The structure of the Milky Way

July 27, 2018, Max Planck Society
Fire wheel: The Milky Way system, called galaxis, resembles a gigantic spiral with an estimated 200 billion stars. One of them is our sun. Credit: Robert Hurt/SSC/Caltech/JPL/NASA Robert Hurt

For thousands of years, people have been puzzling over the milky strip that extends across the entire firmament. In the modern era, Galileo Galilei discovered that this Milky Way consists of countless stars. However, it was not until the 20th century that astronomers succeeded in deciphering its form and its true nature.

"My third observation relates to the nature of the Milky Way (...) No matter which part of it one targets with the telescope, one finds a huge number of stars, several of which are quite large and very striking; yet, the number of small stars is absolutely unfathomable." These words were written in 1610 by a man who with his self-constructed telescope studied unknown lands that were not of this world. It was this work that earned him a place in history: Galileo Galilei.

The land that he described is literally out of this world, and the document bears the title Sidereus Nuncius ("Starry Messenger"). In it, the Italian mathematician and astronomer presents his observations of the satellites of Jupiter, the Earth's moon and also the Milky Way. Until then, their nature had remained a mystery, and had above all been the subject of mythology. The Greek natural philosopher Democritus had already claimed in the 5th century BC that the diffusely glowing strip in the sky – known by the African !Kung bushmen as the "backbone of the night" – consisted of countless weak stars.

Grindstone in the firmament

After the discovery made by Galilei, however, nearly 150 years would pass before this celestial structure would again became the subject of scientific study. Thomas Wright of County Durham believed that stars were arranged in a flat region similar to a grindstone, which extended over the entire sky. For him, the Milky Way was nothing other than the projection of this grindstone. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant seized on this theory – and came very close to discovering the truth.

In his General Natural History and Theory of the Heavens, published in 1755, he explained the Milky Way as an extended and very diluted layer of stars. The sun, the Earth and all the other planets were part of this layer—but not at its centre. Depending on the line of sight, along the plane of the layer or vertically out of it, we would see different numbers of stars.

Curved: from the side, the galaxy looks like a slightly bent wheel. It has a diameter of about 100,000 and a thickness of only 5,000 light years. Around the centre there is a bright, spherical bulge. Credit: Helmut Rohrer

But how were the astronomers to find out whether the apparent view of the Milky Way in the sky reflected its actual spatial structure? Stellar statistics devised at the end of the 18th century by Friedrich Wilhelm Herschel promised a solution: Herschel recorded the coordinates and brightness of all the stars that he could see through his telescope.

However, the undertaking failed: apart from the unreliability of these measurements – for example, although it was possible to determine the apparent brightness of the stars, it was impossible to determine their absolute luminosity and hence their distance – there was also a fundamental problem: the Milky Way is filled with interstellar matter, gas and dust clouds that absorb the light from the stars. This obscures the view of the central region and makes it impossible to see the overarching structure. For this reason, stellar statistics can never encompass the system as a whole, but only the region around the sun up to a radius of about 10,000 light-years. The breakthrough did not come until the middle of the 20th century, when astronomers learned to look at the sky with different eyes using .

A look through curtains of dust

Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. As part of interstellar matter, neutral hydrogen (H1) fills the space between the stars, and thus also fills the Milky Way. This means that the distribution of clouds of hydrogen gas trace the shape of the whole system, similar to the way in which bones shape the human body.

But how can these cosmic "bones" be made visible? The answer is provided by the nanouniverse: in the ground state of hydrogen, the direction of spin of the atomic nucleus and the electron that orbits around it are antiparallel. If two hydrogen atoms collide, the direction of spin of the nucleus and the electron may be flipped to end up parallel to each other – and after a certain time, they return to their basic antiparallel state.

This process releases energy, which is radiated as an electromagnetic wave. This line lies in the radio range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Despite the extremely low density of interstellar matter, atoms are constantly colliding, causing the H 1 areas to glow in the light of this hydrogen line.

The backbone of the night
Close view: this image of the central part of the Milky Way shows a region of 1000 x 500 light years and was taken with the MeerKAT telescope stationed in South Africa, a system consisting of 64 radio antennas. Credit: SARAO

This radiation penetrates the dust curtains almost unobstructed and can be picked up by radio telescopes. Thanks to this new window into the universe, astronomers have been able to discover the spiral structure of the Milky Way. However, in the 1970s, researchers found that hydrogen alone was not sufficient as an indicator of the galaxy's morphology because, for example, it is less concentrated in the spiral arms than expected. The search began anew.

Arms in motion

The most important indicator turned out to be clouds of interstellar molecules; they emit radiation in the light of carbon monoxide (CO). Now it was gradually becoming possible to refine the portrait of the Milky Way. Accordingly, the galaxy (from the Greek word gala: milk) is a bent wheel, 100,000 light years in diameter and with a thickness of just 5,000 light years. The wheel hub with its black hole is surrounded by a spherical bulge of stars with an embedded cigar-shaped structure – a kind of bar.

Around 15,000 light years from the centre, a ring extends that also consists of dust and gas clouds, as well as . The galaxy is characterised by several arms. Most of them bear the names of the stellar constellations in which we observe them: the Sagittarius and Perseus Arms, the Norma and Scutum-Crux Arms, the 3-Kiloparsec Arms and the Cygnus Arm.

Our solar system is located in the Orion Arm, 26,000 light-years from the centre and almost on the main plane. The system, which contains around 200 billion suns, is surrounded by a spherical halo containing thousands of globular star clusters and a spherical region consisting of very thin hydrogen plasma. The entire galaxy rotates, with objects closer to the centre rotating faster, and those further from the centre rotating more slowly. The curve of this differential rotation shows irregularities that cannot be explained by visible mass alone.

Here, it is likely that invisible dark matter plays a role. And the astronomers face yet another problem: despite the rotation, the spiral arms do not unwind, but have maintained their shape for billions of years. One explanation for this is shockwaves that propagate throughout the whole system and compact the matter in the like a traffic jam on the motorway. Researchers are still puzzling over what causes these density waves.

Explore further: Is the Milky Way getting bigger?

Related Stories

Is the Milky Way getting bigger?

April 2, 2018

The galaxy we inhabit, the Milky Way, may be getting even bigger, according to Cristina Martínez-Lombilla, a PhD candidate at the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias in Tenerife, Spain, and her collaborators. She will ...

Where is Earth in the Milky Way?

July 14, 2016

For thousand of years, astronomers and astrologers believed that the Earth was at the center of our Universe. This perception was due in part to the fact that Earth-based observations were complicated by the fact that the ...

Hubble's majestic spiral in Pegasus

February 5, 2018

This NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows a spiral galaxy known as NGC 7331. First spotted by the prolific galaxy hunter William Herschel in 1784, NGC 7331 is located about 45 million light-years away in the constellation ...

NGC 3344 galaxy: A lonely beauty

February 14, 2018

Beauty, grace, mystery—this magnificent spiral galaxy has all the qualities of a perfect galactic Valentine. Captured by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, the galaxy NGC 3344 presents itself face-on, allowing astronomers ...

A new, distant arm of the Milky Way galaxy

June 13, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Our Milky Way galaxy, like other spiral galaxies, has a disk with sweeping arms of stars, gas, and dust that curve around the galaxy like the arms of a huge pinwheel.

Video: Guide to our Galaxy

November 22, 2013

This virtual journey shows the different components that make up our home galaxy, the Milky Way, which contains about a hundred billion stars.

Recommended for you

Preparing for discovery with NASA's Parker Solar Probe

December 13, 2018

Weeks after Parker Solar Probe made the closest-ever approach to a star, the science data from the first solar encounter is just making its way into the hands of the mission's scientists. It's a moment many in the field have ...

The epoch of planet formation, times twenty

December 12, 2018

Astronomers have cataloged nearly 4,000 exoplanets in orbit around distant stars. Though the discovery of these newfound worlds has taught us much, there is still a great deal we do not know about the birth of planets and ...

Juno mission halfway to Jupiter science

December 12, 2018

On Dec. 21, at 8:49:48 a.m. PST (11:49:48 a.m. EST) NASA's Juno spacecraft will be 3,140 miles (5,053 kilometers) above Jupiter's cloud tops and hurtling by at a healthy clip of 128,802 mph (207,287 kilometers per hour). ...

135 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Bigbangcon
1.5 / 5 (17) Jul 27, 2018
Two exactly opposite views about the origin, the evolution and the formation of galaxies in the universe are discussed. The first one, which is mainly based on mathematical idealism and is generally accepted; views galaxy formation as deterministic and an essentially unidirectional condensation of diffuse matter created through a single primordial explosion (The Big Bang) about fifteen billion years ago. The second view, based on (limited) observational and empirical evidence asserts a rather intrinsic origin of galaxies, where new galaxies are formed from material ejected and/or dissipated from the core of existing galaxies. A dialectical perspective in support of the second view is presented.
http://redshift.v...2MAL.pdf
humy
4.1 / 5 (18) Jul 27, 2018
Bigbangcon

I just read your link and it is just packed full of straw mans and misrepresentations of the science.
The Big Bang theory did NOT come from "mathematical idealism" but rather from the observation that the universe is currently expanding thus it must have once been in a very dense state and expanded very rapidly -the 'big bang' (which is actually a misnomer because it wasn't a 'bang' nor an explosion). The steady state theory has long been disproven by observations.

And the assertion that observations show that "galaxies are formed from material ejected and/or dissipated from the core of existing galaxies" is at the very best only rarely applies to the formation of a small minority of galaxies and at worst is simply a lie. WHICH observations show most galaxies form this way? Answer; none. The Big Bang is a proven scientific fact.
Steelwolf
2.6 / 5 (18) Jul 27, 2018
The Big Bang is actually unproven. It remains a theory, not an Empirical evidence item. There are a lot of things that the Big Bang does not explain at all, such as "Where did the energy-mass-space-time all originate from.

Science is one of those things where there Has to be a Reason for something to happen, Nothing happens totally spontaneously, new matter does not come at our request.

The Big Bang was a Cardinal's answer, specifically for the Pope, and it essentially re-iterates the first part of the Bible. First there was the void and Dark, then 'God Said' "Let There Be Light".

Few problems with that, where/what was this void, Who was this 'god' saying turn on the lights, and where and when was he saying it From?

The Big Bang is a religious view that was superimposed over Science and Science has been battling the problem ever since BECAUSE of the extra questions that cannot be answered except through theology, which is NOT Science.
Whart1984
Jul 27, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (16) Jul 27, 2018
@steel
The Big Bang is actually unproven. It remains a theory
sigh
I wish, just once, the pseudoscience crowd would learn what "theory" means in Science and not use the colloquial definition for their strawman or delusional purpose

Per NAS 2008: "The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence."
Whart1984
Jul 27, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
humy
3.5 / 5 (16) Jul 27, 2018
The Big Bang is a proven scientific fact

The inflation was considered to be a robust part of Big Bang model

So what? It isn't and never was a proven scientific fact nor an essential part of the proven big bang theory as there are alternatives models to go with the proven big bang theory.
Whart1984
Jul 27, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
humy
3.6 / 5 (14) Jul 27, 2018
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (13) Jul 27, 2018
@wharts
I just like, how crackpots here immediately downvote three Nature Journal links at the same moment
nope
I downrated you
there is a difference
Personally I prefer to believe the scientists and their high impacted peer-reviewed journal rather than...
apparently you've never heard the following terms:
Theory (as in: scientific theory)
Singular study
validation

look them up
maybe you will learn something
In particular I don't argue anyone until he provides links for his stance
there is no argument
there is evidence

so far, there is evidence for the Theories mentioned (See Humy posts)
and your opinion about something using other links that aren't validated

A critical thinker would simply wait for the evidence (or work towards the solution by getting the evidence)

I can wait while you speculate and make sh*t up, z
Bigbangcon
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 27, 2018
@ Steelwolf:

"By 1982, when a conference on cosmology was held at the Vatican, a new approach was taken. The radicals around, such as F. Hoyle, V. Ambartsuminan and this speaker (to mention a few) were not even invited. The conference was confined completely to Big Bang cosmology and its proponents.

In fact in the introduction to the published volume of the proceedings of the meeting (Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 1982) it was emphasized that only believers (in the Big Bang) were present; and that there was clearly a deliberate decision of the organizers" : G Burbidge, In "The Universe at Large: Key Issues in Astronomy and Cosmology.

Note: All so-called "proofs" of Big Bang are contrived and motivated by the lure of fame, fortune and fund. Big Money and its cultural institutions like the Nobel Committee, the Vatican etc. decides the course of fundamental research in physics, trying to make physics preach theology and our big-name scientists are happy to oblige!
humy
3.7 / 5 (15) Jul 27, 2018

All so-called "proofs" of Big Bang are contrived
Bigbangcon

No, they are real. And what motivates scientists to find those proofs, or what happens at the Vatican, is totally irrelevant to the validity of those proofs. Why would the evidence and truth cure about or be effected by the motives of the person who discovered it?
Just look at my links for the evidence for the Big Bang or google it yourself; either way, learn something about it before commenting on it.

Evidence for the big bang (yet again);

https://en.wikipe...evidence

https://www.schoo.../bb_evid
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 27, 2018
@Steelwolf and humy

The Big Bang is actually unproven. It remains a theory, not an Empirical evidence item. There are a lot of things that the Big Bang does not explain at all, such as "Where did the energy-mass-space-time all originate from...(...)
says Steelwolf

Time and space has always existed, nothing new there. The Energy/Mass was created but not through "religion" since religions did not exist until long after the creation of the humans.
What you call the "Big Bang" was actually a ripple effect in all directions that carried all Energy/Mass out through space when the Matter/Mass had all transmuted into Energy and that Energy could no longer be contained. Remember that Energy transmutes into Matter and Matter transmutes into Energy. In the form of Matter/Mass, the Energy was suppressed. But when the transmutation occurred, the Energy was released in huge ripples that traveled throughout space with nothing to stop it.
-CONTINUED-

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 27, 2018
-CONTINUED-
Energy/Mass is separated from Time and Space due to its ability to transform/transmute from one form to the other and back again. Neither Time nor Space has such an ability to transform into something else. Time can't become space and space can't become Time. Scientists can't do it, if they even ever thought to make the attempt.
The released Energy moved out quickly and space began expanding to accommodate the Energy.

The Big Bang was a Cardinal's answer, specifically for the Pope, and it essentially re-iterates the first part of the Bible. First there was the void and Dark, then 'God Said' "Let There Be Light".

The "Let there be light" was a misinterpretation by the writer of Genesis1 when the text was dictated to him, he assumed that the light emanated from the Sun. But that light emanated from God, and the creation of the Sun, Moon, Stars came later. The 'light' was a form of pure Energy that came from God's own presence.
-CONTINUED-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 27, 2018
-CONTINUED-
Few problems with that, where/what was this void, Who was this 'god' saying turn on the lights, and where and when was he saying it From?

The "void" was Space and it contained the CMBR which we are familiar with. That Radiation has ripples and bumps in it, as has been discovered fairly recently.
The God you are referring to is the Creator of Mass/Energy who caused the Mass to turn into Energy that resulted in the expansion of Space and then Energy becoming Matter. YOU are Matter and therefore, you were created by God.

The Big Bang is a religious view that was superimposed over Science and Science has been battling the problem ever since BECAUSE of the extra questions that cannot be answered except through theology, which is NOT Science.

No. Theology is NOT science. But science also lacks a nuclear response to theologians to properly explain the real principles of Matter/Energy and its origins and propagation as I have described above.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 27, 2018
LOL I am certain that I will be rated "ones" for this. But that's ok since it will only prove that it was read and approved/disapproved. Those who didn't like my very short dissertation are enjoying their God-given Free Will to agree or not.
granville583762
3 / 5 (12) Jul 27, 2018
Georges Lemaitre. The biblical version of the moment of creation by an ordained priest!

Georges Lemaitre an ordained priest wrote the rules of creation for all those who believe in religion, the religious entity the bigbang; if for any reason their faith is faltering.

Welcome to the Humy's scientifically approved, proved biblical version of the moment of creation!
Captain Stumpy
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2018
@idiot illiterate eggy
I am certain that I will be rated "ones" for this
far be it from me to deny you your source of pride: one's it is
But that's ok since it will only prove that it was read and ...

TL;DR
Benni
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 27, 2018
SEU>
a ripple effect in all directions that carried all Energy/Mass out through space when the Matter/Mass had all transmuted into Energy and that Energy could no longer be contained
.......are you trying to say that ENTROPY reached UNITY?

Pearlman_CTA
1.1 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2018
If SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model, no prediction/requirement for the missing dark matter as SPI- of SPI-RALL is hyper dense proto-galactic formation preceded cosmic inflation expansion, we can measure as thousands, not billions of years ago.
ddaye
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 27, 2018
I wish, just once, the pseudoscience crowd would learn what "theory" means in Science and not use the colloquial definition
This confusion is the overwhelming rule in the US population at least, In science communication aimed at the general public, scientists or science reporters need to mention the difference almost every time. People do understand the concept of a common word being a technical term for example in sports, but most in this country don't realize that "theory" is an example.
Baseline
3 / 5 (4) Jul 28, 2018
I wish, just once, the pseudoscience crowd would learn what "theory" means in Science and not use the colloquial definition
This confusion is the overwhelming rule in the US population at least, In science communication aimed at the general public, scientists or science reporters need to mention the difference almost every time. People do understand the concept of a common word being a technical term for example in sports, but most in this country don't realize that "theory" is an example.


I feel rather confident that this is an intentional debate tactic to try to rebuke the science for the benefit of the believers. For the uninformed masses it works as well as climate science deniers propaganda does. For the layman science is very difficult and requires an advanced education that few outside STEM fields can manage to follow. In the end it becomes as if the two bodies are speaking completely different languages.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (11) Jul 28, 2018
SEU>
a ripple effect in all directions that carried all Energy/Mass out through space when the Matter/Mass had all transmuted into Energy and that Energy could no longer be contained
.......are you trying to say that ENTROPY reached UNITY?

says Benni

The scenario I have described was in answer to the claims by Steelwolf. To me, it is the only logical and reasonable alternative to the Big Bang theory. I suppose you could say that it had reached Unity and was set in motion so that the Energy could fill as much of space as possible. But space is huge, and Energy/Matter is finite, so that it could only move outward in all directions from the main source. You could also say that there was "ignition" which caused the Matter to transmute into Energy which, in turn, ignited and sent all the Energy/Matter outward to fill Space.
-CONTINUED-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (11) Jul 28, 2018
-CONTINUED-
Think of a Hydrogen Bomb explosion in which Matter becomes Energy when it is ignited by a catalyst. Who ignited the Mass that transmuted or transformed into Energy? It couldn't have ignited by itself. There wouldn't have been enough heat to ignite it since the heat only developed AFTER ignition and all the Matter/Energy moving out at C. If it had, then what caused it? Out there in the coldness of Space, Matter did not transform into Energy. It wasn't a pinpoint or the size of an atom. That is false. Even if you could scrunch ALL the atoms of Matter in all of the Universe, it would still be larger than one atom.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (11) Jul 28, 2018
-CONTINUED-
The "ripple effect" that I mentioned was the Matter that hadn't transformed into Energy. The Matter, traveling through Space at near C was carried along, leaving small bits and pieces of Matter as it moved outward (in all directions). As the Matter cooled in Space it left little bumps that became some of what constitutes the CMBR. The evidence of that is in the WMAP, which shows only a small part of the Universe.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 28, 2018
I feel rather confident that this is an intentional debate tactic to try to rebuke the science for the benefit of the believers. For the uninformed masses it works as well as climate science deniers propaganda does. For the layman science is very difficult and requires an advanced education that few outside STEM fields can manage to follow. In the end it becomes as if the two bodies are speaking completely different languages.
says Baseline

You might also consider yourself a "believer". For example, the belief that the US is the main reason for "climate change" and plastics pollution of the seas. Are you aware that the evidence tells us that 90% of the pollution of the northern Pacific is actually caused by Communist China? And what about all the wildfires set by arsonists such as mentally ill homeless in California and other western states. Such people causing wildfires are protected by Democrat Party-Socialists in Democrat-led states. Where is the justice?

IwinUlose
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 28, 2018
In the cleansing flames that are reducing their world to what it reduced them to? This is assuming of course, what you say is true.
https://www.busin...e-2018-7
The blaze that broke out Monday was caused by a mechanical issue involving a vehicle, officials said.

Sounds like a lefty cover up to me! HerpaDerpaDoo
granville583762
3 / 5 (12) Jul 28, 2018
Equal Galactic rotation irrespective of mass is proof positive darkmatter does not exist

For galactic stars to maintain an average distance of 6 light years apart they have to be orbiting each other, the rotation of the galaxy is sufficient for two stars at 6 light years as two binary stars, this explains why galaxies on average have the same rotation period irrespective of mass which is also why no darkmatter is required and does not exist
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 28, 2018
Who can rid us of this troublesome priest?
granville583762> Georges Lemaitre. The biblical version of the moment of creation by an ordained priest!
Georges Lemaitre an ordained priest wrote the rules of creation for all those who believe in religion, the religious entity the bigbang; if for any reason their faith is faltering.
Welcome to the Humy's scientifically approved, proved biblical version of the moment of creation!

If we want to rid ourselves of this troublesome priest the time is well overdue to rethink the formation of the galaxies, there are too many anomalies that are inconsistent, cannot be correlated its time to separate religion from science!
Bob West
1 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2018
Dark matter is a supersolid that fills 'empty' space, strongly interacts with ordinary matter and is displaced by ordinary matter. What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter. The state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter is gravity.

The supersolid dark matter displaced by a galaxy pushes back, causing the stars in the outer arms of the galaxy to orbit the galactic center at the rate in which they do.
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jul 28, 2018
Jonesdave:- Less haste and a little more thought J.D on how stars spinning on their axis as orbital stars

How do you think stars keep their distance - increased darkmatter J.D.?
Equal Galactic rotation irrespective of mass is proof positive darkmatter does not exist
For galactic stars to maintain an average distance of 6 light years apart they have to be orbiting each other, the rotation of the galaxy is sufficient for two stars at 6 light years as two binary stars, this explains why galaxies on average have the same rotation period irrespective of mass which is also why no darkmatter is required and does not exist

The equivalent barycentre of two galactic stars 6 light years apart has to viewed J.D as a complete revolution of the two stars, as this is occurring in billions of the galaxies stars

One galactic revolution of the galaxy is the same as one complete revolution of two stars about their barycentre J.D
Benni
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2018
......are you trying to say that ENTROPY reached UNITY?


set in motion so that the Energy could fill as much of space as possible. But space is huge, and Energy/Matter is finite, so that it could only move outward in all directions from the main source.


If matter & energy are gonna move outward "from the main source" it can only do so within an enclosed space or there is no ENTROPY & any spontaneous spark of ignition will result in an immediate FIZZLE, this is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics for the Distribution of Energy, ENTROPY.

In time, all that MASS being transformed that has gone into creating ENERGY must either transform again or the Universe goes through that vaunted condition of UNITY, alias Heat Death, the end of all things. It wouldn't surprise me if this isn't a never ending cycle, but I cannot surmise what happens after the Universe reaches UNITY ENTROPY, and it will make no mistake about that. Is there a restart button?

granville583762
3.6 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2018
Stars spinning on their axis behave as gyroscopes J.D.
One galactic revolution of the galaxy is the same as one complete revolution of two stars about their barycentre J.D

Just as the a gyroscope stays fixed in space as the earth goes round the gyroscope.
This effect just as with planets, takes place with stars in their complete revolution of their galaxy!
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2018
The two contradictory statements
In the begging there was nothing - that vaunted condition of UNITY, alias Heat Death, the end of all things!
Benni> In time, all that MASS being transformed that has gone into creating ENERGY must either transform again or the Universe goes through that vaunted condition of UNITY, alias Heat Death, the end of all things

Then in the vacuous vacuum was light - The beginning of all things – From Nothing "Georges Lemaitre"!
Benni
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2018
From Nothing "Georges Lemaitre"!
.........or from UNITY ENTROPY? I guess it's the chicken/egg thing, which came first?

Is there a RESTART BUTTON? And if there is, what exists after UNITY ENTROPY has been reached? A Universe looking like a huge cinder block would make no sense, or is it a brilliantly lighted maize due to zero energy transformation? Or does energy transformation just sort of automatically kick in & the Universe starts reforming from transformed energy within it's original bounds?
humy
4 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2018

In the begging there was nothing
granville583762

Please Please if you are to introduce irrelevant religious rhetoric nonsense here, at least say it correctly. That should be;

"In the beginning there was nothing"
(or to be more precise from its origin, "In the beginning there was nothing but God")

"begging" has nothing to do with it, which is ask someone earnestly or humbly for something.

You keep doing that same misspelling but don't learn not to.
"begging" ≠ "beginning"
Your spelling is even worse than mine and mine is bad enough.
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2018
Jonesdave:- Less haste and a little more thought J.D on how stars spinning on their axis as orbital stars


Lay off the crack pipe, eh Granville? It has nothing to do with the orbit of S2 around the SMBH. Learn some science before commenting on it yes?

Hungarian
4.5 / 5 (6) Jul 28, 2018
With my poor English, sorry.
It is good for nothint to dispute about physics with ones who did not learned physics.
Physics is a discipline, not a dream. To learn it is a hard task. Talking about it is very easy.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2018
With my poor English, sorry.
It is good for nothint to dispute about physics with ones who did not learned physics.
Physics is a discipline, not a dream. To learn it is a hard task. Talking about it is very easy.



Correct. Your English is better than their physics! :)
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2018
A blackhole breaking a cinder block universe to its constituent quarks reforms as pristine protons
granvillr583762> From Nothing "Georges Lemaitre"!

Benni> ..or from UNITY ENTROPY? I guess it's the chicken/egg thing, which came first?
Is there a RESTART BUTTON? And if there is, what exists after UNITY ENTROPY has been reached? A Universe looking like a huge cinder block would make no sense, or is it a brilliantly lighted maize due to zero energy transformation? Or does energy transformation just sort of automatically kick in & the Universe starts reforming from transformed energy within it's original bounds?

If we accept the bigbang it had a begging and it has an end even if it is a cinder block universe, even so this is not the first big bang - this is why Georges Lemaitre cosmic egg needs more explanation than Blind Unquestioning Faith – but then he was an ordained priest
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2018
There's obviously a crack in your pipe J.D
granville583762> Jonesdave:- Less haste and a little more thought J.D on how stars spinning on their axis as orbital stars


jonesdave> Lay off the crack pipe, eh Granville? It has nothing to do with the orbit of S2 around the SMBH. Learn some science before commenting on it yes?

Blackholes don't increase Galactic mass, their an integral part of the galaxy as they consist of the stars in the centre of the galaxy, they also don't increase galactic gravitational force of the galaxy, there's more mass in stars in the galactic centre than the relatively small blackhole
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2018
Blackholes don't increase Galactic mass, their (***THEY'RE***) an integral part of the galaxy as they consist of the stars in the centre of the galaxy, they also don't increase galactic gravitational force of the galaxy, there's more mass in stars in the galactic centre than the relatively small blackhole.


Sorry, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Give up, yes? Heard of Kepler? Do the maths. It isn't rocket science. Except to math illiterates such as yourself and Benni. You think extremely well educated and qualified scientists have overlooked something that you have managed to figure out? Give us a break. Are you competing with Benni for the Dunning-Kruger award 2018?
(aside to the audience: this would be funny, if it wasn't so sad!)
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2018
Keep haggling on your spelling humy

In the begging there was nothing
granville583762

Please Please if you are to introduce irrelevant religious rhetoric nonsense here, at least say it correctly. That should be;

"In the beginning there was nothing"
(or to be more precise from its origin, "In the beginning there was nothing but God")

"begging" has nothing to do with it, which is ask someone earnestly or humbly for something.

You keep doing that same misspelling but don't learn not to.
"begging" ≠ "beginning"
Your spelling is even worse than mine and mine is bad enough.

It's obviously more important.
Baseline
4.5 / 5 (4) Jul 28, 2018
You might also consider yourself a "believer". For example, the belief that the US is the main reason for "climate change" and plastics pollution of the seas. Are you aware that the evidence tells us that 90% of the pollution of the northern Pacific is actually caused by Communist China? And what about all the wildfires set by arsonists such as mentally ill homeless in California and other western states. Such people causing wildfires are protected by Democrat Party-Socialists in Democrat-led states. Where is the justice?[/qd]

Ya no, don't attribute beliefs to me that I have not explicitly stated. Is it a requirement for you to be intentionally dishonest in any debate? The only position on any issue you can infer from my previous post is that I take the default position that I am unconvinced of a man in the sky that controls everything and that those that do believe are intentionally dishonest in their debate tactic when it comes to the scientific use of Theory.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2018
Keep haggling on your spelling humy


There is only one way of spelling 'beginning'. There are also differences between 'their', 'there' and 'they're'. I would suggest learning those things before you even think of tackling science. It has a bearing on your credibility, such as it is, given that you are English. Well, Yorkshire, which is more or less the same thing. Unfortunately.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2018
If a lot more astronmers had heard of Kepler
Blackholes don't increase Galactic mass, their (***THEY'RE***) an integral part of the galaxy as they consist of the stars in the centre of the galaxy, they also don't increase galactic gravitational force of the galaxy, there's more mass in stars in the galactic centre than the relatively small blackhole.


Sorry, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Give up, yes? Heard of Kepler? Do the maths. It isn't rocket science. Except to math illiterates such as yourself and Benni. You think extremely well educated and qualified scientists have overlooked something that you have managed to figure out? Give us a break. Are you competing with Benni for the Dunning-Kruger award 2018?
(aside to the audience: this would be funny, if it wasn't so sad!)

Now you have said galactic rotation discrepancy has nothing to do with darkmatter, just everything to do with Kepler, there's no need for darkmatter.
humy
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2018
...If we accept the bigbang it had a begging and ...
granville583762

WOW you really never DO learn do you!
How many times have I now pointed out to you that "begging" is NOT "beginning"?
My complaint isn't that you make spelling mistakes but that you don't even try to learn not to and you forever repeat the same ones and then you complain when readers say you are talking gibberish. Rather like your attitude towards physics; you refuse to learn it.
You cannot even learn even the most basic spelling let alone the physics you have complete ignorance of.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2018
...If we accept the bigbang it had a begging and ...
granville583762

WOW you really never DO learn do you!
How many times have I now pointed out to you that "begging" is NOT "beginning"?
My complaint isn't that you make spelling mistakes but that you don't even try to learn not to and you forever repeat the same ones and then you complain when readers say you are talking gibberish. Rather like your attitude towards physics; you refuse to learn it.
You cannot even learn even the most basic spelling let alone the physics you have complete ignorance of.

Keep it Humy, spelling is obviously your strong point
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2018
But don't let your supercilious illusions get in your way for your challenge of the Dunning-Kruger award 2018 J.D
Captain Stumpy
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2018
But don't let your supercilious illusions get in your way for your challenge of the Dunning-Kruger award 2018 J.D
@gran
it's not supercilious to request another to be literate when said person is arguing:
1- science
2- physics
3- any other STEM topic which requires evidence

it's all about clear, concise communication

when you ignore grammar you are sending the message that you're incapable of change or correction and that your idea, dogma and/or beliefs are superior to evidence-based validated science, especially when you're incapable of providing evidence to argue your point against the existing evidence-based Theory

the fact that you would denigrate others for requesting you correct your spelling to be precise while ignoring the correction and repeating it is indicative of Dunning-Kruger on your part (among other things)

PS - spellcheck is free
also: http://grammarly.com/
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2018
Now you have said galactic rotation discrepancy has nothing to do with darkmatter, just everything to do with Kepler, there's no need for darkmatter.


Nope, I was talking about your barycentre bollocks, and the use of Kepler's laws to figure out the mass at the galactic centre. i.e, the SMBH.
Galactic rotation curves can only be explained by additional mass. Where is it? Gravitational lensing from the Bullet Cluster requires additional mass. Where, and what, is it?
Given that you consider yourself qualified to spout forth on such things, perhaps you could tell us. A trip to Stockholm, and $1m await.

granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2018
Kruger Dunning's syndrome: the double edged sword

The psychological phenomenon of illusory superiority was identified as a form of cognitive bias in Kruger Dunning's syndrome
Superiority: a supercilious manner or attitude

It has the advantage of working both ways

P.S. Everyone is suffering from Kruger Dunning's syndrome, a theory that cannot fail to please all the people all the time

granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2018
The all encompassing Kruger Dunning's syndrome
Now why cannot all our theories be all encompassing theories like Kruger Dunning's syndrome, thanks J.D for bring to everyone's attention the eternal torment of your daily sufferance of Kruger Dunning's syndrome
We would never have guessed you were so afflicted
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2018
Darkmatter, the arms unwinding and galactic rotation
jonesdave> I was talking about your barycentre bollocks, and the use of Kepler's laws to figure out the mass at the galactic centre. i.e, the SMBH.
Galactic rotation curves can only be explained by additional mass. Where is it? Gravitational lensing from the Bullet Cluster requires additional mass. Where, and what, is it?

phys.org:- Here, it is likely that invisible dark matter plays a role. And the astronomers face yet another problem: despite the rotation, the spiral arms do not unwind, but have maintained their shape for billions of years
The conundrum concerning darkmatter, the arms unwinding and galactic rotation; have we insulted each other at cross purposes
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2018
Kruger Dunning's syndrome: the double edged sword...


F*** me, you even managed to get that wrong, despite my spelling it out for you!
https://en.wikipe...r_effect

Keep going, Granny; one of these days Yorkshire will pull itself out of the Viking Age, and join Lancashire in the revolution that led to putting men on the Moon............ Oh, hang on, that shit happened already, eh? OK. Maybe its education system will catch up soon!
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2018
The all encompassing Kruger Dunning's syndrome
The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the inability of low-ability people to recognize their lack of ability; without the self-awareness of meta cognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence. On the other hand, people of high ability incorrectly assume that tasks that are easy for them are also easy for other people.
Applies equally to dim witted as to not so dim witted and high witted, both are psychologist's as both delve in the black art of the mind, depends how you look at it J.D, it can be seen to be a complement that your suffering Kruger Dunning's syndrome.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2018
In the cleansing flames that are reducing their world to what it reduced them to? This is assuming of course, what you say is true.
https://www.busin...e-2018-7
The blaze that broke out Monday was caused by a mechanical issue involving a vehicle, officials said.

Sounds like a lefty cover up to me! HerpaDerpaDoo
says IwinUlose

Where did you read me saying that ALL wildfires are caused by mentally ill homeless? A "blaze" doesn't sound like its a wildfire burning hundreds of hectares. Some are caused by lightning.
Your story is about only one of many fires. But yes, the mentally ill are protected and allowed to go out to poop on the streets and set wildfires without them being prevented. Socialism at its finest.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2018
......are you trying to say that ENTROPY reached UNITY?


set in motion so that the Energy could fill as much of space as possible. But space is huge, and Energy/Matter is finite (...)


If matter & energy are gonna move outwardfrom the main source" it can only do so within an enclosed space or there is no ENTROPY & any spontaneous spark of ignition will result in an immediate FIZZLE, this is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics for the Distribution of Energy, ENTROPY.

In time, all that MASS being transformed that has gone into creating ENERGY must either transform again or the Universe goes through that vaunted condition of UNITY, alias Heat Death, the end of all things. It wouldn't surprise me if this isn't a never ending cycle, but I cannot surmise what happens after the Universe reaches UNITY ENTROPY, and it will make no mistake about that. Is there a restart button?

says Benni

At that time, space was not "huge" ...
-CONTD-
Whart1984
Jul 28, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Anonym997516
3.3 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2018
just read some comments. My understanding is that we don't know a lot, we can only put forward hypothesis. The current view is that dark matter, known matter and energy consists of about 30% of everything and curves time/space inwards (ie adds to gravity). Dark energy, in contrast, stays at constant density, i.e. comes out of nothing as the universe expands, and curves time/space outward. Because dark energy is about 70% of everything, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. There is no knowledge of what both dark matter or dark energy is, it is all speculation based on observation.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2018
-CONTINUED-
@Benni
...until it began its expansion. The Laws of Thermodynamics (as you know them to be) were not applicable in this earliest stage of ignition and expansion.
Who said anything about a "spontaneous" spark. There was no HEAT, ergo, no spontaneous spark. The basis of the propagation of a spark/ignition is unknown...as yet.

I have said that the Mass/matter transmuted into Energy which was ignited by...? I also said that the Mass that hadn't become Energy became part of the CMBR - the bumps and ripples found in it recently. Since Energy/Matter is finite, there couldn't be any Heat Death due to the coldness of expanded space. To have Heat Death, there would need to be a continuous ignition plus an enormous multiplying of Matter such as in the multiplying of cells e.g. that would create a far larger amount of Matter than there was originally...which is not possible.
And yes, in the coldness of expanded space, Energy transmuted back again into Matter.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2018

In the begging there was nothing
granville583762

Please Please if you are to introduce irrelevant religious rhetoric nonsense here, at least say it correctly. That should be;

"In the beginning there was nothing"
(or to be more precise from its origin, "In the beginning there was nothing but God")

"begging" has nothing to do with it, which is ask someone earnestly or humbly for something.

You keep doing that same misspelling but don't learn not to.
"begging" ≠ "beginning"
Your spelling is even worse than mine and mine is bad enough.
says humy

Come on, humy. Most of us here understood granville's meaning. Perhaps granny's SpellCheck is not working to correct any typo that he makes.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2018
You might also consider yourself a "believer". For example, the belief that the US is (...) Where is the justice?[/qd]

Ya no, don't attribute beliefs to me that I have not explicitly stated. Is it a requirement for you to be intentionally dishonest in any debate? The only position on any issue you can infer from my previous post is that I take the default position that I am unconvinced of a man in the sky that controls everything and that those that do believe are intentionally dishonest in their debate tactic when it comes to the scientific use of Theory.
says Baseline

You spoke of "believers", I assumed you were referring to the belief in God the Creator, and you were. But your unbelief has also made you a believer in the nonexistence of that which you don't believe in. Words have consequences.

"I feel rather confident that this is an intentional debate tactic to try to rebuke the science for the benefit of the believers. For the uninformed..."
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 28, 2018
Kruger Dunning's syndrome: the double edged sword...


F*** me, you even managed to get that wrong, despite my spelling it out for you!
https://en.wikipe...r_effect

Keep going, Granny; one of these days Yorkshire will pull itself out of the Viking Age, and join Lancashire in the revolution that led to putting men on the Moon............ Oh, hang on, that shit happened already, eh? OK. Maybe its education system will catch up soon!


Kruger Dunning's syndrome: the double edged sword...


Keep going, Granny; one of these days Yorkshire will pull itself out of the Viking Age, and join Lancashire in the revolution that led to putting men on the Moon............ Oh, hang on, that shit happened already, eh? OK. Maybe its education system will catch up soon!

says jones

Blimey I wasn't aware that Neil Armstrong was a Lancashire man. Who KNEW??
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2018
Neil Alden Armstrong, a Moon Walker
An American astronaut and aeronautical engineer one of the first to walk the Moon
Neil Alden Armstrong born in Wapakoneta, Ohio, U.S, August 5, 1930 – August 25, 2012)
His resume includes:- a graduate of Purdue University, a naval aviator, test pilot, and university professor, became a midshipman in 1949, seeing action in the Korean War, flying the Grumman F9F Panther from the aircraft carrier USS Essex
Joining the NASA Astronaut Corps making his first spaceflight as commander of Gemini 8 in March 1966
Surveillance_Egg_Unit> says jones

Blimey I wasn't aware that Neil Armstrong was a Lancashire man. Who KNEW??

I didn't have the heart to mention cold, wet, windy miserable Lancashire, Surveillance_Egg_Unit; you know how sensitive jonesdave can be between episodes of Kruger Dunning's syndrome!
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2018
Psychological illusory superiority complex outbursts

Now We Know Surveillance_Egg_Unit, jonesdave's superiority complex outbursts expletives are due to episodes of Kruger Dunning's Syndrome!
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2018
Our barred spiral galaxy
The Milkyway's arms are connected either end of our barred spiral galaxy as four arms each named by their constellations as the -Crux arm, is a long, diffuse curving arm of stars, gas and dust spiralling from its central bar, 60% of galaxies are barred a wiki example Messier51 https://upload.wi...er51.jpg The Whirlpool Galaxy, one of the first barred classified spirals estimated to be between 15 and 35 million light-years where the distance variance of distance in a galaxy so close raises pertinent questions for 13billion light year galaxies, they could be 7bilion to 13billion or 13billion to 27billion light years.
humy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2018

spelling is obviously your strong point

My Englidelicious is perfect.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2018
@Benni
...until it began its expansion. The Laws of Thermodynamics (as you know them to be) were not applicable in this earliest stage of ignition and expansion.


.........well then the Universe never came into existence. This is the biggest problem in Pop-Cosmology today, zero knowledge of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY, the distribution of energy. You have fallen into the same trappings that attempts to substitute Dark Energy for Entropy.

If there exists zero ENTROPY, motion ceases because there is no distribution of energy. This means all the galaxies stop rotating because stars can no longer move heat into the space around them to prevent entropy from reaching UNITY within a few minutes of startup, it's the same as overheating your car engine if there is no means of cooling the engine to keep it from overheating. Stars are the energy source of the Universe, entropy is what prevents them from overheating & shutting down.

granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 29, 2018
Pop-Cosmology and Georges Lemaitre
Accepting the premise of Georges Lemaitre, the universe sprang into being in the beginning from nothing - zero entropy - from the vacuous vacuum of space -
Benni> If there exists zero ENTROPY, motion ceases

It does not matter how you look at it, if only one quark exists and the universe was created out of this quark; where did the energy come from to create all the quarks now residing in our universe
The answer; Georges Lemaitre and his cosmic egg, without which our galaxy would not exist because the cosmic egg is a collection of galaxies where the galaxies are a collection of stars – as a whole, the collection of stars are a cosmic egg and a star owes its existence to that single quark
Nothing comes from nothing leaving two alternatives the universe never existed and never will, or the universe all ways existed which is what we observe as we squabble of that troublesome priest!
Benni
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2018
Pop-Cosmology and Georges Lemaitre
Accepting the premise of Georges Lemaitre, the universe sprang into being in the beginning from nothing - zero entropy - from the vacuous vacuum of space -
Benni> If there exists zero ENTROPY, motion ceases


>granDy: I've never bothered to study anything specific to Lemaitre except to know he is the father of the Big Bang scenario, and quite frankly I just don't care about it. I don't care about religion or anything much asociated with religious culture.

Having spent 6 years in Engineering School plus an additional 1 1/2 years of Continuing Educational credits beyond that in furtherance of my endeavors in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering credits, thus I know better than to believe in the Pop-Cosmology fantasies that are based purely in Perpetual Motion mechanics such as Dark Energy, Infinitely Dense BHs with infinite gravity at the center, Neutron Stars, Gravitational Collapse theories, all preposterous perpetual motion concepts.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2018
Having spent 6 years in Engineering School plus an additional 1 1/2 years of Continuing Educational credits beyond that in furtherance of my endeavors in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering credits,


And in all that time they failed to teach you maths, what b-decay is, and what half-life means? Methinks that is a bit of a fairy tale!

Benni
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2018
Having spent 6 years in Engineering School plus an additional 1 1/2 years of Continuing Educational credits beyond that in furtherance of my endeavors in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering credits,


And in all that time they failed to teach you maths, what b-decay is, and what half-life means? Methinks that is a bit of a fairy tale!
........and you're just jealous in that you don't have the capacity for learning Differential Equations.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2018
Having spent 6 years in Engineering School plus an additional 1 1/2 years of Continuing Educational credits beyond that in furtherance of my endeavors in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering credits,


And in all that time they failed to teach you maths, what b-decay is, and what half-life means? Methinks that is a bit of a fairy tale!
........and you're just jealous in that you don't have the capacity for learning Differential Equations.


Oh I do. However, given your inability to complete even a basic maths problem, it is obvious that you don't.
http://www.imageb...31713084
Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2018
Oh I do. However, given your inability to complete even a basic maths problem, it is obvious that you don't


.....that's right, you "do", you "do" believe in Schwarzschild's perpetual motion black hole math, you're also the one who told us you took Differential Equations in an Algebra course in high school.

So why would we not be surprised you do not comprehend the immutability of the Inverse Square Law or that of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY being the means by which energy is distributed throughout the Universe?
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2018
It was pointed out Georges Lemaitre's hand in creation some time ago but not it's not very wildly known for obvious reasons, the connotations might not be regarded as scientific, but J.D seems enamoured by this troublesome priest.
Benni> I've never bothered to study anything specific to Lemaitre except to know he is the father of the Big Bang scenario, and quite frankly I just don't care about it. I don't care about religion or anything much asociated with religious culture

Don't mind jonesdave Benni, J.Ds just going through one of his superiority complex outbursts expletives which are due to his episodes of Kruger Dunning's Syndrome!
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Jul 29, 2018
that's right, you "do", you "do" believe in Schwarzschild's perpetual motion black hole math,.....


And there we go again.......dumbness upon dumbness. Schwarzschild's equation doesn't only relate to black holes, you idiot. The equation can equally be applied to a planet or star. Dumbo. It is a very simple calculation, and you couldn't do it.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2018
It was pointed out Georges Lemaitre's hand in creation some time ago but not it's not very wildly known for obvious reasons, the connotations might not be regarded as scientific, but J.D seems enamoured by this troublesome priest.
Benni> I've never bothered to study anything specific to Lemaitre except to know he is the father of the Big Bang scenario, and quite frankly I just don't care about it. I don't care about religion or anything much asociated with religious culture

Don't mind jonesdave Benni, J.Ds just going through one of his superiority complex outbursts expletives which are due to his episodes of Kruger Dunning's Syndrome!


Go away, idiot. You can't even get the name of the syndrome right, you oik. Come back when you have learned English, and then we can start on the science.
Benni
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2018
that's right, you "do", you "do" believe in Schwarzschild's perpetual motion black hole math,.....


And there we go again.......dumbness upon dumbness. Schwarzschild's equation doesn't only relate to black holes, you idiot. The equation can equally be applied to a planet or star. Dumbo. It is a very simple calculation, and you couldn't do it.
.......but the most frequent application of it by pop-Cosmology fantasy is to create infinitely dense mass & gravity at the centers of BHs & you simply are unable to comprehend why Inverse Square Law immutability proves this can NEVER happen, that gravity is indeed MASS DEPENDENT & not the Pop-Cosmology fantasy of DENSITY DEPENDENT: constant mass=> constant gravity, but you don't believe it.
snoosebaum
5 / 5 (1) Jul 29, 2018
thats odd , the galaxy side view is shaped like a UFO
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Jul 29, 2018
Knowing when to keep your trap shut J.D
Symptoms of superiority complex outbursts expletives – only jonesdave has the monopoly on dishing out insults
jonesdave> Go away, idiot. You can't even get the name of the syndrome right, you oik. Come back when you have learned English, and then we can start on the science

Be happy in your Kruger Dunning Syndrome
Until a few minutes ago I was blissfully unaware of these two psychologist's as they delve in the black art of the mind though they are on your mind J.D as you brought them up; As I said - never heard of them and I never would if you'd kept your trap shut!
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 29, 2018
.......but the most frequent application of it by pop-Cosmology fantasy is to create infinitely dense mass & gravity at the centers of BHs & you simply are unable to comprehend why Inverse Square Law immutability proves this can NEVER happen, that gravity is indeed MASS DEPENDENT & not the Pop-Cosmology fantasy of DENSITY DEPENDENT: constant mass=> constant gravity, but you don't believe it.


Benni, why don't you contact the website owners, and see if they can set up a children's section? I'm sure you'd be more comfortable there.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 29, 2018
Be happy in your Kruger Dunning Syndrome


And there you go again. Still can't get it right, eh? See my advice to Benni, above.
rrwillsj
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2018
ahh snoosebaum, the big difference between the shape of a Spiral Galaxy and a utube film of a flying saucer? Is close examination of the photographed flying saucer reveals that it is embossed with the identifier; "Marie Calendars Pie Shop".

A close examination of the photograph of a Spiral Galaxy reveals the glorious space-faring civilization of the "Marie Calendars Pie Shops".

Hey, makes as much sense any of the other comments you will see on this site!

Matter of fact, typing this has made me peckish. I think I'll go have me a slice of strawberry-rhubarb with my coffee. And just enjoy the ambience of that alien culture and their fine LGM/BEM cuisine.

While listening to "Purple People Eaters" playing in the background.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2018
It is rare to have a laugh as large as when reading this thread, since most or all here are dead set on discussing a cosmology that died 40 years ago, arguing a strawman as it were!

Lemaitrê was wrong, and there never was a "primordial egg" "singularity" or "explosion", the universe and specifically the cosmic background radiation is too smooth. As it happens cosmologist Ethan Siegel just published a summary:

"Almost everyone has heard the story of the Big Bang. But if you ask anyone, from a layperson to a cosmologist, to finish the following sentence, "In the beginning, there was..." you'll get a slew of different answers. One of the most common ones is "a singularity," which refers to an instant where all the matter and energy in the Universe was concentrated into a single point. The temperatures, densities, and energies of the Universe would be arbitrarily, infinitely large, and could even coincide with the birth of time and space itself.

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2018
[ctd]

But this picture isn't just wrong, it's nearly 40 years out of date! We are absolutely certain there was no singularity associated with the hot Big Bang, and there may not have even been a birth to space and time at all. Here's what we know and how we know it. ..."

[ https://www.forbe...5a857d81 ].

Note that Siegel describes inflation as the accepted observation among cosmologists, which I think is correct after the last few years reading on it. Remember too that the last Planck data release last week has both cosmic radiation spatial amplitude and polarization each on its own and combined agreeing on that.

And agreeing on the low energy eternal inflation Siegel describes too, he points out no one can guarantee that it had a beginning. I would add that no one can guarantee that our local universe is the only one, again it is a relatively likelier theory to not posit it.

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2018
[ctd]

(Likelier according to test comparing amount of constraint; it is less of a constraint not to posit initial states or specific number of universes.)

Another question on this thread was on entropy. But the adiabatic cooling and spatial smoothing of inflation guarantee a low entropy right before the local Hot Big Bang starts, so there is no such problem in modern cosmology.
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2018
We know tbgl, were pandering to J.Ds superiority complex outbursts!
torbjorn_b_g_larsson> since most or all here are dead set on discussing a cosmology that died 40 years ago
Lemaitrê was wrong, and there never was a "primordial egg" "singularity" or "explosion", the universe and specifically the cosmic background radiation is too smooth. As it happens cosmologist Ethan Siegel just published a summary:
" if you ask anyone, from a layperson to a cosmologist, to finish the following sentence, "In the beginning, there was..." you'll get a slew of different answers the most common is "a singularity," which refers to an instant where all the matter and energy in the Universe was concentrated into a single point temperatures, densities, and energies of the Universe would be arbitrarily, infinitely large, and could even coincide with the birth of time and space itself

But can you get this past J.Ds superiority complex, tbgl.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2018
But can you get this past J.Ds superiority complex, tbgl.


Torbjorn has said nothing I would disagree with, and I doubt that I have said anything that he takes issue with. He seems specifically to be addressing his posts to you and Benni, given the misunderstandings he is trying to clear up for you.
I am in no way superior to Torbjorn in this area, and would not/ have not claimed to be. However, I'm light years ahead of you and Benni.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 29, 2018
jonesdave> Torbjorn has said nothing I would disagree with, and I doubt that I have said anything that he takes issue with. He seems specifically to be addressing his posts to you and Benni, given the misunderstandings he is trying to clear up for you.
I am in no way superior to Torbjorn in this area, and would not/ have not claimed to be. However, I'm light years ahead of you and Benni.

No one is criticising you J.D, if you make every one targets you think are beneath you, unfortunately there are more targets than in the five star club!
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2018
jonesdave> Torbjorn has said nothing I would disagree with, and I doubt that I have said anything that he takes issue with. He seems specifically to be addressing his posts to you and Benni, given the misunderstandings he is trying to clear up for you.
I am in no way superior to Torbjorn in this area, and would not/ have not claimed to be. However, I'm light years ahead of you and Benni.

No one is criticising you J.D, if you make every one targets you think are beneath you, unfortunately there are more targets than in the five star club!


Granville, you are an idiot. Correct? Just go away. You are crap at science, and you are crap at English. I doubt you got beyond Primary School. Bit thick, eh? Stop trying to contribute to stuff that is obviously way beyond you, dear. Yes?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2018
No one is criticising you J.D, if you make every one targets you think are beneath you...


No dear, only the idiots, such as yourself and Benni, and Cantthink are beneath me. And Solon and Yep, and a few other thickos. Have a problem with that?
Tell me Granville; which university in Yorkshire (assuming they've got any) did you attend? What is your degree in? Do they do degrees for people that can't even do English grammar? Let us know, woo child. Let's be honest - you never made it beyond high school, did you? Just making sh1t up as you go along.
Complete waste of space, aren't you, dear? Science really isn't your thing? Just like the loser Benni? And Cantthink? What do you all have in common? You are shite at science, correct?
Now, be a good chap and do one. Yes?
Benni
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2018
No dear, only the idiots, such as yourself and Benni, and Cantthink are beneath me. And Solon and Yep, and a few other thickos. Have a problem with that?


It's so nice to sit here on my porch watching the low flung clouds rise up from the river valley and over the tops of the peaks then drop halfway down the tree covered hillsides to the next valley below leaving only the highest areas of the peaks exposed. The full moon will soon be doing it's magic when it lights up the rising & falling tributaries of mist as it hangs lazily over the valley as if holding it in a gentle embrace.

Gosh, life is so good way out here.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2018
@Benni
...until it began its expansion. The Laws of Thermodynamics (as you know them to be) were not applicable in this earliest stage of ignition and expansion.


.........well then the Universe never came into existence. This is the biggest problem in Pop-Cosmology today, zero knowledge of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY, the distribution of energy. You have fallen into the same trappings that attempts to substitute Dark Energy for Entropy.

If there exists zero ENTROPY, motion ceases because there is no distribution of energy. This means all the galaxies stop rotating because stars can no longer move heat into the space around them to prevent entropy from reaching UNITY within a few minutes of startup, it's the same as overheating your car engine if there is no means of cooling the engine to keep it from overheating. Stars are the energy source of the Universe, entropy is what prevents them from overheating & shutting down.

says Benni

-CONTINUED-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.5 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2018
-CONTINUED-
@Benni
We are talking about the START OF THE UNIVERSE, before there were galaxies, stars, dust, etc. There was only Matter, which transmuted/transformed into Energy when it was ignited. Who did it and how was it done? Excellent question.
But there was NOTHING ELSE, not even a tiny dust particle in space.

".........well then the Universe never came into existence."

Benni, IN THE BEGINNING - there was no Universe. How could there be when ALL Matter/Energy was in one little place that could hardly even be called "a place". There was no Laws of Thermo, no Entropy, no DM...none of that. It was TOO EARLY for any of those things to even EXIST. Motion began with the Energy flying out in all directions.
Think of a nest with eagle eggs in it. The eggs hatch, the babies stay awhile, and then they fly away. It's almost the same premise. Energy/Matter was forced to fly away by whoever or whatever ignited the Matter - creating Energy and Motion which hadn't been there before.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2018
-CONTINUED-
@Benni
You are going on the premise that stars, galaxies, dust and gas already existed in that earliest time. They didn't exist, so there was no heat from stars, galaxies that needed to move heat into space to prevent Heat Death. Space was not an enclosed space. If you placed an object inside a light bulb between the glass and the element and then turned on the current...THAT is Heat Death. But space was wide open and expanding. In the coldness of space, Heat Death is not possible.
I predict that in that future time, it is the Cold that will bring death to the Universe when all the lights go out. Cold is stronger than heat since Cold doesn't need fuel. Perhaps the same process will happen all over again and a new Universe will be born from another igniter of Matter that becomes Energy.
eg...a gun can't pull its own trigger; a keg of gunpowder can't light its own fuse; a car engine can't start its own ignition without the turn of the key.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2018
Strange use of Vocabulary jonesdave - what are you disguising
jonesdave> Granville, you are an idiot. Correct? Just go away. You are crap at science, and you are crap at English. I doubt you got beyond Primary School. Bit thick, eh? Stop trying to contribute to stuff that is obviously way beyond you, dear. Yes?

In the context your using them J.D - Correct?, eh?, Yes? - Almost as if you're trying to disguise something
Maybe some childhood memories that everyone else has put behind them J.D, you seem to have an affinity with Kruger Dunning Syndrome. We were all blissfully unaware of these two psychologist's as they delve in the black art of the mind though they are on your mind J.D as you brought them up
Whatever memories you're suppressing J.D, they have connections in your interest in Kruger Dunning Syndrome
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2018
Kruger Dunning Syndrome


And proves my point, yet again! Dear me.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2018
Gosh, life is so good way out here
Benni> It's so nice to sit here on my porch watching the low flung clouds rise up from the river valley and over the tops of the peaks then drop halfway down the tree covered hillsides to the next valley below leaving only the highest areas of the peaks exposed. The full moon will soon be doing it's magic when it lights up the rising & falling tributaries of mist as it hangs lazily over the valley as if holding it in a gentle embrace.
Gosh, life is so good way out here.

It is that Benni, if you have ever been to towns like Blackburn in Lancashire Benni, you will really appreciate how lucky you are!
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2018
just about sums it up, kruger dunning syndrome versus dunning kruger syndrome
kruger dunning syndrome

jonesdave> and proves my point, yet again! dear me.

cheap point scoring
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2018
What are you hiding J.D
And not that it matter jonesdave, jones appears a masculine name where as your using feminisms - No dear - feminine, Let us know, woo child - feminine, Tell me Granville - feminine, aren't you dear - feminine and there's sentence construction.
Condescending has no effect, you know that is not the point being raised J.D, insulting males is not Gentlemanly where the fairer sex are involved so do not use this as another of your tirades this is a serious question, are we by any chance addressing the fairer sex?
Benni
3 / 5 (8) Jul 30, 2018
Gosh, life is so good way out here


Benni> It's so nice to sit here on my porch watching the low flung clouds rise up from the river valley and over the tops of the peaks then drop halfway down the tree covered hillsides to the next valley below leaving only the highest areas of the peaks exposed. The full moon will soon be doing it's magic when it lights up the rising & falling tributaries of mist as it hangs lazily over the valley as if holding it in a gentle embrace.

Gosh, life is so good way out here.


It is that Benni, if you have ever been to towns like Blackburn in Lancashire Benni, you will really appreciate how lucky you are!


> Yeah granDy, it's so nice to be able to live life not having jonesy's anger management issues.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2018
just about sums it up, kruger dunning syndrome versus dunning kruger syndrome
kruger dunning syndrome

jonesdave> and proves my point, yet again! dear me.

cheap point scoring


Nope, an accurate observation.
Benni
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2018
@Benni
We are talking about the START OF THE UNIVERSE, before there were galaxies, stars, dust, etc. There was only Matter, which transmuted/transformed into Energy when it was ignited.


When it was "ignited", if the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics were not already an IMMUTABLE Law of Physics, then there was no way distribution of energy [entropy] could be achieved.

It doesn't matter what was, or was NOT present in the forms of galaxies, stars, etc. If kinetic energy cannot move stuff around because there is no dispersal of mass upon ignition generated heat, then UNITY entropy will be the IMMEDIATE result due to the buildup of undistributed heat at the point of "ignition".

Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2018
But space was wide open and expanding.


How does "space" expand itself? Or are you referring to the Universe here?

I view the Universe as a stellar island floating within infinite "space". I do not view the Universe as being "space", I view it as something that takes up "space" because that is what MASS does, mass takes up "space" but is not of itself "space".
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2018
mass takes up "space" but is not of itself "space".
.......I see granDy gets it.......vacuous space, right granDy?
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 30, 2018
The vacuum cannot be subdivided expanded or shrunk is limitless in its dimensions!
mass takes up "space" but is not of itself "space".
.......I see granDy gets it.......vacuous space, right granDy?

It just takes a while Benni:- space is called space because it's a vacuum - The vacuum of space.
The atoms occupy the space - The infinite dimensions of the vacuous vacuum of space -
The space between protons is the vacuum, we occupy the vacuum, and the earth is weightless in the vacuum as are all the galaxies
Electrons physically move in the vacuum and eject photons and because of Newton's first is why matter continues in motion indefinitely because Sir Isaac Newton saw the vacuum for what it is – a frictionless vacuum devoid of occupying matter 330 years ago!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
4 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2018
@Benni
We are talking about the START OF THE UNIVERSE, before there were galaxies, stars, dust, etc. There was only Matter, which transmuted/transformed into Energy when it was ignited.


When it was "ignited", if the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics were not already an IMMUTABLE Law of Physics, then there was no way distribution of energy [entropy] could be achieved.

It doesn't matter what was, or was NOT present in the forms of galaxies, stars, etc. If kinetic energy cannot move stuff around because there is no dispersal of mass upon ignition generated heat, then UNITY entropy will be the IMMEDIATE result due to the buildup of undistributed heat at the point of "ignition".

says Benni

But then neither could there have been a "Big Bang" because that too, would have required some form of ignition. I have already said that SOME of the Matter flew out also, partly creating CMBR which would have been hot. Some Matter, but mostly Energy, All finite.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
4 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2018
But space was wide open and expanding.


How does "space" expand itself? Or are you referring to the Universe here?

I view the Universe as a stellar island floating within infinite "space". I do not view the Universe as being "space", I view it as something that takes up "space" because that is what MASS does, mass takes up "space" but is not of itself "space".
says Benni

No, I am referring to SPACE (which ALWAYS existed). Both Time and Space are eternal and inviolate, but Space itself is expandable. If it wasn't, then we would never see galaxies and their contents moving out in all directions at top speed. Only Energy/Matter can be changed. The Universe itself is eternal Space with local pockets here and there of Matter (stars, planets, etc.) and Energy, and Space is just another name for the Universe which is expandable. The term "Universe" defines everything that is carried/floating/existing in Space. The two cannot be separated.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2018
No, I am referring to SPACE (which ALWAYS existed). Both Time and Space are eternal and inviolate, but Space itself is expandable.
......what do you mean by Space being "eternal"? Infinite? Eternal & Infinite are not the same thing. Eternal is in reference to time, Infinite in reference to physical parameters of volume.

Only Energy/Matter can be changed.
.......substituting a better word for "changed" is TRANSFORMED.......E=mc²

Space is just another name for the Universe which is expandable.


"Space" being already infinite in size cannot be expanded to be made even bigger, something infinite in size has no boundaries.

The term "Universe" defines everything that is carried/floating/existing in Space. The two cannot be separated.


SPACE & UNIVERSE must be "separated", if they are not then ENTROPY can never exist. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics requires CLOSED BOUNDARY conditions, this is what differentiates the Universe from Space.

granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2018
Benni start from the premise - The vacuum cannot be subdivided expanded or shrunk is limitless in its dimensions -The infinite dimensions of the vacuous vacuum of space - The atoms occupy the space -

Then the next problem Benni, is where did Mass and Energy emerge because it did not come from the vacuum as nothing comes from nothing - were freeing Albert from the vacuum of space as that is where the elves, goblins and trolls live!

If you can find where Mass and Energy leading to quarks and those pristine protons you will have achieved where "bigbang priests" in the name of god not in the human sense, have failed Benni.
Merrit
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2018
@benni if you took number theory you would know there are different levels of infinity. For instance the set of Integers can be mapped 1 to 1 with the set of whole numbers so they are the same level of infinity. Integers, however, can not be mapped one to one with the set of real numbers. The set of real numbers is an infinite set an order of magnitude larger than the set of integers. So yes, infinite space could be expanded.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2018
@benni if you took number theory you would know there are different levels of infinity. For instance the set of Integers can be mapped 1 to 1 with the set of whole numbers so they are the same level of infinity. Integers, however, can not be mapped one to one with the set of real numbers. The set of real numbers is an infinite set an order of magnitude larger than the set of integers. So yes, infinite space could be expanded.


The last math course I took in Engineering school with the highest level of cogency to it was Differential Equations. Applying numbers to INFINITY has no associated level of COGENT thought, we don't design & build energy systems based on your level of WISHFUL thinking.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2018
The vacuum cannot be subdivided expanded or shrunk is limitless in its dimensions -The infinite dimensions of the vacuous vacuum of space - atoms occupy the space


Then the next problem Benni, is where did Mass and Energy emerge


it did not come from the vacuum as nothing comes from nothing
Merrit thinks he's found a way within the virtual reality of "number theory" whereby: "The set of real numbers is an infinite set an order of magnitude larger than the set of integers.", so maybe this is where the answer lies as to the source.

we're freeing Albert from the vacuum of space as that is where the elves, goblins and trolls live!
If you believe in those things, you know, things that go bump in the night.

If you can find where Mass and Energy leading to quarks and those pristine protons you will have achieved where "bigbang priests" in the name of god not in the human sense, have failed Benni.
Merrit's "number sets"?
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2018
An infinite vacuum implies infinite mass which implies mass constantly created!

Benni:- this is why everyone has deferred to divine intervention as in "bigbang priests" because it sidesteps the question where did the mass and energy come from when all you have got is the vacuous vacuum of space, mathematics can explain the physical world once created, the answer is not in mathematics - the answer is in nature
If we assume energy cannot be created or destroyed this implies a defined amount of matter in the infinite vacuum which is false
An infinite vacuum implies infinite mass which in implies mass constantly created
Which mass has to created however you look at it one quark = 2quarks = 4quark ad infinitum so there you are mass is constantly being created
The tricky question how and why?
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2018

The last math course I took in Engineering school with the highest level of cogency to it was Differential Equations. Applying numbers to INFINITY has no associated level of COGENT thought, we don't design & build energy systems based on your level of WISHFUL thinking.


But you can't do differential equations, Benni. You can't even manage simple maths. As shown.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2018
An infinite vacuum implies infinite mass which in implies mass constantly created
Which mass has to created however you look at it one quark = 2quarks = 4quark ad infinitum so there you are mass is constantly being created
.....well, ok, now we know. So now that we know, what do we do with it or do we just move on to your next question?

The tricky question how and why?
.....for entertainment? Oh, now I imagine you want to know WHOSE entertainment? Well, why don't you give us some suggestions?

granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2018
Mass can be created and destroyed by femto-step accelerating force

Benni:- Mass has to created however you look at it one quark = 2quarks = 4quark ad infinitum so there you are mass is constantly being created - the statement mass can neither be created or destroyed is not true
Infinite mass created or one quark created are one of the same, you are creating mass and why is mass being created, because it does not exist

A few days ago in theory force requires no energy, in practice you use an extremely minute amount of energy to create a force where the force neutralises a large amount of energy with a small amount by using it to produce a force (remember accelerating in femto-steps Benni) were morphing into this tricky question Benni, accelerating in femto-steps is for an entirely different use altogether, but this is how electrons transfer energy – in minute steps

Were used to thinking constant acceleration where as electrons accelerate in femto-steps they use less energy
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2018
An infinite vacuum implies infinite mass which in implies mass constantly created
......sounds aetherish to me when you use it in the same sentence as "infinite mass". I hope you're not going to aether, because if you do I want to warn you that's 18th & 19th century stuff along with black hole theory that is so easy in the 21st century to make fun of, food for entertainment for me.

You're losing me when you start talking about "infinite mass". Even Pop-Cosmology knows there is no such thing as "infinite mass", where would you look to find it?

It does seem likely that mass & energy are constantly recycling back to one another via conditions such as electron pair production as an example, whereby gamma wavelength energy is transformed to mass. How this manner of transformation plays out in the long run to keep the Universe from reaching UNITY is the big question. MASS/ENERGY Transformation must be exactly balanced or ENTROPY goes out of balance & everything shuts down.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2018
Christ, the vast majority of this thread is a conversation for the deaf! Or should that be the blind? Dear God.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2018
Benni:- you took a while to reach atoms occupying vacuous vacuum of space, I can see it because they are my idea's - it is difficult seeing others idea's, - don't try to hard trying to work out my idea's - when I say infinite mass I mean there is not set minimum amount of quarks, protons they are infinite in number and are increasing in number all the time
Lightning on earth is creating gamma-rays, anti-proton, neutrino's - effectively, the energy of charged particles is creating matter on earth in lightning and were nowhere near stars, nature has its methods of creating matter with something as simple as lightning when the right conditions come about
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2018
Go and get some ideas of your own jonedave
Christ, the vast majority of this thread is a conversation for the deaf! Or should that be the blind? Dear God.

Get a grip laddie, go and look at your comments page - it looks like mine, Bennies, RNPs... there does not appear to be a comment that can be attributed to yourself J.D, to put it bluntly you are commenting on others comments to the exclusion of your own J.D and not just that, you cannot refrain from swearing with intent to continue your tirade as Benni said; you have anger management issues J.D
Don't you have any ideas of you own J.D, everyone else has!
And let me guess your next move laddie, your only idea is a tirade of anger management issues
Benni
3 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2018
Lightning on earth is creating gamma-rays, anti-proton, neutrino's - effectively, the energy of charged particles is creating matter on earth in lightning and were nowhere near stars, nature has its methods of creating matter with something as simple as lightning when the right conditions come about
......sure, this is what I was getting at when I brought up electron pair production, a KNOWN result of transforming ENERGY to MASS.

What I'm getting at granDy, is that there being the observed process of electron pair production, then there is little doubt there must be other ways energy transforms to mass thus preventing ENTROPY from reaching UNITY & shutting down the Universe.

I'm unable to fathom how your quark theory transforms energy to mass. Quarks are already MASS which by nuclear forces are building blocks to other things. I suppose quarks could be the immediate transformed products of ENERGY, but from what wavelength(s)?

granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2018
Lemaitre came up with his bigbang as a sop to the divine creator

Lightning on earth is creating gamma-rays, anti-proton, neutrino's - effectively, the energy of charged particles is creating matter on earth in lightning... in a round a bout way i came to the observed of electron pair production conclusion - no stars, blackholes, bigbang are needed or required to create energy to matter and matter to energy, was pair production known when Lemaitre came up with his bigbang as a sop to the divine creator which I'm rapidly coming to that conclusion!
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2018
Lightning on earth is creating gamma-rays, anti-proton, neutrino's - effectively, the energy of charged particles is creating matter on earth in lightning
.........seems likely.

i came to the observed of electron pair production conclusion - no stars, blackholes, bigbang are needed or required to create energy to matter and matter to energy
.......I have little doubt but what this is correct, it's always the manner in which I have thought about it.

was pair production known when Lemaitre came up with his bigbang as a sop to the divine creator which I'm rapidly coming to that conclusion
........probably Lemaitre didn't know, the Nobel Prize for it's discovery was in 1948.

From my point of view, the Universe has been eternally recycling itself by the means of energy transformation similar to what we've been discussing. I doubt we will EVER know all the different transformation processes, there are probably myriads of them, no bigbang necessary.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2018
Lemaitre's theory is a closed mind theory in that it forbids you to think further than the current size of our collection of galaxies does not explain matter and energy in different parts of the infinite vacuum of space
Benni> Lemaitre didn't know, the Nobel Prize was in 1948

In Lemaitre's theory there is no infinite vacuum of space but a singularity of limited size which is nonsense
Benni you can see why I have been referring to space as The infinite vacuous vacuum of space is limitless in it dimensions to make that mind set break from Lemaitre's sop to the divine creator and my latest endeavour To free Albert from the shackles of the vacuum of space
Albert's and George's theories complement each other, they came at the same time centuries before currant science
Change is good, we all become stick in the muds, Lemaitre theory it is a sop to the divine creator
This was said at the time by his colleagues it is still being said centuries later even more so
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2018
Energy and matter do not require a bigbang of biblical proportions
[q[Benni> From my point of view, the Universe has been eternally recycling itself by the means of energy transformation similar to what we've been discussing. I doubt we will EVER know all the different transformation processes, there are probably myriads of them, no bigbang necessary.
As lightning has shown it exceeds by far what is possible in the LHC, energy rearranging matter
Stars themselves rearrange matter as plant use energy rearranging matter chemically, even blackholes have spin-axis outflow jets into 25,000Lyr star forming Fermi-bubbles
So far everything fore told in the scriptures of Lemaitre's biblical bigbang are all occurring on a daily basis in the galaxies occupying the vacuum
humy
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 01, 2018
Energy and matter do not require a bigbang of biblical proportions
granville583762

I guess for you magic and goddidit is always the only answer.

You can, without the slightest effort of thought, easily explain anything away with a god or magic or the supernatural.
But, for a real explanation, you must do a lot better than that.
Real explanations requires real thinking.

I recommend real thinking.
Please give it a go.

Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2018
Real explanations requires real thinking. I recommend real thinking.
Here's some for you, Einstein describing ENTROPY:

Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole, The Structure of Space According to the General Theory of Relativity

"If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it." Albert Einstein
humy
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2018
Here's some for you, Einstein describing ENTROPY:
Benni

-you then follow that with a quote from Einstein NOT describing entropy but rather some other completely different subject that has very little if anything to do with entropy.
I not only recommend real thinking here but real learning about science BEFORE commenting on it.
Look up the meaning of entropy (in physics), read it, make sure you learn it correctly, then come back to us.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2018
Here's some for you, Einstein describing ENTROPY:
Benni

-you then follow that with a quote from Einstein NOT describing entropy but rather some other completely different subject that has very little if anything to do with entropy.
I not only recommend real thinking here but real learning about science BEFORE commenting on it.
Look up the meaning of entropy (in physics), read it, make sure you learn it correctly, then come back to us.


......then obviously you nothing about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or you would have recognized ENTROPY in my discussions.

Ok humboy, you're so smart then you lead off at this point with what ENTROPY is......anything you can add to my posting Comments preceding this? You can't tell me what I've missed can you, all you just want to do is rant, right? No? Then tell us where my Comments have been wrong.......? Let's just see if you can lay it out better than I've been already doing it, name calling rants aside.
humy
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 01, 2018
Benni

I have done physics at university and passed with reasonable grades. I know what entropy is and, as you apparently think it is all about the shape of the universe and general relativity, you clearly don't
If you just bother to look it up here;

https://en.wikipe.../Entropy

you will see there is no mention of the words "general relativity" nor just "relativity" nor the "shape" of anything.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2018
Benni

I have done physics at university and passed with reasonable grades. I know what entropy is and, as you apparently think it is all about the shape of the universe and general relativity, you clearly don't
If you just bother to look it up

there is no mention of the words "general relativity" nor just "relativity" nor the "shape" of anything.


No mention in "general relativity"? Well, so what......it's still an Immutable Law of Physics established long before Einstein published GR.

You're a blowhard humy, if you didn't have WikiPedia to turn to today, or my Comments in this section all week, the term ENTROPY would still be as totally foreign to you as with anyone else as engulfed with the entangling fantasies of Pop-Cosmology as you are.

You've never cracked the covers on a Thermodynamics textbook in college, I can, and have been burying you on the subject & your reaction has been as expected by a true blue Pop-Cosmology Aficionado.
Ojorf
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2018
Benni has a problem with the BB. He cannot conceptualize it within the framework of GR, as can be seen by his posts in this thread and all elsewhere.
His idea of what the BB was is totally different from the scientific version, as is his understanding of GR.
So you cannot argue with him because he does not understand the argument and you cannot explain it to him because he does not get GR.
The balloon analogy of expanding space seems beyond him, he just cannot get it. If he can't get the analogy, how could he possibly have an inkling of the real thing?
Literally anything to do with GR he gets wrong, singularities, DM, expanding space, BHs...
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2018
Hecklers and the symptoms of Dunning–Kruger syndrome
How is it that this site has become almost completely dominated by idiots?

Because those of us who have studied Thermodynamics in a college classroom, taken the final exam & gotten a passing grade are outnumbered by the likes of those of you who have never done so......RNP, humy, stumpy, schneobo, ghosty, ojorf, etc, the usual foul mouthed name calling rant brigade you associate with here.

Dunning–Kruger syndrome take many forms Benni, its starts mildly insulting the down trodden mass's from a position of perceived superioty in the belief they know it all, then the mildly insulting becomes a potty mouth which is when the reaction sets in, which is when those on the receiving end have to treat potty mouths like hecklers - give as good as you receive without resorting to expletives and not to bear grudges
As then the heckled becomes the heckler and suffers the symptoms of Dunning–Kruger syndrome!

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.