The universe's rate of expansion is in dispute – and we may need new physics to solve it

The universe's rate of expansion is in dispute – and we may need new physics to solve it
Colorful view of universe as seen by Hubble in 2014. Credit: NASA, ESA, H. Teplitz and M. Rafelski (IPAC/Caltech), A. Koekemoer (STScI), R. Windhorst (Arizona State University), and Z. Levay (STScI)

Next time you eat a blueberry (or chocolate chip) muffin consider what happened to the blueberries in the batter as it was baked. The blueberries started off all squished together, but as the muffin expanded they started to move away from each other. If you could sit on one blueberry you would see all the others moving away from you, but the same would be true for any blueberry you chose. In this sense galaxies are a lot like blueberries.

Since the Big Bang, the has been expanding. The strange fact is that there is no single place from which the universe is expanding, but rather all galaxies are (on average) moving away from all the others. From our perspective in the Milky Way galaxy, it seems as though most galaxies are moving away from us – as if we are the centre of our muffin-like universe. But it would look exactly the same from any other galaxy – everything is moving away from everything else.

To make matters even more confusing, new observations suggest that the rate of this expansion in the universe may be different depending on how far away you look back in time. This new data, published in the Astrophysical Journal, indicates that it may time to revise our understanding of the cosmos.

Hubble's challenge

Cosmologists characterise the universe's expansion in a simple law known as Hubble's Law (named after Edwin Hubble – although in fact many other people preempted Hubble's discovery). Hubble's Law is the observation that more distant galaxies are moving away at a faster rate. This means that galaxies that are close by are moving away relatively slowly by comparison.

The relationship between the speed and the distance of a galaxy is set by "Hubble's Constant", which is about 44 miles (70km) per second per Mega Parsec (a unit of length in astronomy). What this means is that a galaxy gains about 50,000 miles per hour for every million light years it is away from us. In the time it takes you to read this sentence a galaxy at one million light years' distance moves away by about an extra 100 miles.

This expansion of the universe, with nearby galaxies moving away more slowly than distant galaxies, is what one expects for a uniformly expanding cosmos with (an invisible force that causes the universe's expansion to accelerate ) and dark matter (an unknown and invisible form of matter that is five times more common than normal matter). This is what one would also observe of blueberries in an expanding muffin.

The history of the measurement of Hubble's Constant has been fraught with difficulty and unexpected revelations. In 1929, Hubble himself thought the value must be about 342,000 miles per hour per million light years – about ten times larger than what we measure now. Precision measurements of Hubble's Constant over the years is actually what led to the inadvertent discovery of dark energy. The quest to find out more about this mysterious type of energy, which makes up 70% of the energy of the universe, has inspired the launch of the world's (currently) best space telescope, named after Hubble.

The universe's rate of expansion is in dispute – and we may need new physics to solve it
The Hubble Space Telescope as seen from the departing Space Shuttle Atlantis, flying STS-125, HST Servicing Mission 4. Credit: Wikipedia
Cosmic showstopper

Now it seems that this difficulty may be continuing as a result of two highly precise measurements that don't agree with each other. Just as cosmological measurements have became so precise that the value of the Hubble constant was expected to be known once and for all, it has been found instead that things don't make sense. Instead of one we now have two showstopping results.

On the one side we have the new very precise measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background – the afterglow of the Big Bang – from the Planck mission, that has measured the Hubble Constant to be about 46,200 miles per hour per million light years (or using cosmologists' units 67.4 km/s/Mpc).

On the other side we have new measurements of pulsating stars in local galaxies, also extremely precise, that has measured the Hubble Constant to be 50,400 miles per hour per million light years (or using cosmologists units 73.4 km/s/Mpc). These are closer to us in time.

Both these measurements claim their result is correct and very precise. The measurements' uncertainties are only about 300 miles per hour per million light years, so it really seems like there is a significant difference in movement. Cosmologists refer to this disagreement as "tension" between the two measurements – they are both statistically pulling results in different directions, and something has to snap.

New physics?

So what's going to snap? At the moment the jury is out. It could be that our cosmological model is wrong. What is being seen is that the universe is expanding faster nearby than we would expect based on more distant measurements. The Cosmic Microwave Background measurements don't measure the local expansion directly, but rather infer this via a model – our cosmological model. This has been tremendously successful at predicting and describing many observational data in the universe.

So while this model could be wrong, nobody has come up with a simple convincing model that can explain this and, at the same time, explain everything else we observe. For example we could try and explain this with a new theory of gravity, but then other observations don't fit. Or we could try and explain it with a new theory of dark matter or dark energy, but then further observations don't fit – and so on. So if the tension is due to , it must be complex and unknown.

A less exciting explanation could be that there are "unknown unknowns" in the data caused by systematic effects, and that a more careful analysis may one day reveal a subtle effect that has been overlooked. Or it could just be statistical fluke, that will go away when more data is gathered.

It is presently unclear what combination of new physics, systematic effects or new data will resolve this tension, but something has to give. The expanding muffin picture of the universe may not work anymore, and cosmologists are in a race to win a "great cosmic bake-off" to explain this result. If new physics is required to explain these new measurements, then the result will be a showstopping change of our picture of the cosmos.


Explore further

Hubble and Gaia team up to fuel cosmic conundrum

Journal information: Astrophysical Journal

Provided by The Conversation

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.The Conversation

Citation: The universe's rate of expansion is in dispute – and we may need new physics to solve it (2018, August 6) retrieved 22 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-08-universe-expansion-dispute-physics.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1843 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 06, 2018
It could be that our cosmological model is wrong.

Bingo!
our cosmological model. This has been tremendously successful at predicting and describing many observational data in the universe.

Err, ummm... 96% of the Cosmos is missing using said model, most would consider that a complete failure.
New physics are not needed, only the use of the correct physics of the electrodynamic plasma and the charged bodies in which they are immersed.

Aug 06, 2018
I wrote the above incorrectly, the charged bodies are immersed in the electrodynamic plasma...

Aug 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 06, 2018
"On the other side we have new measurements of pulsating stars in local galaxies, also extremely precise, that has measured the Hubble Constant to be 50,400 miles per hour per million light years (or using cosmologists units 73.4 km/s/Mpc). These are closer to us in time."

"Both these measurements claim their result is correct and very precise. The measurements' uncertainties are only about 300 miles per hour per million light years, so it really seems like there is a significant difference in movement."

It's the result of moving bodies functioning within a barycenter of movement. Some will actually be moving faster than others as the article says they will do. This barycenter of movement within star clusters is well established, it just can't be seen in the case of the Universe because we can't see the BOUNDARY like we can with star clusters.

Aug 06, 2018
I think you woo merchants are making the same error as the cosmologists.

Everyone is measuring the "Effect" of Existence and not measuring the '"Cause" of such effects.

Which is blindly blundering random chance. We see '"Temporary" (tens of billions of years and "Local" (tens of gigaparsecs) phenomena.

Our monkey brains loudly insist that we can dictate the terms of reality and categorize infinity in neat little boxes of dogmatic speculations.

Aug 06, 2018
"The universe's rate of expansion is in dispute – and we may need new physics to solve it"

No, not "new physics to solve it", that's the problem with Pop-Cosmology these days. Everytime one of their theories doesn't pan out they start concocting concepts beyond the bounds of well established concepts of gravity, you know, General Relativity, the concepts of gravity by which we send rockets all over the solar system which work precisely in accordance with GR.

Aug 06, 2018
So while this model could be wrong, nobody has come up with a simple convincing model that can explain this and, at the same time, explain everything else we observe.


Blue shift locally, red shift more globally. So the pulse star model is based on more local measurements that includes a greater portion of the data subject to blue shift, while the CMB data relies almost entirely on data including simple red shift. This is likely a cause of the discrepancy. Shh...but don't tell that to the simple-minded cosmologists!

Aug 06, 2018
When we actually GO to space after we build a space based shipyard.....and produce our first large capital ship in space. We WILL get around to building large antenna arrays...and telescope arrays too. Such will be much more sensitive to small differences that we will need to measure in order to unravel this mystery.

We engineers use a 'test of reasonableness' to screen our answers that give rise to complex problems that yield more than one exact solution. The idea that all other bodies appear to recede from us in the same velocities must be an illusion borne of lack of sensitivity in our equipment. Perhaps this is because our universe is probably larger than we want to try to imagine, and maybe is constructed tougher than we think, so that connections to other universae may be more stable than we know, and such as these may also be throwing us off. Much there is to learn, and we are a species sentient for less than 15Kyrs from our modification

Aug 06, 2018
"our cosmological model ... has been tremendously successful at predicting and describing many observational data in the universe."

"Perhaps the simulations' single biggest lesson so far is not that scientists need to revise their overarching theory of cosmology, ..."

[http://www.scienc...s-cosmic]

vs 8 anonymous crackpot trolling comments, without any data to boot.

Aug 06, 2018
I had a close look at that pretty picture of galaxies at the top of this link and I think I have noticed something wrong with it;
If you use the zoom function on it to zoom in, you will see amongst the galaxies, amongst other things, a few fuzzy green dots (you cannot see it without zooming in).
But what are those green dots? Whether they are galaxies or individual stars and whether they are red shifted or blue shifted, they shouldn't appear green! Right?
Or is this as a result of false-color imaging?
Anyone?

Aug 06, 2018
@humy
...
But what are those green dots? Whether they are galaxies or individual stars and whether they are red shifted or blue shifted, they shouldn't appear green! Right?
Or is this as a result of false-color imaging?
Anyone?

There are green stars, but with our naked eyes they appear as shades of white to blue, red ... the green gets washed out in the brightness. Anyways, the above picture has had a lot of post color processing, and colors have been assigned depending on what they needed to highlight, and thus every color is represented.

https://sites.mid...ld-2014/


Aug 06, 2018
@humy, if you look around some more you'll note that there are also some green galaxies. I'd need to know a lot more about the imaging and image processing for this Hubble shot to even make a good guess, probably more than will be in any kind of publicity write-up. But I suspect there's some infrared data in there with the visual light data, which is just a WAG or Wild-Azz Guess. If you want to try to dig up more data, you might find it if you can identify this shot on the Hubble site; I suspect it was taken with WFC-3, which has optical, near UV, and near IR capabilities so the spectrum of the original picture may include "colors" the human eye cannot see depending on exactly how it is used and how the images are then interpolated into a human-eye capable image.

Hope that helps.

On edit: you might also try writing the Hubble team, your question is interesting. But be sure you identify the precise shot for them so they can find the settings and image processing that were used.

Aug 06, 2018
Halton Arp still makes today's astronomers look ignorant, with all the galaxies he found that don't conform to the golden law of red shift equals distance.

Aug 06, 2018
We should look at 1 billion length/time scales/shells and verify these rate results. What if G is decreasing with time? Could that explain the blooming?


Aug 06, 2018
So just ignore the data that doesn't fit your theory. That's what they do with Arp. Amazing.

Aug 06, 2018
the reconciliation of 'all' the natural observations is SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model, there is no ongoing cosmic expansion period (subsequent to the cosmic inflation expansion early in history). w/ SPIRAL one would predict the CR and not the missing dark matter and energy.

Aug 06, 2018
I had a close look at that pretty picture of galaxies at the top of this link and I think I have noticed something wrong with it;
If you use the zoom function on it to zoom in, you will see amongst the galaxies, amongst other things, a few fuzzy green dots (you cannot see it without zooming in).
But what are those green dots? Whether they are galaxies or individual stars and whether they are red shifted or blue shifted, they shouldn't appear green! Right?
Or is this as a result of false-color imaging?
Anyone?

Yes, when I magnified on my PC those 'dots' are numerous. However on my screen (Acer) they are shown as more bluish than green so I wonder if viewing equipment also contributes...just a thought.

Aug 06, 2018
This is not quite true, galaxy clusters and at least some superclusters (perhaps all) are not expanding.

For all the news on Cosmology and Astrophysics consider this Facebook group:

https://www.faceb...smoNews/

Aug 06, 2018
Yes, when I magnified on my PC those 'dots' are numerous. However on my screen (Acer) they are shown as more bluish than green so I wonder if viewing equipment also contributes...just a thought.


In case you hadn't yet read the article?

One of Pop-Cosmology's most precious hypotheses about the Universe is being eviscerated. How do you stand for this? You won't even put up a single word of protest? Instead those of you in the Pop-Cosmology rant brigade living here are having a debate between yourselves as to whether almost unnoticeable pixels should be green or blue?

Must be a debate tactic.

Aug 06, 2018
I don't know....according to RealityCheck last night, there was no BB and no expansion of Space. So, what IS the truth?

Aug 07, 2018
One of Pop-Cosmology's most precious hypotheses about the Universe is being eviscerated. How do you stand for this?


Both kinds of measurements still show expansion. Rest assured that your incoherent ramblings will not be relevant no matter how much "tension" there is in these measurements.

Aug 07, 2018
One of Pop-Cosmology's most precious hypotheses about the Universe is being eviscerated. How do you stand for this?


Both kinds of measurements still show expansion. Rest assured that your incoherent ramblings will not be relevant no matter how much "tension" there is in these measurements.


No, you simply don't know how to read the DATA. What the DATA shows is that the Universe is NOT STATIC that is in motion & that the motion is fairly constant over a wide range of distance with small varying velocities over a limited range across the distance that was under observation.

The velocity of the measurements indicate the effects by which the forces of Entropy ( distribution of energy) shape the Universe within it's CLOSED BOUNDARY, Such forces of ENTROPY creates a Stellar Island suspended in the infinite vacuum of Space beyond that BOUNDARY, if this does not happen the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not IMMUTABLE and entropy immediately falls to zero.

Aug 07, 2018
I don't know....according to RealityCheck last night, there was no BB and no expansion of Space. So, what IS the truth?


The best place to start is General Relativity, Part 3- 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 1915


Aug 07, 2018
"When Einstein announced general relativity in 1915, he could have taken the next step and declared that the universe was in motion, more than a decade before Hubble directly measured cosmic expansion. But at the time, astronomers conceived of the universe as a large collection of stars fixed forever in the void. Einstein accepted this immutable cosmos. Truth be told, he liked it. Einstein was often leery of the most radical consequences of his ideas."

But because even a static universe would eventually collapse under its own gravity, he had to slip a fudge factor into the equations of general relativity—a cosmological constant. While gravity pulled celestial objects inward, this extra gravitational effect—a kind of antigravity—pushed them apart. It was just what was needed to keep the universe immobile, "as required by the fact of the small velocities of the stars," Einstein wrote in 1917.

Aug 07, 2018
Due to the science community lacking an understanding of Gravity or the Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect or GTE, the Doppler effect is providing an incorrect reading of motion away from an observer. Also the not understood effect of Gravity red-shift is more confusing whilst superimposed on the Doppler effect. There is a possibility that the Universe is not expanding. Unfortunately, the science community refuses to evaluate my work on such subjects.


Aug 07, 2018
Twelve years later, Hubble's discovery of other galaxies racing away from ours, their light waves stretched and reddened by the expansion of space-time, vanquished the static universe. It also eliminated any need for a cosmological constant to hold the galaxies steady. During his 1931 California visit, Einstein acknowledged as much. "The red shift of distant nebulae has smashed my old construction like a hammer blow," he declared. He reputedly told a colleague that the cosmological constant was his biggest blunder.
With or without that extra ingredient, the basic recipe for the expanding universe was Einstein's.

You should Benny clearly read some of Einstein's newer stuff.

Source: https://www.natio...ig-bang/

Aug 07, 2018
In dense aether mode...

aaand the latest incarnation of Zeph goes on the ignore list.
(Seriously Zeph, you owe me more RAM. My browser needs it to keep all your pathetic (illegally) re-re-re-registered names in memory so that the ignore list works fine.)

Aug 07, 2018
With or without that extra ingredient, the basic recipe for the expanding universe was Einstein's.


......then put up the quote that the basic recipe for the expanding universe was Einstein's, surely you know how to Copy & Paste?

Here, I'll do it for you from the link you put up:

"General relativity "describes how our universe was born, how it expands, and what its future will be," says Alan Dressler of the Carnegie Observatories."

........so it wasn't Einstein talking about an "expanding Universe", it was Alan Dressler inferring that Einstein believed such a thing from Dressler's INTERPRETATION of GR.

Keep digging cortezz, maybe somewhere along the way you'll figure out that my education as a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer with almost eight years of Engineering School education isn't fooled by the convoluted semantics of those suffering Pop-Cosmology Derangement Syndrome.


Aug 07, 2018
Ok, Benni. I'll provide: "Zum kosmologischen Problem der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie" written by Einstein in 1931. It presents a model in which the universe expands. I don't except you to understand germany but maybe you can find a translation.

I don't need to swing my ego around and say that I have a better education than you but I just happen to have. Hah!

I've even published actual papers that can be found on google schrolar! I'm a real science man! WOW

Aug 07, 2018
It strikes me that increasing "velocity"with increasing "distance" indicates that the formation of space is an ongoing quantum "creation" event and not an ongoing big bang "expansion" event. Maybe it is time to move past the Big Bang. You might guess that the details of astrophysics are beyond me, and you would be right - I made that choice many years ago, but my interest has remained and that naivity does not does not necessarily discount an observation that otherwise makes sense and feels right. Perhaps comparing the differences in velocities (accumulated accelerations) as a function of their distance will provide a more coherent standardized measure of the apparent rate of accelerating expansion that more mathematically sophisticated analysts can decipher.

Aug 07, 2018
Ok, Benni. I'll provide: "Zum kosmologischen Problem der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie" written by Einstein in 1931. It presents a model in which the universe expands. I don't except you to understand germany but maybe you can find a translation.


.....and there you go again, expecting other people to do heavy lifting of a legibly presented paper you are just too damn lazy to tackle. Look, I already did it for you once, I'm not your personal babysitter, or that of anyone else around here, I've got my own kids to take care of & I don't need to add a grownup into the mix.

Aug 07, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 07, 2018
@benni
(off topic)
The other day you basically told me that there could not have been an ignition IN THE BEGINNING of the Universe that forced Matter/Energy (transposed into Energy) into the already existing Space from the original source of Matter/Energy, due to Entropy becoming Unity, which would in turn cause the ignition to fizzle out, with no Energy or Matter speeding out at C from its source. But without an ignition (caused by ?) there would have been a "static Universe", a SLOW "leaking out" of materiel, where any movement, if at all, would have had to be a ponderous motion which could not speed up if there was nothing to move it along,,,meaning no force except for the pull of gravity..in which case the process of outward bound Matter/Energy would have taken much more than 13.8B yrs to get where they are now (Stars, planets, etc.)
-CONTINUED-

Aug 07, 2018
-CONTINUED-
There was no Big Bang, that seems to be settled, but Space always existed and is expandable. Space is not static and rigid; there is room for expansion. But your insistence that Matter/Energy could get TOO HOT due to UNITY doesn't take into account that the coldness of Space is like the air-conditioning within a hot room. The coldness of Space has the ability to PULL excessive heat from that heat's source. It is a fair exchange, IMO, and prevents the ultimate HEAT DEATH that you ascribe to the end of the Universe. As I said, COLD is stronger than heat since Cold requires no fuel or ignition.

Kindly correct me if I'm wrong.

Aug 07, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 07, 2018
Ok, Benni. I'll provide: "Zum kosmologischen Problem der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie" written by Einstein in 1931. It presents a model in which the universe expands. I don't except you to understand germany but maybe you can find a translation.

says Cortezz

It is SPACE THAT IS EXPANDING; what we call the Universe is a reflection on our human perception of the contents of that Space and the Forces within it.

Aug 07, 2018
Kindly correct me if I'm wrong
The problem is, you're https://en.wikipe...n_wrong? If nothing, how it could be falsified?


The hunt for Dark Matter/Dark Energy is also unfalsifiable where there is not enough evidence that it exists, or doesn't exist. If DM exists and we just can't see it and yet believe in it...that would make it a "religious object" and a curiosity.

Aug 07, 2018
Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!.
That is why I requested any correction, if available.

Aug 07, 2018
.....and there you go again, expecting other people to do heavy lifting of a legibly presented paper you are just too damn lazy to tackle. Look, I already did it for you once, I'm not your personal babysitter, or that of anyone else around here, I've got my own kids to take care of & I don't need to add a grownup into the mix.

First, you accuse me of not directly quoting Einstein and now that I give you his own written paper you accuse me of not doing my job. Double standars?

I'm pretty sure that if I had pasted someone translation of the paper you would have said that it was not written by Einstein. That is what you do here.

I could have given you this link at first but I just wanted to see what stupid things you are going to say. But here you go, a translation and an analysis of the Einstein's paper https://arxiv.org...2192.pdf

Aug 07, 2018
@eggy the idiot troll
The hunt for Dark Matter/Dark Energy is also unfalsifiable where there is not enough evidence that it exists, or doesn't exist
false
for starters, there are two different hunts you've mentioned
for two, they're both falsifiable and are usually spelled out in the model defining it, such as the falsification of MDM ( https://arxiv.org...3381.pdf )

so it appears you're not conversant in the basics of the scientific method, nor are you competent basic research to find answers
I suggest using google scholar instead of accepting data from dot-com sites that confirm your personal bias
If DM exists and we just can't see it and yet believe in it...that would make it a "religious object" and a curiosity
in science, it's not about belief
It's about observation and evidence

evidence states that [x] exists and the current label assigned to [x] is dark matter
it's a placeholder name at this point

Aug 07, 2018
I will even give you a direct quote from that paper if it is too much for you to read. Einstein wrote this: "Now that it has become clear from Hubbel's results that the extra-galactic nebulae are uniformly distributed throughout space and are in dilatory motion (at least if their systematic redshifts are to be interpreted as Doppler effects), assumption (2) concerning the static nature of space has no longer any justification and the question arises as to whether the general theory of relativity can account for these findings"

Aug 07, 2018
"Now that it has become clear from Hubbel's results that the extra-galactic nebulae are uniformly distributed throughout space and are in dilatory motion (at least if their systematic redshifts are to be interpreted as Doppler effects), assumption (2) concerning the static nature of space has no longer any justification and the question arises as to whether the general theory of relativity can account for these findings"


.......and your point being what? That somehow I'm in dispute with Einstein over something?

Aug 07, 2018
"Now that it has become clear from Hubbel's results that the extra-galactic nebulae are uniformly distributed throughout space and are in dilatory motion (at least if their systematic redshifts are to be interpreted as Doppler effects), assumption (2) concerning the static nature of space has no longer any justification and the question arises as to whether the general theory of relativity can account for these findings"


.......and your point being what? That somehow I'm in dispute with Einstein over something?

I just showed you that Einstein believed in non-static universe in the 30's. You were quoting Einstein's stuff from 1915 which was old and represented his old ideas.

Aug 07, 2018
But without an ignition there would have been a "static Universe", a SLOW "leaking out" of materiel, where any movement, if at all, would have had to be a ponderous motion which could not speed up if there was nothing to move it along,


It's exactly like an internal combustion engine, the point of ignition must be within a closed boundary, in this case a cylinder wall.

How much WORK (KINETIC ENERGY) can be done if you have an ICE without cylinders to isolate heat energy to transfer it to the piston heads? ZERO, because DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY is not accomplished & WORK cannot be done because of really FAST LEAKING, therefore ENTROPY will be near zero but not quite because there is the ultimate boundary of the Universe to take into account here.

The reason the Universe is not static is due to the transfer of the stars energy output to the closed boundary of the Universe, it's the same reason that an ICE operates, it's the KINETIC ENERGY created by the boundary.


Aug 07, 2018
So while this model could be wrong, nobody has come up with a simple convincing model that can explain this and, at the same time, explain everything else we observe.

That's wrong, loads of people have come up with simple convincing models, but in the main they are dismissed by lazy dogmatists who can't be bothered to actually think for themselves and follow the arguments through. In my case, I have to contend with idiots who deride the model without ever having read the book, never mind actually thinking about it. I'm afraid there are huge numbers of luddites and Cap'n Stumpy clones with impenetrably thick skulls whose first and only impulse is aggression.

Aug 07, 2018
.......and your point being what? That somehow I'm in dispute with Einstein over something?


I just showed you that Einstein believed in non-static universe in the 30's. You were quoting Einstein's stuff from 1915 which was old and represented his old ideas.
.....Ok, now I see your point about Einstein's "greatest blunder", I just didn't initially pick up on the contexts of the dating.

Aug 07, 2018
Yeah, Einstein first believed that universe was static like it was common those days but with the new evidence he buried that idea: "...it seems that the general theory of relativity can account for Hubbel's new facts more naturally (namely, without the λ-term), than it can the postulate of the quasi-static nature of space, which has now been rendered a remote possibility empirically."

That is why I told you to read newer Einstein because his theories evolved with time.
.

Aug 07, 2018
"Now that it has become clear from Hubbel's results that the extra-galactic nebulae are uniformly distributed throughout space and are in dilatory motion (at least if their systematic redshifts are to be interpreted as Doppler effects), assumption (2) concerning the static nature of space has no longer any justification and the question arises as to whether the general theory of relativity can account for these findings"


.......and your point being what? That somehow I'm in dispute with Einstein over something?

I just showed you that Einstein believed in non-static universe in the 30's. You were quoting Einstein's stuff from 1915 which was old and represented his old ideas.
says cortezz

I read your link to the 1931 report. It appears that Hubble had a great deal of influence on Einstein wrt Relativity.

Aug 07, 2018
I read your link to the 1931 report. It appears that Hubble had a great deal of influence on Einstein wrt Relativity.

Indeed. They were Hubble's observations that made Einstein change his mind.

Aug 07, 2018
Einstein first believed that universe was static like it was common those days but with the new evidence he buried that idea: "it seems that the general theory of relativity can account for Hubbel's new facts more naturally (namely, without the λ-term), than it can the postulate of the quasi-static nature of space, which has now been rendered a remote possibility empirically."


Sure, I follow you here. Just keep in mind that one needs to be careful of how loosely that term STATIC UNIVERSE is bandied about. He certainly did not believe the planets were in motionless positions about the Sun & our solar system is part of the Universe.

I know he did do preliminary calculations prior to 1915 to account for the motions of galaxies, but simply didn't believe the results of his own calculations, he dumped them for some reason. From my point of view his greatest blunder was not publishing those calculations in 1916 even though he already had them substantially correct.

Aug 07, 2018
@cortezz, @Benni.

In the interests of the discussion between you, I direct your attention to a couple of conditions/assumptions inherent in those 'paradigms' you are both quoting from.

@cortezz. Note the proviso:
(at least if their systematic redshifts are to be interpreted as Doppler effects)
So IF the redshift is due to something OTHER than 'motional recession' Doppler effects, then all bets are off! And now we are finding that 'spacetime expansion' may not be as tenable as hypothesized/claimed, so the Dark Energy/Expansion 'causes' of red-shifting are also under serious challenge by newer discoveries/reviews! Which leaves 'local' gravitational redshifting and intervening vacuum fluctuations effects to explain it better than universal-recession/doppler-effect hypotheses. :)

@Benni. Einstein/other hypotheses/interpretations were a product of their times! They believed universe was finite! Gravitational effects CANNOT 'collapse' THE WHOLE (infinite) universe. :)

Aug 07, 2018
IF the redshift is due to something OTHER than 'motional recession' Doppler effects, then all bets are off


It is due in part to recession of bodies moving in opposite directions, but that recession does not demand the Universe be INFINITE, it only means there is room enough inside this stellar island for things to move around inside of, this is my view of the Universe.

Star clusters, for which we can see the boundaries, ALWAYS have barycenter orbital mechanics, not all those stars within the cluster are all moving at the same velocity, oftentimes it's dependent on how close their approach to the barycenter of motion.

'causes' of red-shifting are also under serious challenge by newer discoveries
.....yeah, photon scattering effects, effects of gravity to slightly shift a photon's frequency. There's a lot we don't know about how to calculate these effects. Good point though.

Aug 07, 2018
@RC
@Benni
The only thing that is finite is Matter/Energy. They're not making more of it. It is Space that has no limits to its expansion...thereby no HEAT DEATH in the far future UNLESS Space itself undergoes a contraction that would bring ALL Matter/Energy together with no outlet for the Heat that all materiel would exude into that little bit of contracted Space.
However, IF that happened, Benni's ICE scenario could create a new Universe from the old...ad infinitum. Same process again and again as long as an outlet is opened up.

Aug 07, 2018
Or am I just being optimistic?

Aug 07, 2018
@RC
@Benni
The only thing that is finite is Matter/Energy. They're not making more of it. It is Space that has no limits to its expansion...thereby no HEAT DEATH in the far future UNLESS Space itself undergoes a contraction that would bring ALL Matter/Energy together with no outlet for the Heat that all materiel would exude into that little bit of contracted Space.
However, IF that happened, Benni's ICE scenario could create a new Universe from the old...ad infinitum. Same process again and again as long as an outlet is opened up.


All good points. But keep in mind, just because Mass/Energy is FINITE as I agree with you, this also means the UNIVERSE is finite, the Universe is composed of it's contents. But SPACE beyond the stellar island we call the Universe is a different matter, presumably it is infinite, and has no temperature because it contains no MASS, it's just empty.


Aug 07, 2018
OK Benni. Think of an aorta (heart). The blood within it is made up of plasma, blood plasma. In the blood plasma are red and white corpuscles that flow through the aorta, sometimes clumping slightly, but not very often. Within each of those red or white corpuscles is a Universe whose contents are Matter/Energy in the form of Stars, planets, gas, dust, molecules, etc. They swirl, twirl and tangle and there is a certain order to their motions and all is well.
In the meantime, OUTSIDE of each red and white corpuscle is a vacuum filled with blood plasma, and that plasma is propelled through the aorta by a pumping heart. The plasma carries everything through all veins, arteries round and round as long as the body lives. It could also be a mechanical pump, but there is an algorithm to keep it going. It never stops; it can't stop because the momentum is too strong. Our Universe is within such a place and there is a plasma outside. All the Laws within the Universe are in effect, except

Aug 07, 2018
for the Laws of the plasma which is OUTSIDE.

Aug 07, 2018
No, the Universe isn't a red or white corpuscle, but it does hold the contents within it and it is still uncertain whether the Universe is in the shape of a globe, a donut, a cloud, or something else. And the outside is something we can only guess about, but it IS there.

Aug 07, 2018
I know that the comparison is far-fetched and is, of course, unfalsifiable. And most everyone who has an interest in it will have their very own take on the big question(s).
But quite frankly, even though what I have said sounds like WOO, I think that there could be a wee bit of truth somewhere in it.

Aug 07, 2018
No, the Universe isn't a red or white corpuscle, but it does hold the contents within it and it is still uncertain whether the Universe is in the shape of a globe, a donut, a cloud, or something else. And the outside is something we can only guess about, but it IS there.


It is ENTROPY that shapes the Universe. It is Entropy because that is what random scattering caused by KINETIC Energy does, it randomly scatters particulate matter via the shape of a sphere. Ever see fireworks go off in the shape of a pyramid? A cube? No. Always a sphere. The spread of those fireworks is caused by the kinetic energy imparted to each particle at the point of ignition, stars do the same thing.

Aug 07, 2018
In the meantime, OUTSIDE of each red and white corpuscle is a vacuum filled with blood plasma,


Then it isn't a vacuum if it's filled with something. Be careful here, you're getting close to aether, conjured up in the 19th Century along with Black Hole theory.

Aug 07, 2018
@reg mundy-the-lair TROLL
In my case, I have to contend with idiots who deride the model without ever having read the book, never mind actually thinking about it. I'm afraid there are huge numbers of luddites and Cap'n Stumpy clones with impenetrably thick skulls whose first and only impulse is aggression
funny thing:
when asked for evidence or to explain the epic failings of your own theory, the best you could come up with was "read the book" followed by "figure it out for yourself"
at least you finally admitted
So my theory is actually a philosophy, and therefore unproveable

https://phys.org/...ong.html

the reason why you hate real science is that you attempted to publish bullsh*te and got caught out as a liar and cheat

this is painfully obvious in the above-linked thread where your best argument is essentially to buy your book, support you and agree with what you state

lies and pseudoscience aren't equivalent to science

Aug 08, 2018
In the meantime, OUTSIDE of each red and white corpuscle is a vacuum filled with blood plasma,


Then it isn't a vacuum if it's filled with something. Be careful here, you're getting close to aether, conjured up in the 19th Century along with Black Hole theory.
says Benni

LOL you are correct - that I'm losing my grasp of the characteristics of 'vacuum'. I suppose then that it would not BE a vacuum at all outside of the border/wall/separation/perimeter. Thus, if there is nothing outside, then there is nothing to flow - but the Universe would still be a part of the nothing, but insulated from it. Yes?

Aug 08, 2018
@Benni
wrt ignition
I also wanted to ask you regarding the ignition of the Hydrogen and other chemistry of Stars. We know that before Stars ignite, they accumulate over a period of time a great or smaller amount of dust and gases from the disk in which they are the probable center.
But once a Star has its full complement of the required chemistry to "light up", what is the catalyst for ignition for it to burn hot? From a relatively cool temperature of Hydrogen gas, etc. to over 1,000,000 degrees F., I would imagine can't be done in a heartbeat.
I could probably find it myself, but I would like to compare YOUR answer with another.
And thanks - you are a good teacher.
:)

Aug 08, 2018
But SPACE beyond the stellar island we call the Universe is a different matter, presumably it is infinite, and has no temperature because it contains no MASS, it's just empty.


Yeah the universe might well be finite, but here you show your inability to understand the basics of GR and the BB model.
I really urge you to again study the balloon analogy of expanding space, you still don't get it.
Once again: THERE IS NO SPACE BEYOND THE UNIVERSE, THERE IS NO STELLAR ISLAND.

What a mistaka to maka...

Bennie still thinks of the BB as an explosion in space, growing larger and filling the emptiness, see no concept of GR even though he quotes Einstein (mostly out of context).

Aug 08, 2018
@ Ojorf
Exactly HOW did you come to the conclusion that "there is no Space beyond the Universe"? Ever been to the perimeter/border between the Universe and "OUTSIDE"?

With the trillions of Stars that reside in our Universe, you could regard the Universe as a Stellar Island, as Benni chooses to call it. If you are a castaway living on a remote island in the Pacific, you could consider that an isolated tropical island that is full of coconut and palm trees. I think that Benni was using a euphemistic term because the Universe is truly isolated like an island.

Yes, Space is still expanding, but not because of a Big Bang or sudden explosion. IMO, if there was a big explosion, it could have ripped a hole in the fabric of Space and the Universe would have blinked out and all Matter/Energy destroyed. All done even before the first Stars.

Aug 08, 2018
Now we have seen an elephant fly - The vacuum stops at the edge of our universe in the vacuum!
Benni> But SPACE beyond the stellar island we call the Universe is a different matter, presumably it is infinite, and has no temperature because it contains no MASS, it's just empty.

Ojorf> Yeah the universe might well be finite, but here you show your inability to understand the basics of GR and the BB model.
I really urge you to again study the balloon analogy of expanding space, you still don't get it.
Once again: THERE IS NO SPACE BEYOND THE UNIVERSE, THERE IS NO STELLAR ISLAND.
What a mistaka to maka...
Bennie still thinks of the BB as an explosion in space, growing larger and filling the emptiness, see no concept of GR even though he quotes Einstein (mostly out of context).

Ojorf, A relic of the flat earth society who still thinks the vacuum stops at 15billion Lys and you fall of the edge into oblivion!


Aug 08, 2018
]So IF the redshift is due to something OTHER than 'motional recession' Doppler effects, then all bets are off! And now we are finding that 'spacetime expansion' may not be as tenable as hypothesized/claimed, so the Dark Energy/Expansion 'causes' of red-shifting are also under serious challenge by newer discoveries/reviews!...

In all the papers I've seen, I have not found any observational evidence that shows that the "receding" redshift is due to any motion, or doppler effect of any kind. Instead this idea of motion is simply implied by human's imagination.

In a rotating galaxy, the stars do have a blueshift, and a redshift corresponding to the rotation, but this should be obvious why. ... Not so in the "receding" redshift. "Receding" is a poor word for this type of redshift, I'd prefer something like "space effect" redshift, until something better appears.

Aug 08, 2018
@ Ojorf
Exactly HOW did you come to the conclusion that "there is no Space beyond the Universe"? Ever been to the perimeter/border between the Universe and "OUTSIDE"?


E tu SEU?

Are you just as confused as Benni?

There in no outside and no border, this is school level science.

Aug 08, 2018
If the rate of expansion was increasing, the measurement of the rate using near objects would be greater than the rate measured when looking at more distant objects. This isn't as exciting as new physics, though.

Aug 08, 2018
Distinguishing Doppler Shift Motion

Red or blue Doppler shift in galactic rotation is obvious because two motions positive and negative are viewed
Linear galaxy velocity only gives a single Doppler shift
It is impossible to say which galaxy is moving, yours or the observed or both galaxies!

All galaxies are receding, it makes no difference which galaxy is used to use as a datum point, all galaxies are receding from one another which prove the point - It is impossible to say which galaxy is moving, yours or the observed or both galaxies!

Which comes to the point of expansion, all that is being measured is galactic velocity not recession because all galaxies are in motion whether it's orbital or linear!

Aug 08, 2018
But once a Star has its full complement of the required chemistry to "light up", what is the catalyst for ignition for it to burn hot?


When you insert that word "catalyst" into the NUCLEOSYNTHESIS process you're getting into some really deep theoretical nuclear physics.

There are several differing chains that can lead to overcoming nuclear forces resistance to fuse, it depends on what particles that chain starts with. The way I best surmise "catalyst" is TEMPERATURE, but ONLY if all the other ingredients of the chain are present so that energy input to the system can overcome other weak & strong nuclear forces within the chain so that fusion of hydrogen to helium can occur.

I suspect though, that you are using the word "catalyst" in a different context than the standard explanation of HOW the fusion process works, you know, what's the SIGNAL EVENT that triggers fusion, that it can't be just TEMPERATURE ALONE, that's way beyond my base of knowledge.

Aug 08, 2018
I really urge you to again study the balloon analogy of expanding space, you still don't get it.
Once again: THERE IS NO SPACE BEYOND THE UNIVERSE, THERE IS NO STELLAR ISLAND.


The EVIDENCE that undermines your argument is ENTROPY, you simply are unable to comprehend that energy distribution within the Universe cannot occur unless energy is confined within a finite space. Remove the cylinders of an internal combustion engine & see how much movement the piston heads will undergo to generate WORK (KINETIC ENERGY).

Of course it is Pop-Cosmology that wants to do away with ENTROPY as the governing forces that power movements of galaxies, they want to trade it off to DARK ENERGY, an unbounded synthesis that is simply PERPETUAL MOTION because it does not necessitate continual energy input to keep the system in motion as is required for keeping an internal combustion engine in motion by generating kinetic energy.

Aug 08, 2018
Both Newton and Einstein said that the Universe ought to be collapsing due to gravity. This would result in a supermassive black hole to which all the galaxies were being drawn. In 1998, it was discovered that the galaxies were accelerating, when Big Bang theory had predicted deceleration. This is consistent with their motions being caused by the gravity of a great body.

This ought to mean that the cosmological redshift is not isotropic. Different values for redshifts have been detected in different directions, suggesting anisotropy, but extreme values tending to near zero for distant galaxies at the same distance from the great body as the observer have not. This suggests that such galaxies are to be found where surveys are not carried out, in the Zone of Avoidance.

The CMB has a dipole. This is explicable as the motion of our galaxy towards the great body. It also has a much weaker quadropole. This is the transverse component of the spiral path of our galaxy.

Aug 08, 2018
Both Newton and Einstein said that the Universe ought to be collapsing due to gravity.


.....but the forces of kinetic energy resulting in ENTROPY were unknown during the time of Newton. It was Einstein's presentation of Special Relativity in 1905 that began clarification as to why such collapse does not occur, he finalized it in GR.

Aug 08, 2018
Thermal energy is irrelevant for gravitational attraction. Einstein's equations showed the Universe ought to be collapsing, but since he believed it was static, he introduced a fudge factor called the cosmological constant to stop the collapse happening. He later called this his greatest blunder.

Aug 08, 2018
@ Ojorf
Exactly HOW did you come to the conclusion that "there is no Space beyond the Universe"? Ever been to the perimeter/border between the Universe and "OUTSIDE"?


E tu SEU?

Are you just as confused as Benni?

There in no outside and no border, this is school level science.
says Ojorf

Then you must be of the opinion that our Universe with all Mass/Energy goes on forever, without even the possibility of stopping it or to slow it down, and that Space expands, also for eternity. In such a characterisation, all Mass/Energy would eventually be too far apart that no other galaxy could be seen from Earth. That would be the ONLY condition whereby no wall/perimeter/border is a real blockade to that eternal expansion.
The alternative would be that the Universe contracts, and the balloon/blueberry muffin analogy reverses. But such a reversal requires a stopping point of expansion before it goes into reverse mode.
BTW schoolbook info often become obsolete.

Aug 08, 2018

But once a Star has its full complement of the required chemistry to "light up", what is the catalyst for ignition for it to burn hot? From a relatively cool temperature of Hydrogen gas, etc. to over 1,000,000 degrees F., I would imagine can't be done in a heartbeat.

:)


Fusion is dependent on temperature and pressure. The temperature at the centre of the Sun is ~ 15m K. The pressure is enormous. You can find high temperatures in the corona, but the pressure is nowhere near enough to initiate fusion. In Earth-based attempts to create fusion in the lab, we cannot approach the pressures in a star, so the temperatures have to be considerably higher.

Aug 08, 2018
But (...)catalyst for ignition for it to burn hot?


When you insert (...)process you're getting into some really deep theoretical nuclear physics.

There are several differing chains that can lead to overcoming nuclear forces resistance to fuse, it depends on what particles that chain starts with. The way I best surmise "catalyst" is TEMPERATURE, but ONLY if all the other ingredients of the chain are present so that energy input to the system can overcome other weak & strong nuclear forces within the chain so that fusion of hydrogen to helium can occur.

I suspect though, that you are using the word "catalyst" in a different context than the standard explanation of HOW the fusion process works, you know, what's the SIGNAL EVENT that triggers fusion, that it can't be just TEMPERATURE ALONE(...)

says Benni

To me, the catalyst goes beyond temperature. What you describe would be the process of "spontaneous combustion",
-CONTINUED-

Aug 08, 2018
Mass/Energy would eventually be too far apart that no other galaxy could be seen from Earth. That would be the ONLY condition whereby no wall/perimeter/border is a real blockade to that eternal expansion.


Mass being a finite quantity cannot supply energy eternally to keep a galaxy in motion after all mass been transformed to Electro-Magnetic Energy to generate heat for the Kinetic Energy required to keep the galaxy in motion, ENTROPY.

It is the supply of energy from stars that keeps a galaxy in motion preventing a galaxy's own gravity from collapsing in on itself driving ENTROPY to zero, causing cessation of distribution of energy to occur. Run out of fuel. motion stops. Remember the last time your car ran out fuel?

The next big question is: How do galactic systems return Electro-Magnetic Energy to the system to keep ENTROPY from reaching UNITY? We know electron pair production is one means of energy transformation, a closed system that overheats shuts down.

Aug 08, 2018
-CONTINUED-
...given that all required chemistry is present. But there are "failed stars" and there are ongoing mixes of such chemistry in potential stellar disks that may be already in the process of heating, but haven't yet heated sufficiently to become Star materiel. So, at what point in the chemical mix for Star materiel does it cease Entropy and it become "UNITY", enough of heat to begin the process of turning H into He? is there an 'electrical current' as the catalyst when the mix is above a certain temperature?

Aug 08, 2018
Fusion is dependent on temperature and pressure.


Pressure has nothing to do with the onset of a fusion event, pressure generated in a hydrogen bomb explosion is SUBSEQUENT to fusion, it is not a condition for the fusion event.

In Earth-based attempts to create fusion in the lab, we cannot approach the pressures in a star, so the temperatures have to be considerably higher.


We have set off lots of hydrogen bombs never having first placed hydrogen in some kind of compression chamber, a fission bomb is utilized for the needed temperature conditions for fusion, not pressure.

Aug 08, 2018
LOL Glad I hadn't even considered Pressure/Compression as a necessary evil to the mix. A stick of dynamite requires a catalyst to set off the chemicals within the chamber. That catalyst would be the spark that ignites the fuse leading to the chamber.
I am seeking the spark/catalyst that sets off the process of Star-making.

Aug 08, 2018
Gotta run.
Thanks to Benni for teaching good lessons.
Thanks to jonesdave - our favorite kiwi.
Thanks to granville for not succumbing to TgoO1923's evil tricks.
Seeya

Aug 08, 2018
.... enough of heat to begin the process of turning H into He? is there an 'electrical current' as the catalyst when the mix is above a certain temperature?


......yeah, back to the "catalyst" question again. It may help you a bit here to study Feynamen Diagrams for hydrogen fusion, there are numerous sources. But I'll acknowledge ahead of time, this won't answer your deeper question about a subsequent catalyst for fusion once temperature conditions have been attained. A lot of atomic structure must be changed, but how deep into the quark range is something I have never studied.

Aug 08, 2018
Remove the cylinders of an internal combustion engine & see how much movement the piston heads will undergo to generate WORK (KINETIC ENERGY).


I think you mean 'remove the cylinder walls'. If you're referring to a diesel engine, this analogy is a gross oversight in terms of scale. We could say that if you add enough fuel to any point in space that it's mass confines it due to its' own gravity exceeding the compression ratio for ignition we no longer need cylinder walls. If you're referring to gasoline engines your analogy is just plain unworkable as gasoline needs to be atomized and mixed with a catalyst to a very precise degree before ignition can take place.

Aug 08, 2018
@arcmetal.
In all the papers I've seen, I have not found any observational evidence that shows that the "receding" redshift is due to any motion, or doppler effect of any kind.
Yes. It's yet another 'confusion' perpetrated by Big Bang/Inflation/Expansion proponents/writers who cannot come up with any logically/physically consistent explanation for any of their 'scenarios'.

Eg: they claim expansion effects only become significant 'cumulatively' BEYOND hundreds of lightyear distances.

But THEN, light being emitted by a body/process (galaxy etc) will NOT be 'stretched' to CMB wavelengths 'at source'.

Eg: they claim 'spacetime is expanding and taking the galaxies away with them'.

But THEN, NO DOPPLER shift can be imparted to emitted light 'at source' stage because 'local spacetime' is allegedly 'moving along with the galaxy'!

Upshot?...ONLY GRAVITATIONAL redshifting AND INTERVENING travel SCATTERING etc redshifting can contribute to observed redshift! :)

Aug 08, 2018
I think you mean 'remove the cylinder walls'.
..........you "think" this because you are overthinking it, cylinders ARE WALLS, the boundary isolating an engine from the ambient environment around it for the purpose of generating pressure on the piston heads. Mechanics never talk about an engine in terms of it being a 4-wall, 6-wall, 6-wall V-6wall, etc, but it wouldn't surprise me that soon everyone afflicted with Pop-Cosmology Derangement Syndrome here will soon be adapting your inappropriate synonyms.

We could say that if you add enough fuel to any point in space that it's mass confines it due to its' own gravity exceeding the compression ratio for ignition
......interesting that you're proposing operating an ICE at "any point in space" & expect to get "compression". Good luck Pop-Cosmology genius, it's like jonesy coming here giving lectures on how nuclear fusion depends on extreme conditions of PRESSURE for the generation of fusion.


Aug 08, 2018
@Benni.

It would be more correct to say that once 'cumulative' gravitational-mass effects are sufficient to 'contain' the energetic/hot plasma then the fusion can occur AS IF it was 'contained' by a 'spherical cylinder' gravitational-feature of stellar-mass proportions/strength.

Note well: the containment in our fusion experiments is by MAGNETIC FIELD PATTERN containment; but only briefly!....until the plasma spontaneously 'destabilizes' and mag-containment is breached.

Also note well: the PLASMOID phenomenon is also a temporary electro-magnetic 'containment process' which can occur in any turbulent/flowing plasma system, be it in/on the sun or in/around energetic 'disc-and-polar-jet' systems.

Cheers. :)

Aug 08, 2018
@Benni.

It would be more correct to say that once 'cumulative' gravitational-mass effects are sufficient to 'contain' the energetic/hot plasma then the fusion can occur AS IF it was 'contained' by a 'spherical cylinder' gravitational-feature of stellar-mass proportions/strength.

Note well: the containment in our fusion experiments is by MAGNETIC FIELD PATTERN containment; but only briefly!....until the plasma spontaneously 'destabilizes' and mag-containment is breached.

Also note well: the PLASMOID phenomenon is also a temporary electro-magnetic 'containment process' which can occur in any turbulent/flowing plasma system, be it in/on the sun or in/around energetic 'disc-and-polar-jet' systems.

Cheers. :)


OK....... Benni

Aug 08, 2018
The cylinder is the chamber in which combustion takes place, encased in the block whose interior walls define the cylinder.

There's also a great analogy here for what jonesdave pointed out about man-made fusion. A diesel engine requires a glowplug to provide heat because the force required for the initial reaction is too great for mechanical means to initiate.

As to your second quip, are you oblivious to crushing force we have termed gravity? You bandy about Einstein quotes enough one would think you would have picked up a clue or two by now.

Aug 08, 2018
OK....... Benni


Did you forget which sock is on which foot?

Aug 08, 2018
The cylinder is the chamber in which combustion takes place, encased in the block whose interior walls define the cylinder.

There's also a great analogy here for what jonesdave pointed out about man-made fusion. A diesel engine requires a glowplug to provide heat because the force required for the initial reaction is too great for mechanical means to initiate.

As to your second quip, are you oblivious to crushing force we have termed gravity? You bandy about Einstein quotes enough one would think you would have picked up a clue or two by now.


I can only say U lose again.

Aug 08, 2018
Note well: the containment in our fusion experiments is by MAGNETIC FIELD PATTERN containment; but only briefly!....until the plasma spontaneously 'destabilizes' and mag-containment is breached.


It's called reaching Unity Entropy.

Aug 09, 2018
As I was bristling with extreme curiosity, I searched for anything Google that would smack of the desired answer to my quest for "ignition in Star-making", but not in those exact words. I seem to have found a somewhat adequate answer in Wikipedia, part of which I offer here:

"Fusion ignition is the point at which a nuclear fusion reaction becomes self-sustaining. This occurs when the energy being given off by the fusion reactions heats the fuel mass more rapidly than various loss mechanisms cool it. At this point, the external energy needed to heat the fuel to fusion temperatures is no longer needed.[1] As the rate of fusion varies with temperature, the point of ignition for any given machine is typically expressed as a temperature.
Ignition should not be confused with breakeven, a similar concept that compares the total energy being given off to the energy being used to heat the fuel.
-CONTINUED-

Aug 09, 2018
-CONTINUED-
The key difference is that breakeven ignores losses to the surroundings, which do not contribute to heating the fuel, and thus are not able to make the reaction self-sustaining. Breakeven is an important goal in the fusion energy field, but ignition is required for a practical energy producing design.[2]
In nature, stars reach ignition at temperatures similar to that of the Sun, around 27 million degrees. Stars are so large that the fusion products will almost always interact with the plasma before it can be lost to the environment at the outside of the star. In comparison, man-made reactors are far less dense and much smaller, allowing the fusion products to easily escape the fuel. To offset this, much higher rates of fusion are required, and thus much higher temperatures; most man-made fusion reactors are designed to work at temperatures around 100 million degrees, or higher.
-CONTINUED-

Aug 09, 2018
-CONTINUED-
To date, no man-made reactor has reached breakeven, let alone ignition. Ignition has however been achieved in the cores of detonating thermonuclear weapons."

Interesting.

Aug 09, 2018
-CONTINUED-
And then I also found this, part of which says:

http://nuclearpla...ter.html

The idea that stars are ignited by nuclear fission triggers opens the possibility of stellar non-ignition, a concept which may have fundamental implications bearing on the nature of dark matter [10] and much, much more.   
The old idea about stellar ignition by heat produced during gravitational collapse developed before nuclear fission was discovered and no one, for more than six decades, until Herndon [10], thought to question the concept.  It is well to recall that science is a logical process, not a democratic process. New ideas begin with a single individual and then diffuse, sometimes slowly, throughout the scientific community. The idea that natural fusion reactions are ignited by natural fission reactions is a fundamentally new and revolutionary concept with profound astrophysical implications.

Blimey - fission, not fusion.


Aug 09, 2018
I have always said that a universe is a constant identity/

Aug 09, 2018
Gravitational hammer blows of Fusion - the Ignition Point
Surveillance_Egg_Unit> But once a Star has its full complement of the required chemistry to "light up

jonesdave> Fusion is dependent on temperature and pressure. The temperature at the centre of the Sun is ~ 15m K. The pressure is enormous

The gravitational ignition of fusion, there is a cyclic process taking place, gravitational compression leading to heating resulting in cooling expansion to gravitational compression, with this process taking place millions of times like a sledge hammer cracking a nut
These cyclic enormous gravitational hammer blows reach a far higher pressure than simply pressure alone which is exactly the theory behind pneumatic hammers

P.S. which is why our fusion reactors are out classed as we cannot continue these cyclic hammer blows throughout the reactors life as the sun undergoes cyclically compression and expansion on an 11 year cycle throughout its 10billion life cycle.

Aug 09, 2018
Space is vacuum, not an expanding balloon
Ojorf> I really urge you to again study the balloon analogy of expanding space, you still don't get it

A vacuum Ojorf, by definition cannot be expanded as space is a vacuum you cannot have an expanding space - the vacuous vacuum is infinite in its dimension as being a vacuum cannot be compressed or expanded; only the matter that occupies the vacuum is able to be compressed or expanded

Blow a couple of your party balloons Ojorf, but out in space they will not expand no matter how much vacuum you blow in to them, neither will they contract Ojorf!

P.S. You need a better analogy than a balloon Ojorf

Aug 09, 2018

http://nuclearpla...sics.pdf

I have tried to find any sites/articles/authors that offer a refutation and pros or cons wrt Herndon's claims, but could not locate any in Google. Perhaps Herndon is right, that consensus amongst Astrophysicists is too ingrained for heat from gravitational collapse and fusion ignition as the sole source of starlight.
Such a narrow consensus without any regard towards a new science would disallow such scientists to be generally accepting of fission as the primary ignition of Stars, with fusion and gravitational collapse as secondary, despite a more logical observation in real time for fission ignition of Stars

Aug 09, 2018

http://rspa.royal...1924/453

http://globalskyw...ions.pdf

All the giant gas planets, not only in our Solar System, may be failed Stars waiting to be ignited.

Aug 09, 2018
CORRECTION:

http://nuclearpla...sics.pdf

I have tried to find any sites/articles/authors that offer a refutation and pros or cons wrt Herndon's claims, but could not locate any (...)
Such a narrow consensus without any regard towards a new science would disallow such scientists to be generally accepting of fission as the primary ignition of Stars, with fusion and gravitational collapse as secondary, despite a more logical observation in real time for fission ignition of Stars


"despite a more logical observation in real time for fission ignition of Stars" SHOULD READ AS "despite a more logical observation in real time for fission ignition of Nuclear Weapons (H-Bomb).

Aug 09, 2018
consensus amongst Astrophysicists is too ingrained for heat from gravitational collapse and fusion ignition as the sole source of starlight.


This is the first time I've ever heard of the concept of "gravitational collapse" leading to fusion ignition. What's the theory behind this?

The entire theory of GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE is spurious at best, most especially when it is used in context of creating NEW gravity from a CONSTANT MASS. However if it's being used within the context of rapidly agglomerating a CONSTANT MASS into a smaller volume then I guess I can see how friction between particles vying for position at the lowest level could create heat, but enough to ignite FUSION?

Remember too, in the gravitational collapse theory that this COLLAPSE not a very long process. Once a star formation has agglomerated the material the COLLAPSE ceases. Look at our Sun right now, there is no obvious condition leading us to believe gravitational collapse is present exists.

Aug 09, 2018
consensus amongst Astrophysicists is too ingrained for heat from gravitational collapse and fusion ignition as the sole source of starlight.


This is the first time I've ever heard of the concept of "gravitational collapse" leading to fusion ignition. What's the theory behind this?

The entire theory of GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE is spurious at best, most especially when it is used in context of creating NEW gravity from a CONSTANT MASS. However if it's being used within the context of rapidly agglomerating a CONSTANT MASS into a smaller volume then I guess I can see how friction between particles vying for position at the lowest level could create heat, but enough to ignite FUSION?


Perhaps I misstated what I meant to say. The grav. collapse would be the initial process that has collected Mass within the disk. Any resulting collapse of enormous amount of Mass due to gravity would start the process of heat generated by chemical reaction throughout Mass.

Aug 09, 2018
-CONTINUED-
With further collapse of materiel, heat rises to higher temps whereupon FUSION kicks in. However, before ALL of that can happen, the process of FISSION acts on the materiel first, provided that FISSIONABLE MATERIEL is available in the mix. Subsequent Fusion reaction doesn't occur until IGNITION has been accomplished through Fission to bring the Mass to high enough temps, whereupon the process of Fusion takes over.

This is my present understanding of J. Marvin Herndon's Theory.

Aug 09, 2018
I understand that there is FISSIONABLE MATERIEL within the Earth's core, which is the driving force for Earth's Magnetic Field, as well as processes such as Plate Tectonics and the occasional Polar Reversals. It is also theorised that there is fissionable materiel within the cores of our exoplanets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and that a certain amount of nuclear fission is occurring in these giant gas "failed stars".

WRT the failed Stars in our Solar System, I have a theory (based on biblical lore) that I will keep to myself for the time being in order to avoid upsetting the god-haters in the physorg community.

Aug 09, 2018
Stars and their Starlets
Surveillance_Egg_Unit> All the giant gas planets, not only in our Solar System, may be failed Stars waiting to be ignited.

You cannot have a failed star; a body has to have sufficient mass to make it thought the starlet stage to a fully independent star that blows its proto cloud of stellar dust away revealing its full glory

As only bodies with initial surrounding mass collapsing into proto-stars can make the full journey to a fully fledged starlet in their own right with its own planets hosting life which as it grows old, it nurtures human life forms in their billions throughout its 10billion year life where once again it expands and returns to the primordial dust clouds from whence it came to be reborn for eternity Surveillance_Egg_Unit.

And there Surveillance_Egg_Unit, I have unintentionally laid the ground work for the continuality of galactic stars in the galactic dust clouds of expanding dying stars.

Aug 09, 2018
Here is an excellent explanation of the differences between FUSION and FISSION, from Duke Energy. Good illustrations.

https://nuclear.d...fference

Aug 09, 2018
@ granville
First, to avoid using up too many characters, why not just call me SEU or S_E_U. There's a good lad.

Second, Perhaps the "failed Stars" in our Solar System (Jupiter, Saturn, etc.) could not attain ignition due to lack of enough accretion of dust & gas from the disk to fatten them up. So you are correct.
Most of the dust seems to have gone into making the INNER planets and left Jupiter and Saturn with a pittance, as gas planets go.
Nevertheless, it is estimated that within Jupiter and Saturn resides fissionable materiel in their cores, just like in the core of Earth, that if Jupiter and Saturn had a large enough supply of Mass, then they might have ignited, provided that all the good conditions were met.

But my original concern was as to how a Star could have ignited with only the gravitational collapse of dust and gas and heat leading to Fusion.
I seem to have found the answer from J. Marvin Herndon's theory that Fission was the initial igniter of Stars.

Aug 09, 2018
S_E_U:- After milnics brush with my comments where he disliked my "less religion, we're all heathen's" where he promptly left for warmer climes, who would have thought it would have been so easy as he was a persistent fellow Surveillance_Egg_Unit, consequently I have become adverse to SEU as it stands for Spiritual Entity of the Universe
As there is a fresh air breeze blowing, I hope you have noticed it and I hope it continues in light of this S_E_U will suffice S_E_U!

Aug 09, 2018
Failed Stars in our Solar System
S_E_U> Second, Perhaps the "failed Stars" in our Solar System (Jupiter, Saturn, etc.) could not attain ignition due to lack of enough accretion of dust & gas from the disk to fatten them up. So you are correct. Most of the dust seems to have gone into making the INNER planets and left Jupiter and Saturn with a pittance, as gas planets go

I was as, you noticed referring to proto stars as you are referring to proto stars forming from their dust clouds which can be described failed stars, so there is never going to be sufficient mass to actually form stars but this does not preclude nuclear reactions taking place in the planets as there are reactions taking place in the earth's core
I am just looking at https://en.wikipe..._Herndon and http://nuclearplanet.com/ as there is linking material to look at

Aug 09, 2018
Thanks for the Wiki link wrt Herndon. He is a maverick scientist, indeed. But he makes good sense for everything else, especially wrt the Chemtrails. I can always tell the difference between the contrails of passing passenger or military planes (their contrails disappear not long after), and the Chemtrails left behind by aircraft that fly at around the same altitude, but the Chemtrails they leave behind still remain after the aircraft are long gone. And these Chemtrails don't disperse very well - thick, white, slow moving...and oh so obvious.

The US gov has Black Ops agencies that do testing in, and of many areas of science. But I know of no reason for aircraft emissions of Chemtrails that fill the sky as they slowly disperse.

Aug 09, 2018
In any case, from what I understand of Herndon's paper regarding the outer giant gas planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, etc., they all have an atmosphere of H and He, which are the chemical bases that would have resulted in ignition, at least for Hydrogen at the start, except for the fact that they are sorely lacking in Mass.
"Let there be light" and there was light.

Aug 10, 2018
In any case, from what I understand of Herndon's paper regarding the outer giant gas planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, etc., they all have an atmosphere of H and He, which are the chemical bases that would have resulted in ignition, at least for Hydrogen at the start, except for the fact that they are sorely lacking in Mass.
"Let there be light" and there was light.


Jupiter's atmosphere is 90% hydrogen. What would happen if a fission bomb were set off in it's atmosphere? Would a fusion process begin that would ignite the entire planet into runaway fusion? I guess we better hope some Earthling nutjob never tries an experiment.

Aug 10, 2018
It's not dense and/or hot enough, otherwise fusion would have started anyway and we would have a binary star system.

Aug 10, 2018
Would a fusion process begin that would ignite the entire planet into runaway fusion? I guess we better hope some Earthling nutjob never tries an experiment


It's not dense and/or hot enough, otherwise fusion would have started anyway and we would have a binary star system.


> U lose........only fitting that you'd be the one to respond to a post about the suggestion of dropping bombs somewhere.

Aug 10, 2018
https://physics.s...-ignited

https://en.wikipe...r_fusion

Look! The second link leads to the same gravitational confinement page already linked above...

The key words are, still, temperature and pressure.

:cue sad trumpet

Aug 10, 2018
In any case, from what I understand of Herndon's paper regarding the outer giant gas planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, etc., they all have an atmosphere of H and He, which are the chemical bases that would have resulted in ignition, at least for Hydrogen at the start, except for the fact that they are sorely lacking in Mass.
"Let there be light" and there was light.


Jupiter's atmosphere is 90% hydrogen. What would happen if a fission bomb were set off in it's atmosphere? Would a fusion process begin that would ignite the entire planet into runaway fusion? I guess we better hope some Earthling nutjob never tries an experiment.
Benni

There would have to be additional fissionable materiel on or in the gas planet, such as Uranium which would start a chain reaction, with the "fission bomb" igniting the Hydrogen in the atmosphere. But it would probably fizzle out since there still would not be enough Mass to turn the planet into a proper Star.


Aug 10, 2018
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/776/can-jupiter-be-ignited

Look! The second link leads to the same gravitational confinement page already linked above...

The key words are, still, temperature and pressure.

:cue sad trumpet
says IloseUwin

It is temperature in a proto-Star that is responsible for turning the elements into Plasma. Pressure is more of a concussive force that accompanies the initial ignition (Fission) and then is no longer needed for the continuing gravitational collapse of the Mass, which is the reason that enough Mass is required, so that the thermonuclear process doesn't fizzle. High temps are what drives the reactions when the elements/atoms in the Plasma begin to collide and produce Energy. As in the link from Duke Energy that illustrates both the properties of Fission and Fusion, first Fission forces fissionable elements/atoms fo separate: from One becomes Two. And in the Fusion process, two are fused into One.
It is beautiful.

Aug 10, 2018
the outer giant gas planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, etc., they all have an atmosphere of H and He, which are the chemical bases that would have resulted in ignition, at least for Hydrogen at the start, except for the fact that they are sorely lacking in Mass.
......they have the most common H=> 1 proton + 1 electron, we make bombs using deuterium & tritium, the H that contains a neutron in the nucleus & very little of it exists.

There would have to be additional fissionable materiel on or in the gas planet, such as Uranium which would start a chain reaction, with the "fission bomb" igniting the Hydrogen in the atmosphere. But it would probably fizzle out since there still would not be enough Mass to turn the planet into a proper Star.
.........probably so. I have no idea how different it would be to fuse the simplest form of hydrogen as opposed to the way it's done in H-bombs. I'd guess even higher temps would be required, fusion stuff is way out of my line.

Aug 10, 2018
It is interesting that there is a source of Uranium in an African nation, Gabon, I believe. Although that Uranium might be collected if that government gave permission, perhaps the only usefulness for it would be in Medicine. However, if there is much more of it farther down past the lower mantle and closer to the Core, it might indicate that Earth itself is a "failed Star", but for the lack of a Hydrogen atmosphere as in Jupiter.
I still believe that all the H-Bomb tests underground and in the atmosphere was detrimental to the environment and that the effects are still being felt in illness, disease and fish die-offs. The first tests were in the 1940s and continued into the 50s, whereupon cases of certain illnesses and cancers started showing up and the effects are still with us.

Aug 10, 2018
Fusion is still a big challenge to science. Fission is far easier, but produces too much radioactive ash/fallout as a nuclear weapon.
But yes, FUSION requires far greater temperatures than fission, so it is not easy to experiment with. But it is possible that someday, Fusion may be an economical propulsion "fuel" for rockets to Mars.

Aug 11, 2018
Technically, by this criteria, Pluto is a failed star!
S_E_U:- Theoretically speaking, as matter conglomerates that surrounded by sufficient proto material the ultimate conclusion is a Star - Taking it to its logical conclusion, any stage in Star formation where material falls short could be said to be a failed Star

RNP
Aug 11, 2018
@Benni

.........probably so. I have no idea how different it would be to fuse the simplest form of hydrogen as opposed to the way it's done in H-bombs. I'd guess even higher temps would be required, [***] fusion stuff is way out of my line [***].


BUT, BUT, BUT...... I am completely shocked! It should be obvious to you. I thought you were a nuclear engineer!!

Or, were you again lying?

I suspect so because the answer to your question is obvious to anybody that has studied nuclear physics.

Aug 11, 2018
I suspect so because the answer to your question is obvious to anybody that has studied nuclear physics.
.........ok mister freelance journalist & aficionado of Pop-Cosmology, then why did you not give us the answer if it's so "obvious"?

I left a big question mark because I have never seen good explanations for how two H1s which have no neutron in the nucleus, are converted to H2 deuterium which does have a neutron in the nucleus, this must occur before the fusion can move on to create helium, two H1s cannot be FUSED to form He due to lack of a neutron in their nucleus,

But hey mister RNP freelance journalist, you already knew this, right? You were just trying to see if you could semantically be more clever than a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer by not posting what is "obvious" just to see if I could do it for you. Now you're caught up in a conundrum, now you need to find a different "obvious" response than the one you were planning to trip me up with.


Aug 11, 2018
The Witch's at the Five Star Club!
@Benni
probably so. I have no idea how different it would be to fuse the simplest form of hydrogen as opposed to the way it's done in H-bombs. I'd guess even higher temps would be required, [***] fusion stuff is way out of my line [***].

RNP> BUT, BUT, BUT...... I am completely shocked! It should be obvious to you. I thought you were a nuclear engineer!!
Or, were you again lying?
I suspect so because the answer to your question is obvious to anybody that has studied nuclear physics.

RNP, you will have to try harder than that, trotting out that old dogma - It doesn't wash anymore.
Put yourself in Bennies place and see how many RNP clones can easily trot of "RNP you're lying again"
RNP, you need to apply you're wizardry to your studies, which in this case is pyhs.org scientific articles.
Every ones a tad old for this to be continuing into old age, I was going to say when you grow up, but it's too late for that.

Aug 11, 2018
@benji-TROLL
I have no idea how different it would be to fuse the simplest form of hydrogen as opposed to the way it's done in H-bombs. I'd guess even higher temps would be required, fusion stuff is way out of my line
you have just admitted that you're a liar and fraud

"Nuclear engineering is the branch of engineering concerned with the application of breaking down atomic nuclei (fission) or of combining atomic nuclei (fusion), or with the application of other sub-atomic processes based on the principles of nuclear physics" https://duckduckg...p;ia=web

http://www.ans.or...als/nse/


Aug 11, 2018
@gran-ben
RNP, you will have to try harder than that, trotting out that old dogma - It doesn't wash anymore
except that it is supported by evidence

hard evidence from colleges: https://ocw.mit.e...neering/

even Cambridge: https://www.cnec....m.ac.uk/

see also links above
Put yourself in Bennies place and see how many RNP clones can easily trot of "RNP you're lying again"
did you just admit to benji making clones (socks) to troll?

really?

LMFAO

Aug 11, 2018
I had a close look at that pretty picture of galaxies at the top of this link and I think I have noticed something wrong with it;
If you use the zoom function on it to zoom in, you will see amongst the galaxies, amongst other things, a few fuzzy green dots (you cannot see it without zooming in).
... Whether they are galaxies or individual stars and whether they are red shifted or blue shifted, they shouldn't appear green!
I now did some research on this and confirmed what I suspected which is there are no green stars.
See
https://en.wikipe...tronomy)

There are some Very Rare 'green' galaxies but I still haven't worked out how they can be green without green stars and the few links explaining that are unclear and their explinations don't make sense. Anyone?

So my best guess is the green dots in that image are just a result of some false-color image processing.


Aug 11, 2018
No one is holier than thou!
@gran-ben
RNP, you will have to try harder than that, trotting out that old dogma - It doesn't wash anymore
except that it is supported by evidence
hard evidence from colleges: https://ocw.mit.e...neering/
see also links above
Put yourself in Bennies place and see how many RNP clones can easily trot of "RNP you're lying again"
did you just admit to benji making clones (socks) to troll?
really?
LMFAO

Well done Captain Stumpy, if there had been more of this https://www.cnec....m.ac.uk/ and less Obfuscation and scapegoats and A.P. was more convincing in his claims instead of descending to cat-calling and holier than thou, the question "is this true" would never have arisen Captain Stumpy
You have to take into consideration C.S I have only just materialised out the quantum fluctuations, all this shenanigans has been going on eternally and everyone is retiring and passing the mantle to their successors!

Aug 11, 2018
@gran-troll
No one is holier than thou
I've never claimed this
A.P. was more convincing in his claims instead of descending to cat-calling and holier than thou, the question "is this true" would never have arisen Captain Stumpy
1- both you and benji make the claim disparaging Antialias_physorg, yet neither has made any effort to produce evidence supporting your claim

not the mark of any scientist or science literate individual

2- benji has been repeatedly proven to be a liar, including above, and I can provide ample links to demonstrate this (as I already have, repeatedly, on this site alone: available on request)
I have only just materialised out the quantum fluctuations
so, you're saying that you have refused to do any homework to validate a claim while accepting any claim as is without evidence?

and you proclaim scientific curriculum training from Cambridge? (AUG 10)
https://phys.org/...ark.html

makes me doubt your claim, now

Aug 11, 2018
There are some Very Rare 'green' galaxies but I still haven't worked out how they can be green without green stars and the few links explaining that are unclear and their explinations don't make sense. Anyone?


So my best guess is the green dots in that image are just a result of some false-color image processing.


Finally, we have come to the last paragraph of the last chapter of this article, the all important significance of the "green pixels".

> humy: Good job humy, at least you didn't pass it off to to the afflicted in Pop-Cosmology Derangement Syndrome in figuring this most important discrepancy of: "The universe's rate of expansion is in dispute – and we may need new physics to solve it". Just try to imagine how much more psycho-babble we'd still be engaging in without your revelation. You should put in for a prize of some kind, or write a book? Naw, tell you what, just leave it where it is while it is still a cogent thought & you don't lose it.


Aug 11, 2018
Technically, by this criteria, Pluto is a failed star!
S_E_U:- Theoretically speaking, as matter conglomerates that surrounded by sufficient proto material the ultimate conclusion is a Star - Taking it to its logical conclusion, any stage in Star formation where material falls short could be said to be a failed Star
says granville

Precisely. Given the right materiel and under exacting conditions, almost ANY aggregation of Mass could effectively become a Star. Depending on its supply of atomic Energy, a Star can be long or short-lived.
WRT Pluto - that puppy didn't quite make it to Stardom, did it?
The original dust and gaseous disk from whence all bodies in the Solar System had emerged, had only so much Matter/Energy to provide. Which means that Pluto was short-changed in the long run. So you are correct, by all means.

Aug 11, 2018
Due to the science community lacking an understanding of Gravity or the Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect or GTE, the Doppler effect is providing an incorrect reading of motion away from an observer. Also the not understood effect of Gravity red-shift is more confusing whilst superimposed on the Doppler effect. There is a possibility that the Universe is not expanding. Unfortunately, the science community refuses to evaluate my work on such subjects.


So you actually assign a higher probability to the statement "all of the scientists since Galileo, most of whom are more intelligent than me, are wrong and know nothing about gravity", than the statement "I am wrong". The size of your ego is truly astronomical.

Aug 11, 2018
@ Benni
@granville

LOL - green pixels to represent "green Stars". But where are the little green men who live on planets surrounding these green stars? Green is the new black?

I beseech both of you and all others to place the VORACIOUS INFORMATION VAMPIRE, Captain Stinky on IGNORE. It is obvious that Stinky is trying to get into your mind through intimidation, and through which he is trying to make you reveal your sources so that he can pass it off to UniverseToday or pretend to be the "big man on campus" in Sciforums and other science websites.

Captain Stinky is NOT interested in Science - only to collect as much scientific information as possible from others. I have been reading his past comments through many years worth of physorg articles, and it ALWAYS is the same. He has NO science knowledge other than what he reads from others and what he gleans from Wiki and other informational sites/links.
It is a waste of time talking to that fool/ruffian.

Aug 11, 2018
I don't have to prove – it's for Antialias Physorg to prove!
Captain Stumpy> 1- both you and benji make the claim disparaging Antialias_physorg, yet neither has made any effort to produce evidence supporting your claim

Firstly C.S unlike yourself freely calling people liars, I did not call him a liar.
If you recall I said he was telling porkies, it was not me that brought up A.Ps lack of qualifications, A.P implied by not knowing Kings Parade was actually a closed section of main road that in the past two way traffic flowed C.S. He said Kings Parade is a shopping centre its stupid to drive through a parade
Now Captain Stumpy if Antialias Physorg obtained degrees and masters at Cambridge he does not know Cambridge, presumably he was at the graduation in the Senate on Kings Parade
If this is true I do not have to prove, the onus is on Antialias Physorg to prove that it is true!

Aug 11, 2018
@gran
I don't have to prove – it's for Antialias Physorg to prove
1- he has proven his degree and education to me, and I can validate his claims

2- you still haven't proven shite to me regarding *any* claim A_P made, let alone the ones benji made
unlike yourself freely calling people liars, I did not call him a liar
it's a statement of fact if I can validate it with evidence
A.P implied by not knowing Kings Parade was
that's stupid
you do know there are two Cambridge colleges, right?
he does not know Cambridge
which one?
https://www.cam.ac.uk/

or http://www.cambri...ege.edu/

I can state categorically that you don't know Oxford if I don't specify which town

is logic not taught in your school?
tell me again how banji has tripped him up

while you are at it, how about linking some evidence instead of just making claims?

or is that also not taught in your school?

Aug 11, 2018
Notwithstanding the Doppler Effect and red/blue shift, which are based on human perception through various instruments, the Universe IS expanding.
I have mentioned (in another thread) that promptly received a rating of One - LOL - and I was not asked to expand on my hypothesis.
So, I will expand on it here (for the sake of honest interested parties).

There is much gravitational pushing and pulling on Mass/Energy by other M/E bodies, where it is only the coldness and distances of Space that prevents most from colliding with each other.
The general consensus is that the Event Horizons outside of BHs are driven by the gravitational pull of the BH itself. But that is only partly true. As the in-falling materiel from the EH disappears into the BH, the EH draws in more materiel to replace what has gone into BH. That materiel that is drawn into the EH pulls yet other materiel towards it through grav. attraction.
-CONTINUED-


Aug 11, 2018
So how do we get to this unpleasant situation?

https://phys.org/...dly.html
1) I've been to Cambridge
2) I have a masters degree in EE
3) My PhD involved image processing and feature recognition


So what can we determine from the comment section of this article?
antialias_physorg never said he went to Cambridge university.
antialias_physorg said he had visited Cambridge. And that he has a degree in EE and a PhD
And if you knew him you would know these statements to be true.

It also tells us that Granville has appalling read comprehension and an even worse attitude. Slime.


Aug 11, 2018
Granville, you owe some people an apology.

Aug 11, 2018
Pluto in the non expanding Vacuum
S_E_U> Pluto - that puppy didn't quite make it to Stardom, did it?

There's O2 found in the outer comets that the internal heat of Pluto with its ice is actually harbouring the conditions for life
All these are happening in the vacuum until presently was presumed to be expanding but as we know the vacuum does not expand or contract as this is where the fallacy of expansion arose in that it was expanding vacuum (space) under the guise of being the Universe, the Doppler shift only indicates motion of a body, it does not indicate which body is in motion and therefore is not indicative of expansion – as there is no definitive explanation where mass and energy emerged from as it is like asking how was the vacuum created we presently assume it was always here
Which comes to expansion, there is no need for a bigbang as atoms have their own method of duplication as in fusion and lightning, there is no need for a big bang and no need for expansion

Aug 11, 2018
Is this true
Captain Stumpy
434a
Only Antialias Physorg holds the proof this is true
If this is true I do not have to prove, the onus is on Antialias Physorg to prove that it is true!

Aug 11, 2018
@gran-TROLL
Only Antialias Physorg holds the proof this is true
no, the proof that this is true has been shared with *trusted* people - you, however, are not trusted, nor trustable, considering your commentary to date

hence the fact that I can validate the claim
If this is true I do not have to prove, the onus is on Antialias Physorg to prove that it is true!
and again, because English doesn't seem to be your first language
He has - he has shared it with certain people here who know him

he has also been stalked and maliciously threatened by idiots here who found out his real name
that is one reason you're not going to even get his real information

if you can't handle that, perhaps you should take your commentary to a moderated forum where secondary non-related sources can check and validate claims

PS - and tell us your primary language so we can learn why your English sucks
thanks

Aug 11, 2018
Is this true
Captain Stumpy
434a
Only Antialias Physorg holds the proof this is true
If this is true I do not have to prove, the onus is on Antialias Physorg to prove that it is true!


You misread his comments in that thread. They are clear to anyone who understands plain English. You have been bandying accusations and casting aspersions because of your incomprehension. Knowing AP he would not respond to such drivel but I am sick of having to read your bile. You complain about people swearing in their posts but what you have been doing is utterly disgusting. Time for you to shut up or apologise.

Aug 11, 2018
-CONTINUED-
So, what we see as the Universe expanding is, in reality, the flowing (of all Mass/Energy bodies in the vicinity) toward the local Event Horizon where those bodies will replace the M/E that was previously in the EH and that is now within the BH. It is similar to a Conveyor Belt where objects are carried along toward a certain destination.
Notice that the Event Horizon circles the BH - round and round until its leading edge gets sucked inwards?

From such an image, I have concluded that the BH is in the shape of a DRAIN, rather than a globular object. The BH DRAIN is similar to the drain in your kitchen sink, where water falls into the drain and gravity pulls the water into the pipe and away. The EH itself is circular, similar to how infalling water in a sink goes round and round until it reaches the edge of the drain.
-CONTINUED-

Aug 11, 2018
S_E_U :- there is this article that has some interesting gravitational facts
The Repeller Dipole
Gravitational attraction induces movement towards more dense areas giving the appearance of galaxies moving away from a less dense area, the 'Dipole Repeller' model. The Local Group of galaxies is moving relative to the cosmic microwave background (CMB) at 631±20 km/s. There is also a pattern of bulk flow in the motion of neighbouring galaxies extending to distances of over 250 mega parsecs (Mpc). There is a known over density – the Shapley Supercluster – creating an attraction in the flow of galaxies. Fundamentally gravitation is always attractive, but if there is an under dense region it apparently acts as a gravitational Repeller. https://en.wikipe...repeller
The Dipole Repeller https://arxiv.org...02.02483

Aug 11, 2018
-CONTINUED-
The draining effect in the southern hemisphere of Earth is opposite to the drain effect in North America. And that could mean that for some BHs the EH flows in the opposite direction.

But the "expansion of the Universe" is simply the result of bodies of Mass/Energy being pulled, as well as pushed, toward the Drain that is the Black Hole. Where the Drains lead to could possibly be to another Dimension.


Aug 11, 2018
Private information is strictly private
Really Captain Stumpy, this is the internet this is why we have nicknames, surely Antialias Physorg is not a real name but a nickname - and concerning keeping safe on the internet one should not release information that requires private identifying information on the internet - nobody needed to know whether he had qualification, qualification are private talking knowledgeably on subjects is all that is required and you should not have released private information that obviously now cannot be backed up Captain Stumpy
In years to come Captain Stumpy, I do not expect to be discussing this same point now that you have made it clear no answer can be given
Please refrain from releasing private personal information from now on Captain Stumpy, thank you

Aug 11, 2018
@ granville
Put the trolls on IGNORE. 434a is indulging in semantics, as though the conversation that you had with antialias-p is his concern. Don't fall for that trap. It is a waste of time and breath.

434a is most likely a sock-puppet of theghostofotto1923 who has come to defend his interests.
Talk Science - that is what you are here for.

Aug 11, 2018
@ granville
Put the trolls on IGNORE. 434a is indulging in semantics, as though the conversation that you had with antialias-p is his concern. Don't fall for that trap. It is a waste of time and breath.

434a is most likely a sock-puppet of theghostofotto1923 who has come to defend his interests.
Talk Science - that is what you are here for.


Serious_Erectile_Underperformance. I'm not even the same gender as Otto you pathetic little man. And you claiming someone else is a sock is utterly hilarious.

Semantics, really, your nasty little other self tries to dig someone out after getting the wrong end of a stick no-one else has even picked up and you come to your own aid. You are rancid and it's now plain for everyone else to see.

Aug 11, 2018
S_E_U :- there is this article that has some interesting gravitational facts
The Repeller Dipole
Gravitational attraction induces movement towards more dense areas giving the appearance of galaxies moving away from a less dense area, the 'Dipole Repeller' model. The Local Group of galaxies is moving relative to the cosmic microwave background (CMB) at 631±20 km/s. There is also a pattern of bulk flow in the motion of neighbouring galaxies extending to distances of over 250 mega parsecs (Mpc). There is a known over density – the Shapley Supercluster – creating an attraction in the flow of galaxies. Fundamentally gravitation is always attractive, but if there is an under dense region it apparently acts as a gravitational Repeller. https://en.wikipe...repeller
says granville

Thanks for the reminder.
-CONT-

Aug 11, 2018
-CONTINUED-
@granville
As far as I can surmise, there is no need for New Physics wrt the article's questioning of universal expansion and the repulsion/attraction of Mass/Energy bodies. Benni's Laws of Thermodynamics seems to give answers to the NATURAL state of the conditions in the Universe.

Aug 11, 2018
Gravitations graviton
S_E_U:- One of the important questions that if you disregard the warping of vacuum, the gravitational force and it's quantum of gravity, someone on this site gave a reason why the search was over even thought it has not been found and from the silence on the subject makes me believe the search is over
When you consider the desperate search for endless invisible nonexistent particles it seems strange that the case of the graviton is over and we have warped vacuum and now it has also been said on this site gravity is not a force

Aug 11, 2018
gravity is clearly an entity in it's own right in the same way as electrons are entitiies as there are similarities between the electrons electric field and magnetism, both travel at C, both eminate force the differencee in gravity is it attracts bodies from the point in vacuum where the original mass ejected gravity which proves it is a particle and not warped vacuum

Aug 11, 2018
@ granville
I read both of your links re: Dipole Repeller. The density of Mass/Energy in a region and the less dense population of M/E in another region whereby the dense region exerts attraction while the less dense region is repelled, is a mite bit like a bar magnet and iron filings experiment that is taught in schools. It may also be possible that the CMB is a sort of conveyer belt that helps along Mass/Energy toward its ultimate destination - the Event Horizon of a Black Hole/Drain. Do you agree?

Aug 11, 2018
gravity is clearly an entity in it's own right in the same way as electrons are entitiies as there are similarities between the electrons electric field and magnetism, both travel at C, both eminate force the differencee in gravity is it attracts bodies from the point in vacuum where the original mass ejected gravity which proves it is a particle and not warped vacuum
says granville

No. Gravity stands alone and cannot be a Force. A reaction to an action, for the most part, it lacks the attraction/repulsion properties of Magnetism. It doesn't even have the properties of Electric Field/Electric Charge. Gravity has the observed "ability" to compress Mass to the smallest volume possible and to prevent that Mass from expanding, according to the energy produced by the gravitational pull on Mass. Gravity is the property of Mass to aggregate into itself by compression. Without Mass, there is no gravitational energy available.

Aug 11, 2018
I also am of the opinion that it is Gravity that is responsible for the Fusion of Hydrogen atoms in Stars, which compression thereof produces Energy.

Aug 11, 2018
Repelling akin to anti-gravity
S_E_U:- when i first read this beginning of last year I noticed it says dense regions attract and less dense repelled and I don't think I found whether the galaxies were speeding toward the denser populations faster and what force was repelling akin to anti-gravity, you probably have heard of light radius stars where the event horizon is it's light radius and gravity can only compress matter to its light radius where gravity is zero at the centre of mass so you can see the event horizon as matter pass's through gravity diminishes as matter can go right up to the event horizon which is where the spin-axis eject 50% the mass they take in and eject out their spin-axis into star forming 23,000Lyr Fermi-Bubbles, so yes light radius stars are a form of conveyer belt where quark-gluon matter emerges into pristine protons forming matter - blackholes are the moment of creation and not the monsters their made out to be

Aug 11, 2018
Private information is strictly private
Really Captain Stumpy, this is the internet this is why we have nicknames, surely Antialias Physorg is not a real name but a nickname - and concerning keeping safe on the internet one should not release information that requires private identifying information on the internet - nobody needed to know whether he had qualification, qualification are private talking knowledgeably on subjects is all that is required and you should not have released private information that obviously now cannot be backed up Captain Stumpy
In years to come Captain Stumpy, I do not expect to be discussing this same point now that you have made it clear no answer can be given
Please refrain from releasing private personal information from now on Captain Stumpy, thank you

You are wasting your time addressing this moron as if he were a sentient rational being. He calls me a liar without pointing out one lie, he trashes my theory never having read the book, etc.

Aug 11, 2018
S_E_U> I also am of the opinion that it is Gravity that is responsible for the Fusion of Hydrogen atoms in Stars, which compression thereof produces Energy.

Gravity is the main force in fusion in fact as the Sun heats up it expands cools and gravity compress's heating the core on a 11 year cycle, this is in a physics world article from last year,.

Aug 11, 2018
Reg Mundy> You are wasting your time addressing this moron as if he were a sentient rational being. He calls me a liar without pointing out one lie, he trashes my theory never having read the book, etc.

I know Reg Mundy, he and there ilk are troll kings of The Witch's of the Five Star Club, I'm just noticing how venomous these trolls are trolling around in the background.

Aug 11, 2018
@Forum (especially @434a).

Posted by Captain Stumpy to @granville583762:
both you and benji make the claim disparaging Antialias_physorg, yet neither has made any effort to produce evidence supporting your claim
Meanwhile, Captain Stumpy has been waging a years-long campaign of lies and disparagement against me, claiming that I have a "criminal record". Every time @Captain Stumpy was been asked to provide 'evidence' for his claim, @Captain Stumpy has NEVER complied (because he cannot, since I have no 'criminal record', and hence he cannot have 'evidence' of non-existing record).

Now above we can all see @Captain Stumpy's hypocrisy, dishonesty and insensibility in full flight! He demands 'evidence' for disparaging claims from others, but he himself REFUSES to d likewise with his own disparaging (false) claims about me!

I leave you to draw the obvious conclusions abot @Captain Stumpy's 'agenda' on the net. :)

Aug 11, 2018
@gran-troll
and you should not have released private information that obviously now cannot be backed up Captain Stumpy
you idiot - I didn't release private information
I substantiated other information, along with a second unrelated source, which is validation

more to the point: the information that I, and others, have validated isn't private
only the name of A_P is private

so now everyone can see that you're not only incapable of admission of mistakes or blatant falsehoods, they can also see that you're not literate

thank you for demonstrating this so clearly above

.

@reg-tarded TROLL
He calls me a liar without pointing out one lie, he trashes my theory never having read the book
wrong: proved you were a liar here - https://phys.org/...ong.html

in point of fact, I also proved your "theory" was not only your opinion but also that you have zero evidence and were spamming PO with your request to get people to read your farcical book

Aug 11, 2018
@sam fodera the trolling idiot
Meanwhile, Captain Stumpy has been waging a years-long campaign of lies and disparagement against me
I've not made a single claim that I can't back up with evidence regarding you
claiming that I have a "criminal record". Every time @Captain Stumpy was been asked to provide 'evidence' for his claim, @Captain Stumpy has NEVER complied
not true at all

I said I would provide the evidence in the same manner that you have provided evidence for your lies regarding the BICEP fatal flaws claim you made

So my evidence, which I will freely provide, is entirely dependent upon your own ability to provide evidence of the 4 fatal flaws and 4 other flaws of BICEP you supposedly found though can't actually point out to anyone

the ball has always been in your court

you are the one who *still* refuses to provide the evidence

reported for fraud

Aug 11, 2018
@Forum (and again, especially 434a).
@sam fodera the trolling idiot
Meanwhile, Captain Stumpy has been waging a years-long campaign of lies and disparagement against me
I've not made a single claim that I can't back up with evidence regarding you
claiming that I have a "criminal record". Every time @Captain Stumpy was been asked to provide 'evidence' for his claim, @Captain Stumpy has NEVER complied
not true at all

I said I would provide the evidence in the same manner that you have provided evidence for your lies regarding the BICEP fatal flaws claim you made
And there we can all see @Captain Stumpy's equivocation; as well as his hypocrisy, dishonesty and insensibility self-evident earlier. He calls someone a 'criminal', then refuses to back it up with 'evidence' of such a serious claim, by making it 'conditional' to some spurious request for evidence of BICEP2 work/claims flaws (which I already provided but he ignored, more than once). Sad.

Aug 11, 2018
@idiot sammie the trolling pseudoscience crank
He calls someone a 'criminal', then refuses to back it up with 'evidence' of such a serious claim, by making it 'conditional'
you mean like you committed libel under AUS and many other national laws while refusing to back it up with evidence
https://phys.org/...nal.html

then telling everyone that you did back it up with evidence but apparently, no one else was able to see it because (I still don't know why not one person was able to see your proof or evidence - you never made that clear) - http://phys.org/n...ant.html

(which I already provided but he ignored, more than once)
it's not debatable
you've lied for years now and you still can't provide evidence

you still can't even show a single link to any PO conversation where you "provided" the BICEP evidence

because it doesn't exist

reported for fraud

Aug 11, 2018
This is true!
S_E_U> Captain Stinky is NOT interested in Science - only to collect as much scientific information as possible from others. I have been reading his past comments through many years worth of physorg articles, and it ALWAYS is the same. He has NO science knowledge other than what he reads from others and what he gleans from Wiki and other informational sites/links.
It is a waste of time talking to that fool/ruffian.

He quoted information he has gleaned from Antialias Physorg, its undeniable true, in point of fact he's been arguing about it all night.

Aug 11, 2018
@gran-TROLL
This is true!
except you're wrong
you're just pissed that you've been outed

you owe A_P and everyone else here an apology for spreading lies

.

PS @penguin head samTROLL
request for evidence of BICEP2 work/claims flaws (which I already provided but he ignored, more than once)
to date, you have yet to be able to provide even a single link to any PO article (or any other location) proving you provided the requested evidence

that makes 7,905 posts that you've made, repeated, stalled and perpetuated your libellous claims against the authors of BICEP2 current as of August 11, 2018, at 19:56L

is there anyone else out there that feels compelled to search PO for the requisite evidence since sammie is obviously incompetent?

Aug 11, 2018
@Forum.

From @Captain Stumpy to me above:
...you committed libel under AUS and many other national laws while refusing to back it up with evidence
https://phys.org/...nal.html
Note that @Captain Stumpy does not quote allegedly "libelous" remarks; but merely links to a thread cntaining speculation re BICEP2 exercise/claims flaws; and the possible reasons for these flaws being allowed to taint that BICEP2 exercise/results so easily.

General speculation was that BICEP2 'team' was too 'eager to beat' their rivals to 'Nobel prize' etc; that they were 'cavalier' about scientific method requirements for objectivity, methodology/analysis rigor etc; compounded by ever-present personal/professional 'publish-or-perish' culture/imperatives etc. All perfectly valid speculation!...given actual/admitted flaws/failings in both the exercise itself and the claims issuing from the BICEP2 team.

No 'libel', just speculation re what contributed to failures. :)

Aug 11, 2018
granDy, RC, SEU, Reg......anyone else not suffering Pop-Cosmology Derangement Syndrome;

A couple years ago anti_alias told me he sent his resume to stumpo. He told me this in response to my suggestion proving he has an Electrical Engineering degree. I corrected his wrong responses about several basic questions that ANY Electrical Engineer would know were wrong answers.

A question I asked him was: Why if you are the 40 something person you claim you are, why would you send a resume to a retired fireman whose greatest achievement in life was being the truck captain of a fire truck. How would sending a resume to such a retired foul mouthed person enhance your professional career? He can't offer you a job & he knows nothing about science. Think of all those personal details you are giving up to a person of such low character.

So now you guys ask anti_alias the same question & see how willing he would be to fill in the blanks.

Aug 11, 2018
@benjiTROLL
I corrected his wrong responses about several basic questions that ANY Electrical Engineer would know were wrong answers
1- claim without evidence
2- on PO, your track history of blatantly false claims is demonstrated best by your 1.9 rating and the multiple links that I've already provided proving you're a liar
why would you send a resume to a retired fireman whose greatest achievement in life was being the truck captain of a fire truck
assumption without evidence re: greatest achievement
moreover, he sent it to me because I am trustworthy

he doesn't send it to you because you're a proven liar
http://phys.org/n...s_1.html

http://phys.org/n...ity.html

http://phys.org/n...and.html

http://phys.org/n...ood.html

I can provide evidence for my claims
Benji can't

period
full stop

Aug 11, 2018
@ Benni @ Reg Mundy @ granville
LOL After reading many years' worth of old PO forums, I feel that I have come to know these "people" well enough to have made an accurate opinion of just what kind of "people" they are. At first I thought that it was something to do with their mental issues that they obviously have. Then, after reflecting a bit more on what possible reasons that so many posters on PO are too aggressive, dishonest wrt to other posters' claims, and lack the respect for others that is expected of those who claim love of science. And then, I wondered at how high could the odds be that so many (too many) of the same type could have been somehow thrown together in THIS science site, as though they had all come from the same location with the same thoughts, traits, character, inability to get along with everyone else; lack of tolerance that results in spewing invectives, hatred, ad hominem, and reckless inconsideration for owners of PO. It is almost like a virus infection

Aug 11, 2018
@penguin headed foderaTROLL
@Forum
that makes 7,906 posts that you've made, repeated, stalled and perpetuated your libellous claims against the authors of BICEP2 current as of August 11, 2018, at 21:19L

the lack of feedback from any of your uprating friends and their epic failure at delivering all those links proving you gave 4 fatal flaws from BICEP you claimed to have seen speaks volumes about your lies

the evidence speaks for itself

.

@Surveillance_Egg_Unit
thank you for demonstrating what projection is

Aug 11, 2018
-CONTINUED-
And then I came to realise that these people were sock-puppeteers who had a large amount of aliases to bolster their own egos and have other posters believing that those using aliases had many friends who agreed with their views. But these people are one and the same as their aliases - which generally means: a bad case of schizophrenia, or IOW, they are batshit crazy.

So, due to the fact that it is impossible for the PO site to rid itself of these "people", I think that the best course of action is to IGNORE THEM and share opinions only with normal folk.
But it is your choice as to how you can deal with these mentally unbalanced "people" like Captain Stinky and Theghost and those others - very easy to recognise.
Antialias seems to me to be a tad bit feeling undervalued and unappreciated, which is why he clings to the likes of Stinky and ghost as though they have offered him something that he cannot get from anyone else. I suppose that whatever potential he had.....

Aug 11, 2018
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit
thank you for demonstrating what projection is
says Captain Stinky

Any projection is exclusively done on the part of and by, the Stinky Fire Truck Captain.
Hmmm it is odd that all of those wildfires have started in the western part of the US. Is there a possibility that Stinky the ex-fireman likes to start fires so that he can help put them out? Just sayin'

Aug 12, 2018
I find it extremely odd how a supposedly retired fire truck captain by the name of Captain Stinky-Stank-Stumpy keeps an innumerable amount of files with the links to those comments allegedly made by such as Benni, RealityCheck, and many others (dossiers, I suppose), as though Stinky's very existence depends on how many comments he can collect to say, "Je' accuse".
From all the evidence that I have gleaned from Stinky's past and present comments accusing the innocent of dissa and datta as though Stinky's opinions matter in any way, shape or form.

But, it is also possible that either Captain Stinky is demonically possessed or it is HE that is the demon. Stinky's tirades in physorg certainly doesn't make the site smell any better.

Aug 12, 2018
@Forum (again, especially @434a).

Have you noticed the way @Captain Stumpy addresses his more insensible posts?

Pitifully pathetic, isn't it?

Are there any Psychology/Psychopathy study majors in the house?

If so, you have a perfect exemplar for your next thesis/study: The Captain Stumpy Syndrome!

Replete with all the self-demonstrated malignancy, hypocrisy and self-deluding insensibility in full measure; all there to read for yourselves. For example, @Captain Stumpy posted to granville583762 earlier:
he [ie, @antialias_physorg] has also been stalked and maliciously threatened by idiots here who found out his real name
Meanwhile for years now @Captain Stumpy has been doing all that himself!...stalking me, calling me 'criminal' etc; and generally making an idiot (criminal) nuisance of himself on the net in exactly the same way this 'unfortunate' @Captain Stumpy just described people allegedly doing to @antialias_physorg! Cognitive Dissonance to the max. Sad case.

Aug 12, 2018
Unfortunately, whenever Captain Stinky-Stank-Stumpy comes into a forum (and this is classic behaviour), most, if not all, science conversation ceases while Stanky barrels-over one or more of his latest victims with Stinky's barrage of ad hominem, lies and invective. Stinky is also in the process of teaching "his" grandchildren to use the same bullying tactics that he uses in physorg. It is safe to say that such a pisspot as Stinky should never have had children IF they are, indeed, his own.
But even stepchildren would be better off without such a demonically-possessed individual as Captain Stinky the ex-fire truck captain, full of self-importance and hater of the kids who come into the physorg site to ask questions and give their opinion. Hounded to death, they flee and tell their peers to avoid physorg and the nutty captain know-it-all.

Aug 12, 2018
granDy, RC, SEU, Reg......anyone else not suffering Pop-Cosmology Derangement Syndrome;

A couple years ago anti_alias told me he sent his resume to stumpo. He told me this in response to my suggestion proving he has an Electrical Engineering degree. I corrected his wrong responses about several basic questions that ANY Electrical Engineer would know were wrong answers.

A question I asked him was: Why if you are the 40 something person you claim you are, why would you send a resume to a retired fireman whose greatest achievement in life was being the truck captain of a fire truck. How would sending a resume to such a retired foul mouthed person enhance your professional career? He can't offer you a job & he knows nothing about science. Think of all those personal details you are giving up to a person of such low character.
says Benni

As I said earlier, antialias seems to feel unappreciated and undervalued, as proven by his comments characterised by an accusing tone

Aug 12, 2018
-CONTINUED-
@ Benni
Perhaps antialias gave away his precious personal information to an ex-fireman and ex-truck captain in the hope that antialias might get some recognition as a "great scientist", and also attain a strange "friendship" through an internet encounter, and is now one of the club members of Baphomet worshippers of physorg. They may be holding their club meetings periodically in some grove by the full moonlight. LOL
Poor antialias. A sucker for attention in his own quiet way. He is like a wraith entering and leaving many forums that have taken his fancy, and only occasionally speaks, but with trepidation that he might offend his ex-truck captain master.

Aug 12, 2018
Comments in this maelstrom
S_E_U> Unfortunately, whenever Captain Stinky-Stank-Stumpy comes into a forum (and this is classic behaviour) most, if not all, science conversation ceases while Stanky barrels-over one or more of his latest victims with Stinky's barrage of ad hominem, lies and invective

S_E_U:- I am new to this site, I'm unaware of all these details concerning "phys.org troll kings of the five star club", I noticed a discrepancy in A.P claims and actualities with the result C.S published private info which highlighted the same
The only sensible outcome so far is A.P has kept well clear in the background
Considering this problem of "phys.org troll kings of the five star club" has been going on for aeons, what on earth have I possibly said in the last few hours that has brought such venomous expletives from these trolls
Not one rude word, only politeness and light has past my lips and I am only interjecting the odd comment in this maelstrom

Aug 12, 2018
The question; what is at the perimeter that is less than nothing

The problem with expansion has come about early last century misinterpreting data assuming it to be galaxies receding from one another, then relativism got lost in the in space - losing track that space is the vacuum and made the next blunder by assuming space is an entity that can shrink and grow by ignoring the fact it is the vacuum - then compounded their blunder by an extension of the vacuous vacuum expanding because at the perimeter the vacuum ceased to exist as nothing exist past the expansion perimeter
What is the vacuum, it is not an entity, not Aether, cannot shrink and grow – it is nothing
These proponents of past the perimeter of expanding galaxies what exactly do these relativists propose is taking place as the galaxies continue their relentless velocity in the vacuum
Are they saying a vacuum which is absolutely zero nothing is continually created as this fails to answer the question


Aug 12, 2018
Atoms by their processes continually create matter as on earth in lightning

The perimeter is a major blunder by relativists and relativism, there is no perimeter at the limit of the furthest galaxies observable
The vacuous vacuum is unlimited in its dimensions
The galaxies are simply continuing their velocity in the vacuum, orbiting in local groups, merging with one another, blackholes ejecting matter through their spin-axis into the star forming 23,000Lyr Fermi-bubbles above and below their galaxy http://iopscience...34/2/191

These are the processes by which matter is created as lighting on earth is creating gamma-rays and positrons

Aug 12, 2018
The Witch's of the Five Star Club
434a> I'm not even the same gender as Otto you pathetic little man. And you claiming someone else is a sock is utterly hilarious

This exemplifies "The Troll Kings of The Witch's of the Five Star Club"

I'm glad I am not showered by those golden stars that those Witch's of the Five Star Club in their worldly wisdom deem those suitable to enter those hallowed gates to take the honourable position among those rare few who are bestowed that rare honour of being one of The Troll Kings of The Witch's of the Five Star Club!

Aug 12, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 12, 2018
what on earth have I possibly said in the last few hours that has brought such venomous expletives from these trolls
Not one rude word, only politeness and light has past my lips and I am only interjecting the odd comment in this maelstrom


> granDy: In a nutshell, the answer the answer to your question is "Benni". Just show the slightest inclination to agree with him. Much less so in the case of the Reality guy because RC NEVER proffers a star vote, so I never give him one whether in agreement or disagreement, this works to the delight of the Pop-Cosmology trolls but RC is incapable of figuring this out, he wrongly imagines he's above the fray.

Aug 12, 2018
-CONTINUED-
@ Benni
Perhaps antialias gave away his precious personal information to an ex-fireman and ex-truck captain in the hope that antialias might get some recognition as a "great scientist", and also attain a strange "friendship" through an internet encounter, and is now one of the club members of Baphomet worshippers of physorg. They may be holding their club meetings periodically in some grove by the full moonlight. LOL
Poor antialias. A sucker for attention in his own quiet way. He is like a wraith entering and leaving many forums that have taken his fancy, and only occasionally speaks, but with trepidation that he might offend his ex-truck captain master.


You're not far off in the accuracy of this statement. When you give up personal information like anti-alias did in sending his resume to someone like stumpo, you've set yourself up for a form of retribution if in the future you deviate from the CLUB'S established rules.

Aug 12, 2018
You're not far off in the accuracy of this statement. When you give up personal information like anti-alias did in sending his resume to someone like stumpo, you've set yourself up for a form of retribution if in the future you deviate from the CLUB'S established rules.

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp

Aug 12, 2018
You're not far off in the accuracy of this statement. When you give up personal information like anti-alias did in sending his resume to someone like stumpo, you've set yourself up for a form of retribution if in the future you deviate from the CLUB'S established rules.


.......and what I mean by this is when someone has possession of personal information about you, that is information that can lead to your identification thereby leading to harassing techniques that can involve more than just cyber-bullying. It can lead to people literally showing up at the doorstep to your residence & throwing trash on your property because you did not abide the the CLUB"S rules, yeah, RETRIBUTION. I know STUMPO has no compunction about setting these CLUB ground rules because he has already informed me here on this site this is what he would do to me if he knew where I resided if I didn't cease from countering his Pop-Cosmology with Real Science.


Aug 12, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 12, 2018
@gran
what on earth have I possibly said in the last few hours that has brought such venomous expletives from these trolls
Not one rude word, only politeness and light has past my lips and I am only interjecting the odd comment
you're demonstrative of the modern troll
1- you've interjected conjecture based upon a blatant fallacy (you lied)

2- you didn't support your conjecture with evidence

3- you're repeating the lie in the hopes that it will gain credibility

4- you've produced sock-puppets to uprate your lie and downrate factual evidence supported posts

this defines the need for moderation at PO
and the reason PO has fallen into troll-flooded comments

.

he has already informed me here on this site this is what he would do to me if he knew where I resided
@benji the liar
links/references?


Aug 12, 2018
@Grinvile
Reg Mundy> You are wasting your time addressing this moron as if he were a sentient rational being. He calls me a liar without pointing out one lie, he trashes my theory never having read the book, etc.

I know Reg Mundy, he and there ilk are troll kings of The Witch's of the Five Star Club, I'm just noticing how venomous these trolls are trolling around in the background.

You do not know me, you have never met me, you haven't a clue who I really am, and are thus proven to be a LIAR like Cap'n Grumpy (who calls ME a liar without being able to point out a single lie!). Perhaps you would care to trash my theories as well, don't let never-having-read-them stop you, it doesn't stop Strumpy et al.

Aug 12, 2018
@Zeph
But because something like this was never predicted by Peter Higgs, this result was silently swept under the carpet for not to both doubt his Nobel prize, both the investments into LHC program, which just needed to get some tangible result (= "agreement with theory"
that's not how it works, and you should know better - you're twice as intelligent as those featherbrained buffoon sock-puppets above, and likely double that for benji, so don't play idiot

If a result happens that isn't predicted, then the entire thing requires investigation (and explanation)

now, when something isn't predicted, it may well be because something wasn't investigated thoroughly (oceanic heat sink)

investigation changes the picture with evidence ( the neutrino comes to mind here )

this is the foundation of science
evidence rules

if it undermines the Higgs, regardless of historical Nobel, it changes
period
full stop

it's not like there aren't plenty of examples

Aug 12, 2018
@reg-LIAR TROLL
(who calls ME a liar without being able to point out a single lie!)
I can point out to many lies you made regina:
Ain't no gravity, it's all expansion
https://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html

proven false by LIGO, also by the comments in that thread
you were just trying to get people to buy your book

want more?
There is more mass in the Earth, therefore more acceleration at its surface
from the same link

if something expands and it's mass dependent, then the heavier mass (denser) is expanding faster than smaller masses, and that means there would be a means to test your hypothesis

this test is done by observation and measurement of two similar sized objects with disparate masses

you were proven wrong by observation, also discussed in that thread

so you're proven to be a double lair once again


Aug 12, 2018
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am fine and dandy, thanks for asking.

So the Captain-Skippy has been doing this to you?

Meanwhile for years now @Captain Stumpy has been doing all that himself!...stalking me, calling me 'criminal'


What kind of criminal stuffs it was that got you into trouble? Did you have to go to the parish prison (or what ever it is you have over there)? Or did you just have to pay the fine? Just curious me.

Oh yeah I almost forget. Where you been Cher? Finishing up on your toes I am hoping. Will he be out on the Amazon this year?

Aug 12, 2018
@Benni: We all know https://i.imgur.com/ms7wZvA.jpg - so just f*ck off... ;-)
says Whart

LOL You almost threw me off, but for the wink. I'm sure that Benni appreciates.

Aug 12, 2018
@Grinvile
Reg Mundy> You are wasting your time addressing this moron as if he were a sentient rational being. He calls me a liar without pointing out one lie, he trashes my theory never having read the book, etc.

I know Reg Mundy, he and there ilk are troll kings of The Witch's of the Five Star Club, I'm just noticing how venomous these trolls are trolling around in the background.

You do not know me, you have never met me, you haven't a clue who I really am, and are thus proven to be a LIAR like Cap'n Grumpy (who calls ME a liar without being able to point out a single lie!). Perhaps you would care to trash my theories as well, don't let never-having-read-them stop you, it doesn't stop Strumpy et al.
says Reg Mundy

Granville is new to the physorg site. Granville was not calling YOU a troll, only referring to the REAL TROLLS who are led by Captain Stinky and what granville calls: "troll kings of The Witch's of the Five Star Club". So relax a bit.

Aug 12, 2018
You're not far off in the accuracy of this statement. When you give up personal information like anti-alias did (...)


.......and what I mean by this is when someone has possession of personal information about you, that is information that can lead to your identification thereby leading to harassing techniques that can involve more than just cyber-bullying. It can lead to people literally showing up at the doorstep to your residence & throwing trash on your property because you did not abide the the CLUB"S rules, yeah, RETRIBUTION. I know STUMPO has no compunction about setting these CLUB ground rules because he has already informed me here on this site this is what he would do to me if he knew where I resided if I didn't cease from countering his Pop-Cosmology with Real Science.

That is mainly why Stinky is in this site, to collect and acquire personal information. The pretense of his validation of science is a smokescreen to his true intentions.
-CONTINUED-

Aug 12, 2018
-CONTINUED-
I have read of the unfortunate experiences of one GKAM who gave away the store, so to speak. His personal information including where he lives and military service is on the web for all to see. And GKAM was either as batshit crazy as Captain Stinky in giving away his personal information and receiving nothing back for his trouble, but also placed his wife at risk and any children they may have. Foolish man, he.

Captain Stinky's attempts at talking science are laughable, as he imitates what others have said previously, but in different wording, so that he might be looked upon as intelligent and knowledgeable. But it is easy to see that Stinky knows very little about science, depending upon any information that others offer. This pitiful behaviour indicates that Captain Stinky is, amongst many things, Obsessive/Compulsive mentally, which is a disorder not only amongst humans, but also in demonic possession IN humans.