
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
Massless kinetic energy of motion

antialias_physorg:- Concerning kinetic energy of Newton and Einstein - kinetic energy of a moving particle is only energy of motion.
The lie that is spread concerning kinetic energy of motion is mass increase infinitely to speed of light, it does not, that is a lie as the professor at university pointed out that it is not inertial mass but kinetic energy, because the technicians in particles accelerators do not adjust the magnetic field supporting the electrons and protons as they accelerate, it is massless kinetic energy of motion pure and simple!
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
Gravitational orbits on inertial mass and energy of motion
antialias_physorg:- Kinetic energy is not inertial mass, its energy of motion, the gravitational force on earth or in orbit is proportional to mass so these to quantise do not change. What does change is the energy of motion; Einstein's equivalent of Newton's laws of motion. Gravity is simply acceleration involving velocity and kinetic energy of motion which as we now know, is not the square of velocity increase. The force exerted by gravity is proportional to mass, velocity and kinetic energy by changing the rate of increase of kinetic energy change the time it takes to reach the velocity gravity exerts at any point. For a few m/s increase of velocity, the kinetic energy of motion quadruples the force that gravity is exerting stays the same as it's proportional to mass, the acceleration slows down approaching C, it takes gravity longer and longer to transfer kinetic energy to the particle in motion
humy
3.8 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2018

Why do you all reject the existence of Aether?

because this thing called science (in this case relativity and its empirical verification) proved the (aether) theory completely wrong; THAT is why.
Why do you reject scientific method?
milnik
1.3 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
@hymu,
the whole science, and even Einstein has so much angry you that you have lost the opportunity to understand or find out whether you own the SOUL, or not. If you do not believe that you own SOUL, then it is logical that you do not believe in the existence of Aether, because it is also the work of the Spiritual Entity of the universe. Who does not believe in this, and he came from nothing.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2018
^^^^Dafuq has that got to do with science?
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
The Aether model and its followers
Aether all thought Einstein's fault, he did not start it, he became the bandwagon for it, his fame allowed followers to latch on to theories that although the Aether model experimentally disproved by Michelson Morley, Einstein rived it with his space time and gravity as ripples of space when everyone had just got used to vacuum of space, it became a substance again that had been debunked now revived as the Aether of space time and gravity which has just with the higgs boson where the higgs field is yet again the Aether model which milnic appears to favour, this no criticism of milnic as like Eistien he has become a bandwagon.
mackita> Physicist Oliver Lodge recognized at the beginning of last century already, that aether theorists are trolling aether concept in similar way like the supporters of relativity - they considered the aether as a thin sparse gas filling the space. .

The Aether model has achieved critical mass!
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
The de Broglie wavelength is how particles maintain their wave particle duality

mackita> All matter have wave and frequency where that frequency is the oscillating electric field where as the photon as a particle has its electric magnetic field oscillating as it moves through space, this the Broglie wavelength a particle electric field expands and contracts with the frequency of the photons particular electromagnetic radiation which is how particles maintain their wave particle duality.

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
Einstein's main claim to fame is his Nobel Prize for his photo electric effect

As you can see mackita outside the Aether world of Einstein and Higgs field and its accompanying virtual particles there is another world outside that is passing everyone by. I don't know how The de Broglie wavelength relevance in relativistic theory is, but it provides convincing arguments as to explaining wave particle duality and how in the process the particles field oscillate in real time, I am relativity new here I let my instinct guide me on the straight and narrow path where relativity is concerned, I believe Einstein's main claim to fame is his Nobel Prize for his photo electric effect https://www.nobel...es/1921/ as it seems like Newton he then dabbled in the black art of theorising
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
A relativist view in De Siter space

Well, I wasn't thinking of god as an ardent atheist god has as much existence as the vacuum of space a definition of absolute nothing, excepting milnics famous quotation "can anything come from nothing" which you have seen the solution to. not that anyone has seen as it is the best kept secret that only little children are privy to but are too busy they have their teddies to sort out, as the best kept secret that is in full and can be read by one and is invisible depending what we believe
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2018
You have hit the spot, Einstien was german in thought , English people have a different down to earth outlook.
The Aether model has achieved critical mass!
You cannot recognize the conceptual revolution in science so easily, because it would look like sudden transition only from distant perspective. For example Einstein didn't win with relativity immediately despite it may looks so by now, because history is always written by winners. Actually he was accepted only in Britain and America, but the rest of Europe has ignored him obstinately https://en.wikipe...lativity so you may not even spot it once you passes through it.

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
Intellectual and common sense
English people are just as intellectual but it is tempered with a down to earth approach which is why we brexiters won the common market argument, if it had stayed a common market we brexiters would have voted to stay, but it turned into an intellectual nightmare of EU and a common currency.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
the escape velocity of the light radius star (blackhole), gravity takes an infitnitly long distance to bring a particle to a halt, the upshot is you can pass freely in and out of the light radius (event horizen)up to gravities light radius and a light radius star is no bigger than its formula and gravity is zero at its centre of mass, this is not what every body has been told.
Because I like the analogies of emergent situations of physics to sociology, we can ask, how to recognize that some concept gets adopted by opponents before it gets mainstream? Once you'll approach black hole, first of all you'll spot, that it seemingly expands, i.e. its event horizon grows much faster, than it would correspond its distance and it gets on you in filaments like amoeba.

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
this is an importatant point mackita, you have read all the little children comments so you know why it is another one of those best kept secrets, you kow, Newton is only taught to little children.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
your out the loop i.e. your not keeping up with the latest reseach on black hole it ermerged when LIGO observed GW170817 gravity at the speed of light
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
your commenting out loop, its when your getting out step like a light radius star is R=2GM/C* where gravity cannot compress mass greater than its light radius the speed of light
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
i make realistic comment however they might sound, a light radius star can be no smaller than R=2GM/C* i.e. a solar mass blackhole is no smaller than 3km and gravity is zero at its centre of mass where it can not have an escape velocity great than the speed of light and gravity cannot compress matter greater than its light radius.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
I am not criticising, but your still commenting out loop, you have to make the break and merge the latest blackhole research in to the blackholes there perception has changed they are no longer a singularity
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
exactly your commenting out the loop, you should be fully aware of all these facts they are well known

gravity cannot compress mass greater than its light radius the speed of light
? light radius the speed of light? WTF it is supposed to be? And how GW170817 accounts to it?

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
blackhole research is not stagnent it is continous with their spin axis outflow star forming fermi bubbles above and below the galaxy
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
Their is no such entity as a non spinning blackhole as all stars in space spin, it is not a concept that should be entertained, it spirals mass inside it can only spin. ive heard this theory of non spinning blackholes its impposible because as soon as it takes in mass the mass starts spiraling and spins up the black hole
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2018
their you are mackita the question solved in full view and no one can see it, the soloution to milnics "can any thing come from nothing" can you see it?
alexander2468> Puzzles are best
Newton's law of acceleration, move a nano metre is 0.5at*= a nano metre! What's every body's problem? Now you work out the energy…. a femto metre 0.5at*= a femto metre! What diameter a graviton, 0.5at*= a graviton….what's its energy? "kindergarten" is to simples.


humy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2018
@hymu,
the whole science, and even Einstein has so much angry

'angry' about what?
and why do you keep misspelling my name?
you that you have lost the opportunity to understand or find out whether you own the SOUL, or not.

understand whether my soul is what, exactly?
Can't you speak in coherent sentences?
f you do not believe that you own SOUL, then it is logical that you do not believe in the existence of Aether,

I believe my conscious mind exists; regardless of whether divine intervention is involved with that, what on earth has that got to do with believing the now scientifically disproved aether theory?
because it is also the work of the Spiritual Entity of the universe.

how do you know this "Spiritual Entity of the universe" exists? And what does it got to do with the aether theory?
Who does not believe in this, and he came from nothing.

who is this 'he'? SPEAK ENGLISH

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
There still exist energetically (i.e. financially) https://phys.org/...rs.html, where physicists of both groups cooperate more closely - but these areas are highly specialized i.e. narrow and less or more hidden before public causality as they represent classified military research.

when there's only less than three you have to be a tad more subtle than that as its instantly recognisable, it has to have variability in its application and it cannot be less than two as then it becomes doppelganger in entity, stooping low to relying on doppelganger entities although being a sad state of affairs it raise the possibility it is wide ranging across the board the same unaccountable use of this its application has the same predictable application when its use is not warranted, this is used in the blink comparator to winkle out a variability in billions of identical stars in photographic plates, till its invention
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
"Spiritual Entity of the universe" is god, I believe it is a form of scientific religion that is being sold, and it appears you might have become one of Spiritual Entities diciples to spread the faith to the down trodden mass's, keep up the good work of the "Spiritual Entity of the universe".
.
.
.
.

.
humy> because it is also the work of the Spiritual Entity of the universe.

how do you know this "Spiritual Entity of the universe" exists? And what does it got to do with the aether theory?
.
,

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
humy:- just did a search of "hmu" meaning, internet slang that stands for 'hit me up, A person uses hmu when they want someone to call or contact them, on snapchat his acronym (short for "hit me up") is used to say "contact me," "text me," "phone me" or otherwise "reach me to follow up on this, and the urbandictionary is text or call. So now you know.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
it obviously has other connations, although your one of the diciples of "Spiritual Entity", life has not always existed in the cloistered world of the "Spiritual Entity of the universe".

humy:- just did a search of "hmu" meaning, internet slang that stands for 'hit me up, A person uses hmu when they want someone to call or contact them, on snapchat his acronym (short for "hit me up") is used to say "contact me," "text me," "phone me" or otherwise "reach me to follow up on this, and the urbandictionary is text or call. So now you know.

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
humy has a variation of hummy in the glasweigian slang in the urbandictionary, time to follow the advice surfing the web as what's in a name.
humy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2018
I didn't know 'humy' had any particular meaning.

I still don't see what he thinks 'god' has to do with the old scientifically disproved aether theory nor why he insists there is aether. Does it say in the Bible that aether exists?
Perhaps he thinks you need aether for there to be a 'god' or 'gods'? But why? Don't get it.
But IF, for some reason, you DO need aether for there to be a 'god' (why?) then relativity has proven there is no aether therefore no 'god'!
milnik
1.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
To clarify the terms that I use and then you will understand who you are and how you came to be. I say: the universe is two entity and formed from the Spiritual Entity of the Universe (SEU), which is the immense power of forming everything in this other entity, which is the material-energetic entity of the universe (MEEU). And we human beings are two entity entities. Our Spiritual Entity is Soul, as a particle or SEU spark, and MEEU is our body. On the basis of this setting we can ask the question: What is science and on what basis it is established. But before answering this question, we need to know: who formed someone, whether the SEU has formed an entity of the MEEU, or vice versa. The same question applies to us, whether our body has formed the soul or is the soul who, as part of the SEU, took part in our formation. Science deals with material resources and tries to explain the work of the SEU. Is it logical and natural?
milnik
1.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
Our consciousness is (who owns), directly linked to the SEU, through intuition (again who owns it).
So the method of scientific work is under the big questionnaire. Some of you are asking me to prove that the universe is infinite. It's simply provable. If the circumference of the unit radius is equal to the number pi = 3.1425 .. and infinitely decimals, what does it mean? It's a multiple singularity. First, the number of decimals is infinite, and the second: what is located between two neighboring decimals? Do you know that and can you go into that space? And can you skip it?
Most scholars, without any spirituality, invent a few virtual phenomena and then try to prove it without selecting logical and natural considerations, but comparing their fabrications such as: the phenomenon of BB, the universe being chewed, uncovering gravitational waves, and not knowing what gravity and how it evolves, time and space are concealed, and each other orders how to behave,
milnik
1.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
Einstein's theories, without the logic and knowledge of how and from what is formed the matter, Lorenz's transformations, explaining that both time and projor can be collected and stretched, she just does not know where this account goes, the ignorance of the character of matter or its origin, and "they know" everything about matter, even if it is dark and unknown and elusive, but it knows everything about it. These are the scientific agents and spies who work for someone who pays them well. He uncovered God's part, and God himself does not know how it originated. These experts say that they got a Bozon from a collision of two protons and Bozon barely saw that someone showed that he existed, and he became more than 600 times more than proton with joy. And I'm not talking about other nebuloses. First, we must accept the existence of the SEU, because we are his last patent and we have to analyze ourselves before learning what is not as subtle as we and our stay.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
Think of the worst complements that get thrown back and forth in the heat of discussion, they are like angelic comments by comparison. You would be surprised, as Nobel prize winners put their twopence worth, so i have become accustomed to looking up various phrases as to the meaning because of their guiled use! Nothing I have seen on phys.org can compare!
humy> I didn't know 'humy' had any particular meaning.

I still don't see what he thinks 'god' has to do with the old scientifically disproved aether theory nor why he insists there is aether. Does it say in the Bible that aether exists?
Perhaps he thinks you need aether for there to be a 'god' or 'gods'? But why? Don't get it.
But IF, for some reason, you DO need aether for there to be a 'god' (why?) then relativity has proven there is no aether therefore no 'god'!

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
One massive Chip to bear
Humy:- you cannot question "Spiritual Entity of the universe" like you are not supposed to question what is on the inside of the event horizon, only to question "Spiritual Entity of the universe" is a mortal sin as you will be thrown to the eternal fires of Beelzebub – at least we can speculate what inside a blackhole, but dare you question "Spiritual Entity of the universe" will enrage the wrath of Beelzebub the like of which is not advisable. Unfortunately he's translating Italian into English his Aether theories and abhorrence of Einstein and his theories, he has got one massive Chip on his shoulder to bear.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
Humy> take your pick their growing like dandelions where their sugar fairies blow in the wind and multiply Milovic Nikola, milnic, Xinhang Shen, there is a growing list to choose from as Xinhang Shen was constantly plugging his theories https://physicses...ity.html . I'm looking forward to his emergence again, he was interesting.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2018
My language is Serbian, like Tesla is my countryman, but we have a common view on the existence of substance Aether. Tesla, knowing Aether, made a car without any fuel, which could reach speeds of up to 150 km / h. But he hid this patent, like many others, for the sake of plunder and inhuman people. One day, you will all accept the existence of Aether, although you will not be able to measure it or see it either. Aether in the space is an empty space in which there is nothing, except for some virtual contradictions, which are the basis for science to proclaim their scams with achievements, even if they receive the Nobel Prize for this.
God does not punish the disobedient and those who do not know the truth in the universe, but they themselves punish themselves entering the region of rebellion, there is a great danger of unknown occurrences.
humy
5 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2018
I say: the universe is two entity and formed from the Spiritual Entity of the Universe (SEU), which is the immense power of forming everything in this other entity, which is the material-energetic entity of the universe (MEEU). And we human beings are two entity entities.

Why not call "SEU" "God"? That is what you mean by it, right?
And how do you know all this?
It really bothers me you make many assertions (like the few above) without any apparent premise or even some kind of flimsy pretense of one.
Is your only 'premise' faith that a certain literal interpretation of a certain book (the Bible) is always true? If so, that's a weak premise indeed esp as science has proved old Earth, evolution etc.
When I make an assertion, I generally at least try my best to explain my premise.

And I STILL have no idea why you think you need aether for your religion. I completely fail to see how aether is relevant here. How would you go from 'no aether' to 'no god'?
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
god needs no Aether in what he want to achieve, having made the universe, all he has to is wave his magic wand and wave it around a bit, as you said you may not question the "Spiritual Entity of the universe" so it matters not how he achieves his universe and how it emerges from his magic wand, why the emphasis on an irrelevance such as Aether, you might as well concentrate on why there are feathers in a feather pillar, milnic.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
In common parlance milnic it does not exist
I have tried to see your theories and this technique of yours highlighted, exemplifies the problem in decoding your idea's, the closer one gets to a solution the further away you are from your theories. This in a Nutshell "all accept the existence of Aether, although you will not be able to measure it or see it" This is you and theories to a T - you have to accept it unquestingly, as you cannot see it or measure; or in common parlance milnic it does not exist

milnic> One day, you will all accept the existence of Aether, although you will not be able to measure it or see it either.
God does not punish the disobedient and those who do not know the truth in the universe,.

milnik
1.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
@hymu,
It's not a miracle for me that you do not know the natural laws. There are many people who share the MEEU, but their SEU is different, which depends on the level of awareness, and awareness is the power to understand the true causes of the phenomenon. The SEU is not a god, and this is what I say is no longer connected with religion. This is true, and you need to know: God is the comprehensiveness of the knowledge of all causes of phenomena and the power of forming all, even human beings.
You ask how I know it. I do not use any models or invent the formula, because my understanding comes out of my consciousness and intuition suggesting the right way of knowing the truth.
As for Aether, this is a problem for you, because you are forbidden to believe in it because they rejected it: scientists "who do not know anything about themselves.
When the time comes to believe in the existence of Aether, I can prove to you that it exists.
humy
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018

It's not a miracle for me that you do not know the natural laws.

I know natural laws. I studied physics at university. I can list all the physical laws and understand each perfectly and can explain each from memory in detail including equations, constants, how discovered, etc.
Can you do the same? Can you, for example, state in your own words here where Plank's constant actually represents in terms of physical meaning? I can. Some relevant equations; E = hf, E = hc/λ
If you cannot do the same then it is you who "do not know the natural laws" or at the very least you cannot claim to know them better than I.

humy
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
...for example, state in your own words here where Plank's constant actually...

my misedit;
that "where" should be "what".
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
Passing through an escape velocity
Concerning passing through an escape velocity radius where gravity takes an infinitely long time to bring a particle to halt. The theory; you can pass either way freely through an escape velocity. Consequences are the gravitational force is proportional to the square of its radii, whereas you have pointed out spaghettification the spaghettification theory does not cancel out passing through a escape velocity it happens every day a satellite takes off from earth escape velocity, take it as whole firstly, if pass's scientific muster which on planet earth it does, then the point is of spaghettification in blackholes spaghettification does not affect a single particle but 2 or more particles joined through the event horizon. The black art of theorising don't dismiss out mind a ¼ way through the theory but take it as whole first.
mackita > if you would somehow manage to survive spaghettification and pass event horizon.

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
Its a serbian culteral thing from that part of the world, in time you get used to it , it flows in one ear out the other into another dimension, he's not a patch on the proffesionals. you have seen nothing yet.
mackita> It just seems for me, you're all old senile chaps who just want to hear everything is made of Aether or Plasma with God for to finally die in piece. For me it's not interesting if the Universe is made by God, of aether or from strings - but what useful for human civilization we could deduce from it. No religion and assumptions, but logic and deductions. Get mature finally: aether is no new religion...

he's like a babe in arms
milnik
1.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
@hymu,
you are convinced that formulas can represent natural laws! What is mathematics? It is an attempt to show in a picturesque way some kind of phenomenon in nature, which can be a law of nature. Are you sure that the exact formula is E = h.f = hc / lamda, and from where do you know that everything is in function of the speed c? Einstein said that E = m.c ^ 2. What is the connection between the mass m and the speed of light, and the science has not yet come to the conclusion that c = const is in a vacuum, because it does not know how science is a vacuum.
milnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
@mackita,
you began to move quickly in the opposite direction than that which you have designated to whom you do not believe. You think that belief in the existence of the Creator (God), religion. Then you do not know what God is or what religion is.
Second, remember, everything is tangible, visible, measurable, and invisible in the universe we make of one substance. I called it AETHER, because I realized that there are many people before me who feel that there is some substance from which matter is formed.
Why is science so much wandering through spaces into which it inserts nebuloses or "your own virtual fabrications"? Because she does not know how and from what kind of matter the matter arises, and behind her formation are both the formation of gravity and magnetism. These three phenomena are the basis that can prove and explain all the changes and phenomena in the MEEU. I am a senile man for you, but you do not understand my "senility".
milnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
@granville583...
my countryman Tesla, were also considered unsuitable, but even today, science does not realize that his inventions have come to mind the substance of Aether. I am a baby in some hands, but it is good for you to have such a look.
For all of us, human beings: if we want to connect through intuition with ACU and SEU, we must respect and understand the two entity entities, because we are both entity entities, only many are contaminated with "scientific pesticides" that have severely damaged their awareness. Therefore, they do not have the ability to understand the true causes of the phenomenon, and invent nebuloses like Einstein, Lorentz, and some other "expert"
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
there are a lot of experiment taking place in garden sheds in serbia, dig out Tesla's experiments and bring them to light on this site, it is more interesting and it will leave no time for other things that have become obsevive you have a lot to say im starting to dig up details on Tesla
milnic @granville583...
my countryman Tesla, were also considered unsuitable, but even today, science does not realize that his inventions have come to mind the substance of Aether. I am a baby in some hands, but it is good for you to have such a look.
For all of us, human beings: if we want to connect through intuition with ACU and SEU, we must respect and understand the two entity entities, because we are both entity entities, only many are contaminated with "scientific pesticides" that have severely damaged their awareness. Therefore, they do not have the ability to understand the true causes of the phenomenon, and invent nebuloses like Einstein, Lorentz, and some other "expert"
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
milnic:- your first task milnic it to investigate your quotation "can any thing come from nothing" start by looking at the soloution in the comments where you mentioned it, you have a lot to talk about don't waste it on aether!
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
Here's proof you have a lot to talk about, as you have perception, do not waste it on Aether and accompanying theories
milnic> granville583762: milnik is also serbian and poor/off topic english speaker. Are you talking with yourself?


Appearances are deceptive I'm not exactly talking with myself it is a persuasive project
humy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2018

you are convinced that formulas can represent natural laws! .

If they didn't then E=mc^2 false and nuclear reactors wouldn't work; Of course formulas can represent natural laws! What planet are you on?
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018

humy> you are convinced that formulas can represent natural laws! .

If they didn't then E=mc^2 false and nuclear reactors wouldn't work; Of course formulas can represent natural laws! What planet are you on?

hes not what he seems humy, appearaces can be deceptive he's talking to me through a brief gap in the fog of aether.
milnik
1 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2018
Think about observing dark matter at distances to hundreds of thousands of light years. If someone can see it dark there, then on our moon we could see ants like dinosaurs. It seems that someone has paid you to refresh the "truth" about the existence of dark matter. Nothing about it is unknown, and you have calculated that it has the correct percentage of the universe's reflections, and yet nothing is known about the univerism of the universe.
What does that look like? Is it a science and a stock market in a flea market?
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2018
Our universe has an escape velocity of the spead of light which is an event horizen of 15billlion light years, why pusssy foot round reality, our universe is a blackhole!
mackita> In this way the interior of black holes could contain a primitive Universes on their own

milnik
not rated yet Apr 10, 2018
@mackita. If anything forms from anything, it must have its beginning and end of formation or duration. The formation of black holes is the reverse process of forming celestial bodies, just as our disappearance (body) is the reverse process of creation (radiance).
But you did not answer me, who even created a dense ether model?
DarkHorse66
4.5 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2018
@milnik; mackita did. He has been pushing his crazy theory for so long, that he has been banned "god knows" how many times from this forum & others. Each time he has just created a new 'handle' under different names & sometimes more than one at the same time! I have lost track of how many times he has done this, but it is a very long list, as other longterm forum members can attest. (hi guys, long time no see) One of his earlier 'handles' here was the name "Zephir" (also used elsewhere) & here is a link to his blog: http://aetherwave...ion.html
Be careful. It is riddled with errors & omissions, just like his posts here. Also:
https://www.scien...-theory/

With regard to mixing religion and science - that is called "metaphysics" & you have NO BUSINESS using a hard science site to push your religious beliefs. Even mackita knows better that (kudos to Mackita for that, at least). Best Regards, DH66
DarkHorse66
3 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2018
Correction (missing word):

Even mackita knows better than that (kudos to Mackita for that, at least).


Best Regards, DH66
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2018
Gravity travels at the speed of light in accordance with Albert Einstein's constancy of the velocity of the universe

A light radius star whose radius R=2GM/C*, where it's light radius R represents the event horizon the speed of light C as a light radius star (blackhole) can be no smaller than gravities light radius R. The speed of light and gravity can only compress matter to gravities light radius the speed of light, in accordance with Albert Einstein's constancy of the velocity of the universe, the speed of Light! - Albert Einstien.

our universe is a blackhole
mackita> It would support dense aether model well, but it's impossible - the Universe has exactly https://i.imgur.com/ndl1XWO.gif.

granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2018
Our 15billion light radius star

Our universe has reached a 15billion light year radius with an escape velocity of the speed of light (a 15billion light radius star) by definition is a blackhole, this is common knowledge and has been common know knowledge since it's conception 15billion years ago, we were living in a blackhole then and we are living in a blackhole now or as it is commonly called our 15billion light radius star!
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2018
@gran, food for thought:
Sure, we could well be living inside a black hole. Who can say for sure. BUT, the INSIDE of a black hole is the bit where photons (ie light) end up trapped & if a black hole were ever to release this energy explosively, it would become a WHITE hole https://astronaut...e-holes/
http://www.iflsci...te-hole/
In that sense, the 'white' or 'black' is a way of describing the energy that is in/visible from whatever your POV happens to be (it's all relative!). A black hole is only black on the outside-if you are on the outside of the event horizon. Hence, if you are on the inside, you are also on the same side of the event horizon as the trapped energy. Hence you can 'see' the radiation (it will be bright, like a star) in there & that means that the view of the inside, from the inside is more accurately described by the definition of a white hole, rather than an oversize visible star.
Best Regards, DH66
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2018
Sure, we could well be living inside a black hole.

Unlikely. Think about it for a bit: 'Inside a black hole' means inside the event horizon.
The event horizon is defined as the place where the escape velocity exceed the speed of light due to the curvature of space.

So let's take a point X just inside the event horizon. Can light from this point reach the event horizon? No it can't, right?
Let's take a point Y that is just a bit more in than point X. Can any light from point Y reach point X? Well, if the curvature at the event horizon is large then it's even larger at Y, so the answer is 'doubly: no')

Speed of light is also the speed of information interchange. And photons are the carrier of the electromagnetic force. But there's plenty inside you that relies on the EM force to hold together (atoms, molecules). So if any atom is at point Y and another atom of the same molecule Iis at point X then they can't stay bonded - because the force carriers can't reach.
DarkHorse66
4.5 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2018
I should also add that the distinction that I am making is the following:
A star has no problem releasing its energy outwards, including in all directions. The energy inside a black hole is trapped there and can only move around on the inside of the black hole (ignoring things like jets, etc). If, as you postulate, we are inside a humongous black hole, the Universe would need to be VERY porous for the 'star' scenario to make proper sense. If the 'fabric' (=spatial barrier) of the Universe is equated with the event horizon, in a star the event horizon is not only inside the star, but also too weak to prevent 'normal' radiation. Ergo, the energy inside would not just spread along with spatial expansion; the Universe would soon become empty!
Best Regards, DH66
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2018
antialias_physorg:- The force of gravity takes an infinitely long distance to bring a particle to a halt, moving at the velocity of the escape velocity.
DarkHorse66
4.6 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2018
@ant:
I guess we just cross-posted :)
I personally don't really believe that either. I was just allowing for the hypothetical possibility & exploring the scenario, in direct response to gran's last post.

"Think about it for a bit: 'Inside a black hole' means inside the event horizon."

Also, if you reread my posts, you will hopefully notice that I was in fact agreeing with your statement, I was just using different words to give a more concrete description, centred around describing the distinction between what one would see, depending on which side of the event horizon one happens to be on, to show that this was not quite the same thing as the 'star' scenario that 'gran' was referring to as an alternate description.
Best Regards, DH66
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2018

antialias_physorg:- A particle moving at the velocity of the escape velocity can move freely through the escape velocity radius as rockets regularly pass through the earth's 25,000mph escape velocity radius every time they launch.
granville583762> antialias_physorg:- The force of gravity takes an infinitely long distance to bring a particle to a halt, moving at the velocity of the escape velocity.

milnik
2 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2018
@DarkHorse66,
you and many of you profane the concept of religion and belief in God. Metaphysics deals with the study of God and the immortality of the soul. Science is trying to find out what it does not want to admit that it is the work of the Creator. Think about it: is a man more complicated than the most complicated babies? Who is taught by these two elements.? If a man with all his possibilities can not study the celestial body, does this mean that this body is more complicated than man, or vice versa? Who is the first formed, man or body in the galaxy. ? Who formed both of them and why man has the ability to study everything around him, but he can not understand things at all. Why ? Because he does not regard his existence and the one who formed man in such a form. I am not religious, but I believe in God, because only foolish people think that everything has happened randomly, so it follows that a man is also formed. If science does not recognize the existence of the
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2018
Were trapped in our blackhole for eternity

Because our blackhole is 15billion light years as gravity is proportional to mass explains why it is weak and we are able to freely move plus gravity is zero at centre of mass, we are as you point out trapped in our blackhole for eternity
DH66> I should also add that the distinction that I am making is the following:
A star has no problem releasing its energy outwards, including in all directions. The energy inside a black hole is trapped there and can only move around on the inside of the black hole (ignoring things like jets, etc). If, as you postulate, we are inside a humongous black hole, the Universe would need to be VERY porous for the 'star' scenario to make proper sense. If the 'fabric' (=spatial barrier) of the Universe is equated with the event horizon, in a star the event horizon is not only inside the star, but also too weak to prevent 'normal' radiation!
Best Regards, DH66
milnik
2 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2018
Spiritual Entity and the Creator (God), why then the science wants to find out and everything that the Creator has formed. Did the doctrine rightly conclude that everything was created from nothing (BB) or it was invented by idiots who do not know anything about themselves. Arrange the boundary that science should go into studying.
When do science make a "metaphysical camera" with which you can make dreams like a movie?
Why science does not make a spermatozoid collision and finds out the "God's way" from which a man is formed. If you keep on doing this, and you will find a bloody block for human beings, and you will say that it was created from nothing. Make a difference between religion and faith in God and decide what you will believe, but come out of your existence.
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2018
The bigbang is a blackhole that we and all the galaxies inhabit.

DH66:- the theory the universe and all it contains expanded, the circumference has always had the escape velocity of light and all the expanding matter as it is expanding no faster than the speed of light is always on the inside of the expansion which its exterior surface is the event horizon and the galaxies formed from the matter inside the event horizon, this how everyone has been portraying the bigbang. I know I just sprung it on every one, but you can see DH66, it is all consistent with the conventional view of the bigbang.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2018
This is not a theory it is an observation!
DH66 :- if and when astronomical observation show that the conventional view of the bigbang is not as portrayed, because this not a theory but an observation it will instantly change to the new observation on how we exist in our universe. Because you have observed the pitfall falls in clinging to theories I don't believe in them, I no longer subscribe to theories.

The bigbang is a blackhole that we and all the galaxies inhabit.
DH66:- the theory the universe and all it contains expanded, the circumference has always had the escape velocity of light and all the expanding matter as it is expanding no faster than the speed of light is always on the inside of the expansion which its exterior surface is the event horizon and the galaxies formed from the matter inside the event horizon, this how everyone has been portraying the bigbang, but you can see DH66, it is all consistent with the conventional view of the bigbang.

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2018
i like your intellectual reasoning. what exactly is the bigbang
.

antialias_physorg> So let's take a point X just inside the event horizon. Can light from this point reach the event horizon? No it can't, right?
Let's take a point Y that is just a bit more in than point X. Can any light from point Y reach point X? Well, if the curvature at the event horizon is large then it's even larger at Y, so the answer is 'doubly: no')
Speed of light is also the speed of information interchange. And photons are the carrier of the electromagnetic force. But there's plenty inside you that relies on the EM force to hold together (atoms, molecules). So if any atom is at point Y and another atom of the same molecule Iis at point X then they can't stay bonded - because the force carriers can't reach.

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2018
antialias_physorg:- i like your intellectual reasoning. what exactly is the bigbang, is it not just what you have described, but here we are living in the sceario you have just described.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2018
can we all take your reasoning to mean antialias_physorg you do not subscribe to the supposition of the original bigbang of the universe.
antialias_physorg:- i like your intellectual reasoning. what exactly is the bigbang, is it not just what you have described, but here we are living in the sceario you have just described.

milnik
2 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2018
You are still discussing BB, which was invented by those who do not understand anything in the universe, and they said that EVERYTHING WAS NOT FROM !!! It's not a point, no space and dimension, without matter and time, it means it is a Fatmanorgana maniac, which is a waste of human civilization, who sees and recognizes Spirituality, without which you would not exist.
You always keep up with the questions: who formed this which formed it and so on to infinity. You behave like an unreasonable man who asked: If God is all-powerful, can he create a stone that he can not raise? Such are the arrays and your questions and you will be whisked out where you will never find out, if you do not respect it !!
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2018
one would see, depending on which side of the event horizon one happens to be on

There's not much difference in what you would see - only that more and more of your field of vision would go black (not white) as you go further inside.
This is due to more and more geodesics that you could draw from your eyes would end at the singularity* (which you can't see because from any point of view it is hidden behind an event horizon of its own relative to you as explained in my previous post. No light from the singularity can reach you) ...and since you're accelerating towards it the singularity any light still catches up to you from behind - having fallen in after you - is ever more redshifted.

*actually after hitting the event horizon all *your* possible worldlines end at the singularity. It is no coincidence that after entering an event horizon the singularity (if there is such a thing) is in all your possible futures.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2018
Your neglecting one important point – Gravity is Zero at the Centre of Mass- its light radius is zero which is where we are in our 15billion Ly blackhole proved by are free movement.

one would see, depending on which side of the event horizon one happens to be on

antialias_physorg> There's not much difference in what you would see - only that more and more of your field of vision would go black (not white) as you go further inside.
This is due to more and more geodesics that you could draw from your eyes would end at the singularity* (which you can't see because from any point of view it is hidden behind an event horizon of its own relative to you as explained in my previous post. No light from the singularity can reach you) ...and since you're accelerating towards it the singularity any light still catches up to you from behind - having fallen in after you - is ever more redshifted.

milnik
1.3 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2018
It is not scientific or cultural to invent evidence for the stupid theories and fatamagers of those you believe, but you do not use your own perceptions, but serve other erroneous assertions. .Gravitation is not what Einstein taught you. Black holes are not what you learned from those who do not understand the structure of the universe. LARM !! Give up on the application of nebulous theories and assertions, which to this day deprivate civilization !!!
434a
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2018
Your neglecting one important point – Gravity is Zero at the Centre of Mass- its light radius is zero which is where we are in our 15billion Ly blackhole proved by are free movement.


Definitions are the corner stone of science.
You need to state your definitions before you can have a meaningful conversation about a topic of contention.

To a very reasonable approximation the Schwarzschild radius is the defintion of a black hole.

The fact that all the mass inside the universe is inside the universe doesn't make the universe a black hole.
The curavture of the universe is not sufficiently extreme as to behave in the manner to which the term blackhole has been defined for.

https://en.wikipe...d_radius
As you can see on that page, some kind person has calculated the Schwarzschild radius of the observable universe.
The observable universe's mass has a Schwarzschild radius of approximately 13.7 billion light years


Continued..
434a
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2018
Here you'll find the size of the observable universe ~ 46 Billion light years
https://en.wikipe...universe


According to calculations, the current comoving distance – proper distance, which takes into account that universe has expanded since the light was emitted
– to particles from which the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) was emitted, which represent the radius of the visible universe, is about 14.0 billion parsecs (about 45.7 billion light years)


Anti's explanation are far less trivial than mine but I think it should be sufficiently obvious that the accepted definition of a black hole is not met.

I think the accepted definition for what we see is...Universe.

https://en.wikipe...Universe
The Universe is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2018
The speed of light escape velocity has been always so.

434a:- the fact your looking up facts is a sign that you have been thinking about it, as you point out our universe at 15billion lights is expanding as you have said in 46billion years its light radius has to be recalculated, but you have conceded the point that at 15billion light years its escape velocity (its light radius) is still the speed of light which by implication as the speed of light is absolute you have accepted the escape velocity has all ways been the speed so at 46billion light years the escape velocity is still the speed of light because in the original primordial soup matter was emerging out the quantum fluctuations as it emerging out the quantum fluctuations today as will be in 46billion years because we are inside our blackhole inside our event horizon where all matter is coming out the quantum fluctuations making the galaxies containing stars and planets all inside our blackhole.
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2018
Gravity is Zero at the Centre of Mass
Sir Isaacs Newton's law of gravity - every particle attracts every other particle with a force proportional to its mass where gravity is zero at the centre of mass
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2018

I think the accepted definition for what we see is...Universe

I think the most trivial difference is that the universe has no center (because of inflation) but a black hole has a center.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2018
Light Radius
The light radius R=2GM/C*
Gravities light radius - gravity travels at the speed of light and can only compress matter to the speed of light and no greater which is gravities light radius 2GM/C* where gravity is zero at the centre of mass
Gravity can only a compress a star to gravities light an no smaller R=2gm/c* where 2x10+30kg forms a light radius star of 3km radius (blackhole) I think that covers a few definitions 434a
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2018
This observation became obvious when articles on blackhole spin-axis outflows into their 23,000Ly star forming Fermi-bubbles above and below the blackhole, then LIGO confirmed gravities velocity as the speed of light and it became clear why Karl Schwarzschild used the speed of light in his formula R=2GM/C*

antialias_physorg> I think the accepted definition for what we see is...Universe

I think the most trivial difference is that the universe has no center (because of inflation) but a black hole has a center.

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2018
Definitions
antialias_physorg:- because gravity moves at the speed of light gravity can only accelerate a particle to speed of light which is why gravity can only compress a star to the speed of light and as the light radius star (blackhole) takes in mass it expands at the rate of R=2GM/C* such that its light radius (event horizon) always remain at the escape velocity of the speed of light and its gravity is zero at its centre of mass.
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2018
@434: you are right, I should have been using the term "Schwarzschild radius" rather than "event horizon". It would have been more accurate. As your link shows, for a BH these two terms are used pretty interchangeably. The difference is that everything (yes even us) has a Schwarzschild radius, but only BH's have true event horizons.
@gran: regardless of whether they turn out to be right or wrong, theories provide a structural framework for describing the possible nature of things & processes & how they might work. Theories are a result of reasoning (with or without observable evidence) & are the bedrock of developing knowledge about any subject. If you do an experiment, just exactly what is the meaning of that experiment, if it is not being done to either explore, confirm or develop a theory about the nature or workings of something? Not to mention, for someone who does not believe in theories, you are doing a rather excellent job of presenting your own!
Best Regards, DH66
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2018
DarkHorse66:- 434a:- Schwarzschild radius is the correct term because it is describing the auther Karl Schwarzschild, I should have used it, I will start using it; A Schwarzschild radius (event horizon) is defined by R=2GM/C* is the radius of the escape velocity of light!
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2018
DarkHorse66:- I like your play on words "Not to mention, for someone who does not believe in theories" a very nice commplement returned.
@434: you are right, I should have been using the term "Schwarzschild radius" rather than "event horizon".
@gran: Not to mention, for someone who does not believe in theories, you are doing a rather excellent job of presenting your own!
Best Regards, DH66

DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2018
https://en.wikipe..._horizon
@gran:
"I know I just sprung it on every one, but you can see DH66, it is all consistent with the conventional view of the bigbang."
I don't know if you are truly wrong or right, but I found your theory interesting enough to exchange my thoughts with you. Unlike a certain somebody else, I tend not to be interested in trading insults, just so that I can feel that I know better than everyone else and therefore everyone else must be wrong!
If anything, I prefer open-minded & civil discussions regardless of whether we are trading differents points of view, or educating each other. As you have already seen, I also have no problem being corrected if I do make a mistake :)
Cheers, DH66
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2018
@gran:
DarkHorse66:- 434a:- Schwarzschild radius is the correct term because it is describing the auther Karl Schwarzschild, I should have used it, I will start using it; A Schwarzschild radius (event horizon) is defined by R=2GM/C* is the radius of the escape velocity of light!


Be careful, the terms 'Schwarzschild radius' & 'event horizon' are NOT actually the same thing. It is just that within a BH (& ONLY within a BH) they fall in the same place. That is why , https://en.wikipe...d_radius uses the words 'corresponding to' (not 'is' ) in the first paragraph. As I pointed out earlier: " everything (yes even us) has a Schwarzschild radius, but only BH's have true event horizons".
Regards, DH66
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2018
Also: event horizons only truly exist in BH's. In anything less dense than a BH, the Schwarzschild radius tells you the size the object would need to be squashed down to/condensed to, in order to be dense enough to qualify as a BH and develop the all-important event horizon. And of course, at the same time the Schwarzschild radius tells you where that event horizon would be, IF that less dense object were to be condensed into that BH :)

Best Regards, DH66
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2018
This is why I have made a distinction from blackholes and their connotations by using the term light radius because it is self explanatory and it complements Karl Schwarzschild's formula R=2GM/C* I was demonstrating flexibilty how flexible Karl Schwarzschild's definition of a light radius is
@gran:
DarkHorse66:- 434a:- Schwarzschild radius is the correct term because it is describing the auther d, I should have used it, I will start using it; A Schwarzschild radius (event horizon) is defined by R=2GM/C* is the radius of the escape velocity of light!


Be careful, the terms 'Schwarzschild radius' & 'event horizon' are NOT actually the same thing. It is just that within a BH (& ONLY within a BH) they fall in the same place, https://en.wikipe...d_radius uses the words 'corresponding to' (not 'is' ) . As I pointed out earlier: " everything (yes even us) has a Schwarzschild radius, but only BH's have true event horizons".
Regards, DH66
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2018
A definition of a black hole it has a light radius that equals the velocity of light where this radius has various names that all have same escape velocity the speed of light. The event horizon has been popularised.
Also: event horizons only truly exist in BH's. In anything less dense than a BH, the Schwarzschild radius tells you the size the object would need to be squashed down to/condensed to, in order to be dense enough to qualify as a BH and develop the all-important event horizon. And of course, at the same time the Schwarzschild radius tells you where that event horizon would be, IF that less dense object were to be condensed into that BH :)

Best Regards, DH66

granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2018
DH66 :- Any star with a light radius, the radius is its external surface where all its mass is contained within which is a blackhole. And as the star takes in mass it grows maintaining its light radius the speed of light and it density is the cube of its radius R=2GM/C*. As it grows its density reduces and reduces to the density of our 15billion Ly light radius star. I hope your interest is growing with the appetite of our 15billion light radius star
434a
4 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2018
@granville


As you point out our universe at 15billion lights is expanding as you have said in 46billion years its light radius has to be recalculated



No, we see the light from distant galaxies has travelled 13+ BY to reach us, but all that time the Universe has been expanding, those galaxies are now much, much further away.

You should read about the metric expansion of space.

https://en.wikipe...of_space

And the mathematics that underpins its ideas.

https://en.wikipe...r_metric
milnik
3 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2018
A little logic:
If grandfather, Big Bang, appeared before 13.8 mly, and our planet is 5 mly old, and our experts measured the redshift before, say, 100 years, and our planet could not be formed without that impact. It means that this BB lasts and throws light, at least 5 mly, because now we see that red shift. Is this normal?
Second, does science know how galaxies move, according to which natural law, or some force (your dark matter) is dispersed across the universe on all sides.
Thirdly, if the telescope is attached to the planet Earth, then its direction towards a galaxy will shrink 15 arc sec, in just 1 second. the duration of rotation of the Earth around its axis. If you take other movements and Earth and telescope, and even the galaxy, what the observer will see after one second of view in the universe.
milnik
2 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2018
f you are watching us the moon, for that second, the point on the moon moves about 27 kilometers in space. What do the researchers see there at distances and billions of light years there?
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2018
You cannot expand nothing
Space by definition is a vacuum, a vacuum cannot expand, it is incorrect to say the expansion of space, who ever came up with the idea you can expand a vacuum needs to go outside in the cold light of day and review expanding a vacuum. I know it might be a difficult concept to grasp, but as you have grasped the difficult concept you can expand nothing, it is no more difficult to grasp the concept you cannot expand nothing. The condensed physics professor at Canterbury university in response to a student question responded by announcing common sense ruins physics, and in his own words this is one of these occasions, he did not answer the question directly, he was agreeing with the students question by replying common sense ruins physics. Some times commen sense is the correct approach

434a> You should read about the metric expansion of space.
milnik
3 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2018
All that is stated in Wikipedia, the mistakes were made by accepting unnatural, illogical and stupid ideas about the appearance of BB, Einstein's fictions about the curvature of space, the Lorenz transformations, the Hubble expansion of the universe, and similar nebuloses. All this is evidence that science has turned into the wrong direction of evaluating and realizing the true causes of the phenomenon in the universe. When we say that the universe is a sphere of infinite radius, everything is explained and it's silly to invent hundreds of variants, and we know that the number pi = 3.1415 .. has infinite decimals and each circle is finite.
Second, science does not know the true path of the movement of celestial bodies, and there are galaxies whose closed cycles of motion last for eons for years. You do not know why the moon has us, always, one side facing the Earth !! It is the basis of the knowledge of the motion of celestial bodies.
434a
3 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2018
You cannot expand nothing
Space by definition is a vacuum, a vacuum cannot expand


The onus is on you to prove that statement but I think it is simple to disprove it.


You build a cube impenetrable to all forms of matter and EM radiation. The cube is hollow and contains a space inside it of 10cm3 but you design your cube so that it can be made to grow to 20cm3 without taking it apart. It would be an interesting exercise in origami.

You go to the interstellar void and enclose a volume of space within the 10cm3. You manage to remove all the matter, neutrinos, ions, atoms, molecules, dust from the cube. You then you make your cube expand so that its internal volume is now 20cm3.

How big is the volume of the vacuum inside your cube?

You need to consider what space is and what it is not. Your definition is just a description of the contents of a discrete area of space not what space actually is.

granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2018
A vacuum has no limits; it is infinite in its dimensions
The expandable cube its going expand to whatever you desire, but it's the very space its self we're talking about! When the expression space expands every is talking about space itself; i.e. gravity waves are the ripples of space, as though the vacuum of space is a substance which you have correctly pointed is not, and space it is vacuum; I am glad to see a down to earth view on the vacuum of space 434a its getting rarer than the vacuous vacuum now a days! And a vacuum has no limits, it is infinite in its dimensions so as your cube expands the vacuum of space does not expand.
granville583762> Space by definition is a vacuum, a vacuum cannot expand

434a> You go to the interstellar void and enclose a volume of space within the 10cm3. You manage to remove all the matter, neutrinos, ions, atoms, molecules, dust from the cube. You then you make your cube expand so that its internal volume is now 20cm3.

milnik
3 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2018
Why do you invent some unnatural phenomena and definitions for what is not in the universe. The universe is much simpler than the structure, but the way it is understood by science and misinterpreted. The space is infinite, because it is the size of the universe. There is no empty space in the universe. Everything is filled with the substance from which everything is formed in the material-energy universe (MEEU). This substance is AETHER. What science sees as an empty space, you can call it a vacuum, because there are no visible matter or atmosphere in that space. There is no air in the vacuum tubes of the sect shells, it's a vacuum, not an empty space. No one will ever be able to make an empty space. And the most subtle subatomic particles are in a vacuum, but they are not in the empty space, because they are "submerged" in the substance Aether from which it forms everything in the MEEU.
milnik
not rated yet Apr 13, 2018
When you understand this, you will have much less problems in understanding the phenomena in the universe.
milnik
not rated yet Apr 13, 2018
When you understand this, you will have much less problems in understanding the phenomena in the universe.
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2018
Particles expand into the infinite dimensions of the vacuum of space
434a:- I am approaching this and the question of yours I've just answered from the LIGO perspective of gravity being ripples of space time which they are not ripples of space time. It is only reading through your question that it is worded in such a way that it states space is vacuum, and as vacuum cannot expand, because you have cut through the jargon to the cold light of day. Once the space becomes the vacuum of space and quarks, electrons, neutrinos, electromagnetic and gravity are removed then it meets its true criteria the vacuum of space. But now as the vacuum is now occupied by quarks, electrons, neutrinos, electromagnetic and gravity it is only a true vacuum between the exterior surfaces of these sub atomic particles and quarks, electrons, neutrinos, electromagnetic and gravity expand into the infinite dimensions of the vacuum of space.
434a
1.5 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2018
A vacuum has no limits; etc


Space expands. The expansion of space has been measured. It's not maths, its observation.

See this part of the article I linked to earlier.
https://en.wikipe...evidence

We are back to definitions. Vacuum to me is merely the absence of matter.
Space(time) is the substrate from which all fields are derived including the vacuum and vacuum energy.
A vacuum cannot exist without spacetime to exist in.
Fields exist without matter but fields require spacetime to exist in.

Spacetime can interact with its contents but has fundamental properties of its own that are not inherited by its contents.

granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2018
If you are able to grasp the concept that "A vacuum cannot exist without space-time to exist in" you can equally grasp the concept that the vacuum that we describe as "space" is a it state of absolute nothing .i.e. a vacuum.
434a> A vacuum cannot exist without spacetime to exist in.

434a
1.5 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2018
If you are able to grasp the concept that "A vacuum cannot exist without space-time to exist in" you can equally grasp the concept that the vacuum that we describe as "space" is a it state of absolute nothing .i.e. a vacuum.


No that is your definition. The vacuum has energy, it is not nothing, see the Casimir effect.

https://en.wikipe...r_effect

The typical example is of the two uncharged conductive plates in a vacuum, placed a few nanometers apart. In a classical description, the lack of an external field means that there is no field between the plates, and no force would be measured between them.[8] When this field is instead studied using the quantum electrodynamic vacuum, it is seen that the plates do affect the virtual photons which constitute the field, and generate a net force[9] – either an attraction or a repulsion depending on the specific arrangement of the two plates.
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2018
Electrical attraction between molecules
The Casimir effect is a small attractive force that acts between two close parallel uncharged conducting plates of the electromagnetic field. The effect was predicted by the Dutch physicist Hendrick Casimir in 1948 which is exactly the same as the Van Der Waals forces, named after Dutch scientist Johannes Diderik van der Waals in 1873, are distance-dependent electrical interactions between atoms or molecules. As you can see 434a Johannes Diderik van der Waals forces predict exactly the Casmir effect because both describing molecular electric attraction between the molecules.

434a> No that is your definition. The vacuum has energy, it is not nothing, see the Casimir effect.

granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2018
The van de waals forces explains the Casmir effect
434a:- "A derivation by https://en.wikipe...r_effect A 2005 paper by Robert Jaffe of MIT states that "Casimir effects can be formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to zero-point energies. The Casimir force (per unit area) between parallel plates vanishes as alpha, the fine structure constant, goes to zero, and the standard result, which appears to be independent of alpha, corresponds to the alpha approaching infinity limit," and that "The Casimir force is simply the (relativistic, retarded) van der Waals force between the metal plates." Casimir and Polder's original paper used this method to derive the Casimir-Polder force. In 1978, Schwinger, DeRadd, and Milton published a similar derivation for the Casimir Effect between two parallel plates.[18] In fact, the description in terms of van der Waals forces is the only correct description from the fundamental microscopic perspective"
milnik
3 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2018
This understanding of Kazimira about some forces between two plates at small distances is the phenomenon that occurred between the substance Aether, which is found in plates and between them and free gluons in magnetism plates. Do you need something else for Kazimir?
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2018
A vacuum is a vacuum is a vacuum
434a:-the electrical attraction or repulsion is the electrical force between two molecules, nothing to do with vacuum, nothing to do with zero point energy of the vacuum because it has no energy zero or otherwise, a vacuum is zero mass, zero energy, it is the absolute zero of everything, it is a state of absolute nothingness, no virtual particles there is no energy in the absolute zero of nothing. Nothing can come from Nothing and you have the 2005 paper by Robert Jaffe of MIT.
milnik
3 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2018
@granville583...,
Error !! The vacuum is not an empty space, because there is no vacant space in the universe, because in this empty space the bridges of substance-Aether from which matter is formed. But in this empty space, there are all particles that exist, all waves without this substance or photons can not move.
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2018
Your common denominator- Aether
You have defined your common denominator- Aether - All your knowledge of science as you have clearly shown with your knowledge of the "van der Waals force's" as all atomic particles occupy the vacuum of space it all revolves around your belief in Aether.
Milnic> @granville583...,
Milnic> Error !! The vacuum is not an empty space, because there is no vacant space in the universe, because in this empty space the bridges of substance-Aether from which matter is formed. But in this empty space, there are all particles that exist, all waves without this substance or photons can not move.

granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2018
milnic:- without your common denominator "Aether" with your knowledge of science and a few lessons in English and how it spoken socially, no one will criticise you anymore, but instead looking to you for advice.
milnik
5 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2018
@granville583...,
I am not a good connoisseur of the English language, for the discussions the "gentleman" Google translator helps me. He is responsible if something in translation does not agree with my understanding.
And what you said about my level of knowledge about substance Aether, if you say it based on your consciousness, it means that you are the first among those who have begun to understand the true causes of the phenomenon in the universe. You've seen YU tube more experiments, how to get energy "out of nothing." But "none of which" is the connection and interaction between Aether and neutron. These experimenters do not know, nor are they aware of how it works. Nikola Tesla knew it, but I understand it in my way, which is certainly not a mistake.
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2018
milnic:- you said you are from serbia its not just the translation = рекли сте да сте из србије не само превод here is a simple example
He is = Он је
Is he = Је ли он
is = је
he = он
but "is" and "he" seperatly are "је" and "он", where "Је ли" translates as "whether "so in english "is he" becomes "whether he", I sympathise because it is your grammer that is causing the translation problem.
Слажем се јер је ваша граматика која изазива проблем превода
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2018
But if you can not read english it is dificult to translate my translation
Али ако не можете прочитати енглески, тешко је превести мој превод
milnic:- you said you are from serbia its not just the translation = рекли сте да сте из србије не само превод here is a simple example
He is = Он је
Is he = Је ли он
is = је
he = он
but "is" and "he" seperatly are "је" and "он", where "Је ли" translates as "whether "so in english "is he" becomes "whether he", I sympathise because it is your grammer that is causing the translation problem.
Слажем се јер је ваша граматика која изазива проблем превода

milnik
5 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2018
This translation that you tried to equate the meanings of Serbian and English can be considered true. But I am not from Serbia, but from Bosnia and Herzegovina, and now I am in Montenegro (Montenegro). Western "politicians" with my help from our domestic enemies of people who lived in former Yugoslavia were put off by such "life clothes". Now it is broken into seven dwarfs. This is a difficulty as science disrupts the knowledge of one natural phenomenon in many tiny nebulous evidence.
Whydening Gyre
2 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2018
you guys are making this all WAY too complicated...
milnik
5 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2018
What you think is complicated is more of a consequence of politics and it's not science, but that policy has so much to do with it that it's best to forget it all.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.