Study finds the universe might be 2 billion years younger

Study finds the universe might be 2 billion years younger
This image made available by the European Space agency shows galaxies in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2012, an improved version of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image. A study from the Max Planck Institute in Germany published Thursday, Sept. 12, 2019, in the journal Science uses a new technique to come up with a rate that the universe is expanding that is nearly 18% higher than the number scientists had been using since the year 2000. (NASA, ESA, R. Ellis (Caltech), HUDF 2012 Team via AP)

The universe is looking younger every day, it seems.

New calculations suggest the could be a couple billion years younger than scientists now estimate, and even younger than suggested by two other calculations published this year that trimmed hundreds of millions of years from the age of the cosmos.

The huge swings in scientists' estimates—even this new calculation could be off by billions of years—reflect to the tricky problem of figuring the universe's real age.

"We have large uncertainty for how the stars are moving in the galaxy," said Inh Jee, of the Max Plank Institute in Germany, lead author of the study in Thursday's journal Science .

Scientists estimate the age of the universe by using the movement of stars to measure how fast it is expanding. If the universe is expanding faster, that means it got to its current size more quickly, and therefore must be relatively younger.

The expansion rate, called the Hubble constant , is one of the most important numbers in cosmology. A larger Hubble Constant makes for a faster moving—and younger—universe.

The generally accepted age of the universe is 13.7 billion years, based on a Hubble Constant of 70.

An animation of B1608+656 variability in radio observations. The top panel shows four lensed images of a background quasar, and the bottom panel shows the light curves of the four images. Credit: S.H. Suyu, C.D. Fassnacht, NRAO/AUI/NSF

Jee's team came up with a Hubble Constant of 82.4, which would put the age of the universe at around 11.4 billion years.

Jee used a concept called —where gravity warps light and makes far away objects look closer. They rely on a special type of that effect called lensing, using the changing brightness of distant objects to gather information for their calculations.

But Jee's approach is only one of a few new ones that have led to different numbers in recent years, reopening a simmering astronomical debate of the 1990s that had been seemingly settled.

In 2013, a team of European scientists looked at leftover radiation from the Big Bang and pronounced the expansion rate a slower 67, while earlier this year Nobel Prize winning astrophysicist Adam Riess of the Space Telescope Science Institute used NASA's super telescope and came up with a number of 74. And another team earlier this year came up with 73.3.

Jee and outside experts had big caveats for her number. She used only two gravitational lenses, which were all that were available, and so her margin of error is so large that it's possible the universe could be older than calculated, not dramatically younger.

Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb, who wasn't part of the study, said it an interesting and unique way to calculate the universe's expansion rate, but the large error margins limits its effectiveness until more information can be gathered.

"It is difficult to be certain of your conclusions if you use a ruler that you don't fully understand," Loeb said in an email.


Explore further

Scientists debate the seriousness of problems with the value of the Hubble Constant

More information: I. Jee el al., "A measurement of the Hubble constant from angular diameter distances to two gravitational lenses," Science (2019). science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi … 1126/science.aat7371

"An expanding controversy," Science (2019). science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi … 1126/science.aay1331

Journal information: Science

© 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Citation: Study finds the universe might be 2 billion years younger (2019, September 12) retrieved 21 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-09-universe-billion-years-younger.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.
2983 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 12, 2019
This "constant" is anything but, and a misnomer. By the way, why is the universe continuing to expand at an ever increasing rate? DM is BS.

Sep 12, 2019
I'm sure she's flattered.

Sep 12, 2019
I believe that the Universe is more like 100 billion years old, in terms of Earth years going by the 24 hour clock (sunrise to sunrise cycle). It is a personal belief due to the fact that the Universe is a mechanism and all of the galaxies are like the cogs and wheels in a natural clock. The movements and momentum of each galaxy and its Stars are all a part of the Clockwork of the Universe.

Sep 12, 2019
This "constant" is anything but, and a misnomer. By the way, why is the universe continuing to expand at an ever increasing rate? DM is BS.
says Bart_A

It isn't really expanding. Everything is simply 'flowing' around a central point and going round and round that central point without stopping. Think of a Merry-go-round where the horses and riders ((galaxies and galaxy clusters)) are moving at a steady pace. The horses and riders are following each other as they all keep moving around the centre of it. None of them can move out of sync, either going too fast or too slow, else there will be collisions and mergers. But even despite those collisions and mergers, the "ride" continues on without stopping.
I doubt that they have discovered this yet because the 'method' is too orderly and almost too precise, and we all know that humans mostly prefer the disorderly and chaotic for the 'surprise' effect that it gives them.

Sep 12, 2019
oh deer, scientific controversies & disputations have wound up the looneyticks

but "someone" forgot to wind up the universe...

auntie & farta & sillyegg
what happened?
why didn't your spirit guides explain all this too you?
while you three, the "menagerie du treacle" were huddled over your ouiija boards?

Sep 12, 2019
This Eternal Infinite Vacuous Vacuum of Space!

New calculations
suggest the universe
could be a couple billion years younger
than scientists now estimate
and even younger than suggested
calculations published this year
trimmed hundreds of millions of years from the age of the cosmos.
Even these new calculation could be off by billions of years

For this
as they say "is utter tripe"
you can get an age
of the universe
as they say
by measuring
fore example, of how long, it took for us dimwits, to appear on this earth
fore how long this planet and this sun took to evolve
we can extrapolate
this into this Milkyway
and calculate this Milkyway's age
but
and this is this billion trillion year but
this universe in not getting younger
this universe is not getting older
For this universe is Eternal

This Eternal Infinite Vacuous Vacuum of Space!

Sep 12, 2019
I have asked a few times regarding the expansion of space, where does space expand to. Nobody knew. And it could also be asked, which seems more likely for a human driving a car to do - drive round and round on a roundabout road, or drive his car off a cliff or a road leading to nowhere?
Replace the car with galaxies, Stars and planets and try to determine which is far more preferable for survival. Think big.

Sep 12, 2019
@Granville
It pains me to even respond to you but what are your calculations for the age of the universe.

@SEU
Books are amazing things. They contain knowledge. Seek them out and learn things.


Sep 12, 2019
I believe that the Universe is more like 100 billion years old.....

Well SEU, that's way older than she looks. Bet the old girl would love to hear that.

Sep 12, 2019
Yes, the Universe is eternal. And the size of Space itself - with all its quantum particles, energies and forces and Matter - were not created to FILL that Space chock full so that there would be no room for FREE movement of Mass. There is FREE movement only because Space is far more plentiful than the big and small articles of Mass/Energy that move in it so freely.
These things did not happen on the spur of the moment, at random without thought and a plan. Nothing that is worthwhile and meant to last for eternity happens without forethought and a plan to ensure that it works out well.

Sep 12, 2019
Presented here are the ideas about the origin and evolution of galaxies based on the new paradigm about the real physical and elastonic spaces. The classical Big Bang model, where our world is suddenly born out of nothing, replaced by a model in which there is evolutionary change of the space leading to the emergence of metric and energy. Gradually formed elastonic space which then goes into a flat Euclidean space with the presence of particles and physical fields.
https://www.acade...ome_From

Sep 12, 2019
@Granville
It pains me to even respond to you but what are your calculations for the age of the universe.

@SEU
Books are amazing things. They contain knowledge. Seek them out and learn things.
says jimmybobs

The article above is telling us that scientists themselves are unsure as to the true age of the Universe. I am pretty certain that they have written books on the topic, but now they have misgivings. And YOU want me to learn from them? Perhaps you have read too many books that are so full of certainty, and yet eventually come to the conclusion that "it isn't as previously thought". "As previously thought" is the stock answer for scientists who have come to realise that they had made some bad errors, and have to rush to rectify those errors. Must be terribly embarrassing.

Sep 12, 2019
The Expansion of Space in the Eternal Infinite Vacuous Vacuum of Space

SEU>I have asked a few times regarding the expansion of space, where does space expand to.

Your question: where does space expand to?
Your answer is answered
in to two simple words
It Doesn't

There is no Universe
for this Universe is this Vacuum
and we all know a vacuum from our school yard days
a vacuum is devoid of all particulate matter
so, this universe
cannot expand
cannot stretch
cannot bend
cannot compress
this Universe, which we occupy
Is this
This Eternal Infinite Vacuous Vacuum of Space!

Sep 12, 2019
@SEU
The problem is you don't read the books or papers.
There is no certainty. You would know that if you had an IQ greater than 75. Dare I say that is too high.
Real scientists look for errors.
There is no shame in being wrong.


Sep 12, 2019
I believe that the Universe is more like 100 billion years old.....

Well SEU, that's way older than she looks. Bet the old girl would love to hear that.
says antigo

If, as I have said, that everything in the Universe flows around a central point, 100 billion years could be a conservative estimate. I always thought that 13.7 or 13.8 billion years was much too small for something as big as a Universe.

Sep 12, 2019
@SEU
I understand from your previous posts that you aren't actually a human being. You were sent here to observe us. Possibly some sort of lizard humanoid.
What are you exactly and why have you been sent here to observe us?

Sep 12, 2019
@SEU
The problem is you don't read the books or papers.
There is no certainty. You would know that if you had an IQ greater than 75. Dare I say that is too high.
Real scientists look for errors.
There is no shame in being wrong.

says jimmyboob

Exactly HOW would you know what I have read? Are you a mind reading alien?
In any case you are wrong, but do continue to make us laugh with your childish whimpering.
If you honestly believe that there are no certainties, I have a bridge that I'd like to sell to you. There are plenty of certainties, sonny. If there weren't any certainties, there would be no Universe...or YOU. Scientists are good at guessing - sometimes wrong and sometimes right. But it is ALL guesswork for which they are paid to do.


Sep 12, 2019
@SEU
I understand from your previous posts that you aren't actually a human being. You were sent here to observe us. Possibly some sort of lizard humanoid.
What are you exactly and why have you been sent here to observe us?


My human host is every bit of a human being as any other human being - except that he is a Rhodes scholar and is a member of MENSA. How about YOU. What are your qualifications as well as your degree/level of mental fitness?

Sep 12, 2019
Elastonic Space: by valeriy_polulyakh

Presented here are the ideas
about the origin and evolution
of galaxies
based on the new paradigm
about the real physical and elastonic spaces
The classical Big Bang model
where our world is suddenly born out of nothing
replaced by a model
in which there is evolutionary
change of the space
leading to the emergence of metric and energy
Gradually formed elastonic space
which then goes into a flat Euclidean space
with the presence of particle
and physical fields
https://www.acade...ome_From

Sep 12, 2019
Exactly HOW would you know what I have read? Are you a mind reading alien?
In any case you are wrong, but do continue to make us laugh with your childish whimpering.
If you honestly believe that there are no certainties, I have a bridge that I'd like to sell to you. There are plenty of certainties, sonny. If there weren't any certainties, there would be no Universe...or YOU. Scientists are good at guessing - sometimes wrong and sometimes right. But it is ALL guesswork for which they are paid to do.


What is they say about empty vessels making the most noise? That certainly seems to be the case for our resident cranks.

Sep 12, 2019
The Expansion of Space in the Eternal Infinite Vacuous Vacuum of Space

SEU>I have asked a few times regarding the expansion of space, where does space expand to.

Your question: where does space expand to?
Your answer is answered
in to two simple words
It Doesn't

There is no Universe
for this Universe is this Vacuum
and we all know a vacuum from our school yard days
a vacuum is devoid of all particulate matter
so, this universe
cannot expand
cannot stretch
cannot bend
cannot compress
this Universe, which we occupy
Is this
This Eternal Infinite Vacuous Vacuum of Space!
says granville

There are some who believe that this is all a hologram, and that everyone and everything is nothing more than a figment of someone's imagination. If not for pain and pleasure that is felt through nerve endings, humans and animals would go through their lives as walking and unfeeling bags of cells. But humans do have terrific imaginations.

Sep 12, 2019
My human host is every bit of a human being as any other human being - except that he is a Rhodes scholar and is a member of MENSA.


And claimed that Voyager was in the $%^&*("@ Oort cloud! Lol.

Sep 12, 2019
Exactly HOW would you know what I have read? Are you a mind reading alien?
In any case you are wrong, but do continue to make us laugh with your childish whimpering.
If you honestly believe that there are no certainties, I have a bridge that I'd like to sell to you. There are plenty of certainties, sonny. If there weren't any certainties, there would be no Universe...or YOU. Scientists are good at guessing - sometimes wrong and sometimes right. But it is ALL guesswork for which they are paid to do.
says Castrovagina

So welcome to the club. Oh wait, you have been a duly made member of the Cranks and Trolls Club since you decided to throw your weight around in this science site as the user name, jonesdave. So what kind of science do you have up your sleeve today, jones? Anything good?

What is they say about empty vessels making the most noise? That certainly seems to be the case for our resident cranks.

Sep 12, 2019
The Lord of Host's is with us
SEU> My human host is every bit of a human being as any other human being

The Lord of hosts is with us: Psalm 46:7

This is the reason for all Zion's security
and for the overthrow of her foe
The Lord rules the angels
the stars
the elements
and all the hosts of heaven
and the heaven of heavens are under his sway
The armies of men though they know it not
are made to subserve his will
This Generalissimo of the forces of the land
and the Lord High Admiral of the seas
is on our side
our august ally
woe unto those who fight against him
for they shall fly like smoke before the wind
when he gives the word to scatter them
The God of Jacob is our refuge
Immanuel is Jehovah of Hosts
and Jacob's God is our high place of defence
When this glad verse is sung to music worthy of such a jubilate
well may the singers pause
and the players wait awhile to tune their instruments again
here, therefore
fitly stands that solemn, stately, peaceful note of rest, SELAH

Sep 12, 2019
@SEU
"My human host is every bit of a human being as any other human being - except that he is a Rhodes scholar and is a member of MENSA"

Your human host seems pretty smart. Too bad you are not.


Sep 12, 2019
@SEU
"My human host is every bit of a human being as any other human being - except that he is a Rhodes scholar and is a member of MENSA"

Your human host seems pretty smart. Too bad you are not.

says jimmy booboo

Yes, he is at genius level, but he doesn't talk down to anyone in spite of it. There should be more like him, but unfortunately, too many humans are more of YOUR and jonesy's calibre, where it is better to call someone nasty names and tell lies about those you disagree with, than to learn from them. For everyone has their story to tell.

Sep 12, 2019
These Heavens are this Eternal Infinite Vacuous Vacuum of Space

The Lord rules the angels
the stars
the elements
and all the hosts of Heaven
And the heaven of Heavens are under his sway

Fore just as it is said
the Lord rules the elements and the stars in these Heavens
these Heavens
just as it this Universe, is this Vacuum
these heavens, are this Universe, are this Vacuum
fore it is to be said, these Heavens are this vacuum
These Heavens are this Eternal Infinite Vacuous Vacuum of Space

These Heavens are this Eternal Infinite Vacuous Vacuum of Space

p.s. just as this universe does not expand, these heavens do not expand, because they are this infinite vacuous vacuum of space!

Sep 12, 2019
@SEU

Please tell us what names I have called you.


Sep 12, 2019
Time in this vacuum of these Heavens

It was not intended to go in triplicate, SEU
fore when it was spotted
The Lord of Hosts had run out of Time!

p.s. fore in these heavens SEU, the lord of hosts is mortal

Sep 12, 2019
@SEU

Please tell us what names I have called you.



If you are struggling to think of one, I can recommend plenty!

Sep 12, 2019
Time in this vacuum of these Heavens

It was not intended to go in triplicate, SEU
fore when it was spotted
The Lord of Hosts had run out of Time!

p.s. fore in these heavens SEU, the lord of hosts is mortal
says granville

I believe that you meant to say "Immortal", a far more precise term. Another is "Eternal". Both Immortal and Eternal are accurate, as well as unhappy with what humans have become.
But Lucifer has been laughing hysterically because he thinks he is winning. Don't fall for his tricks, granville. Step lively over the cracks and avoid his snares.

Sep 12, 2019
If you honestly believe that there are no certainties, I have a bridge that I'd like to sell to you. There are plenty of certainties, sonny. If there weren't any certainties, there would be no Universe...or YOU. Scientists are good at guessing - sometimes wrong and sometimes right. But it is ALL guesswork for which they are paid to do.

Well SEU, with all them certainties of yours, it's an absolute certainty, for you, there cannot be any room for guesswork.....oops....then that would make you a.... NON...scientist? So, how does it feel to be broke?

Sep 12, 2019
Georges Lemaitre's cosmic egg

The Lord rules the angels
the stars
the elements
and all the hosts of Heaven
And the heavens of Heavens are under his sway

This quote from, Laid down in the stone of Moses: Exodus 31:18
And he gave to Moses
when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai
the two tablets
of the testimony
tablets of stone
Written with the finger of God

is why, Georges Lemaitre
laid down in the stone of Moses
His Cosmic Egg

Georges Lemaitre's cosmic egg

Sep 12, 2019
If you honestly believe that there are no certainties, I have a bridge that I'd like to sell to you. There are plenty of certainties, sonny. If there weren't any certainties, there would be no Universe...or YOU. Scientists are good at guessing - sometimes wrong and sometimes right. But it is ALL guesswork for which they are paid to do.

Well SEU, with all them certainties of yours, it's an absolute certainty, for you, there cannot be any room for guesswork.....oops....then that would make you a.... NON...scientist? So, how does it feel to be broke?
says antigoracle

LOL For some reason, this computer's Spellcheck has you down as antigovernment as soon as the first 6 letters of your user name is typed. Is this Spellcheck prophetic?
There are plenty of certainties, such as Trump will be reelected POTUS in 2020. Another is that there will be more hurricanes in the future. And your birthday is coming up, isn't that right?

Sep 12, 2019
@granville
Georges Lemaitre must have been quite an interesting deep thinker. It is too bad that I did not have a chance to meet him.
Are you aware that the sciences are heavily laden with Philosophy, and are very dependent on Philosophy to think, posit, conjecture and explain old and new ideas?

Sep 12, 2019
May we get back to the subject of age of universe since Big Bang or from R4=0 of Riemann 4-sphere in Einstein's starting thought of GR that prompted the mistake of cosmological constant before he regretted it after Hubble evidence of expanding universe. Bigger mistakes of FLRW cosmology followed by the early accelerated inflation with some assumed deceleration until later (2011 Nobel 'confirmed') Dark Energy based acceleration - while speed of light c was faithfully kept constant as the foundation of GR/QM. This made age of universe 13.8 B yrs and R4_today=13.8B ly until Feynman realized in 1960 lectures that at R4=0 the motion and gravitational energies of total mass M= 2.3 10^ 53 kg of universe were in balance! Suntola's 1995 break-through of Dynamic Universe (DU) expanded GR/QM using this continual energy balance constraint replacing BBT with continuously accelerated/decelerated contraction/expansion at BB tbc

Sep 12, 2019
The error bars of the age of the oldest ever measured stars just fit into the traditional 13.8 billion year estimate, that is BD +17° 3248 is13.8 ± 4 billion years. But the even older HD 140283 or the Methuselah Star is 14.46 ± 0.8 (minimum 13.66) billion years, just fits.

But knock 2 billion years off and there are at least 11 stars in our own galaxy that would be way older than the universe!!!

This was the objection that Hubble had to the Big Bang model and expansion of the universe conjecture, that it would make the age of he universe too young (age estimates were much shorter in his lifetime, around half what they are now).

https://en.wikipe...st_stars

Sep 12, 2019
I have repeatedly explained the extensive DU literature about the consequences of DU on GR/QM based myths on the age of universe and the subject of Hubble, Planck etc constants in my past PO posts, including few days ago explanations of Hubble constant H0 =71 km/s/Mpc today at the age of T4=9.2B yrs and R4= 13.8B ly in

https://phys.org/...ble.html

The results of Max Institute are detailed in Suntola's DU book and can be summarized as follows: The length of second is continually expanding or the ticking rate of atomic clock (as used in GPS) is slowing down such that age of universe since R4=0 is T4_today= 2/3 R4_today/C4_today= 9.2 B yrs at R4_today=13.8 B ly. The article follows the dogma of academic thought of constant c such that the age estimate is the average of dynamic and GR/BBT based static universe by revising H0 accordingly - but it ignores the optical distance and other concepts of DU to understand Hubble flow and H0.

Sep 12, 2019
We are not living in the First Big Bang of our Universe !.

The Universe is expanding because it is growing proton and lighter masses, which makes the entire universe lighter, expanding the Universe' zero weight aperture (Which is what we actually observe at the photon weights scale or better known as the EM field weight scale).

Sep 12, 2019
The human specie had only the Earth's rotation daily cycle that was relative to the sunrise to sunrise passage of night and daylight to determine the seasons long before the first clocks were invented. So now that they have their clocks and their telescopes, they think that they can confirm the true age of the Universe, by way of looking at the spectra and distance of old galaxies/Stars and a bit of mathematical explanations typed into fast computers that use algorithms and graphs to determine that the Universe is only 13.7 B minus 2 B years. Is that with or without the Big Bang?
As well as saying that Space is expanding, and yet not having any clue as to where it is expanding TO, and why. Are all of the galaxies that reach the edge of the Universe going to fall off a cliff into nothingness? If that was so, then wouldn't all of that Matter/Energy be lost with no more Matter/Energy being created to replace it?
Well NO WONDER mass is only ~5%; the rest has gone over the cliff.

Sep 12, 2019
The Universe (I.E. Visible Mass) is expanding SEU.
Space just keeps on going past the zero weight boundary forever.
If it was even possible to leave space our matter would unravel back to nothing.

Sep 13, 2019
Go take your meds, Otto. You're not making sense, as usual.

Sep 13, 2019
My human host is every bit of a human being as any other human being - except that he is a Rhodes scholar and is a member of MENSA.


And claimed that Voyager was in the $%^&*("@ Oort cloud! Lol.
says CastroVagina

No. That was ME who said that. He only typed my answer.

Sep 13, 2019
LOL For some reason, this computer's Spellcheck has you down as antigovernment as soon as the first 6 letters of your user name is typed. Is this Spellcheck prophetic?
.......And your birthday is coming up, isn't that right?

SEU, nope. That's the universe telling you, all that's you, especially your failings, is predestined, so you're not to blame. Spellcheck is but its messenger.
And, I believe that since my first day, my birthday has always been coming up. Isn't that right?

Sep 13, 2019
If you can't handle the truth don't ask 8-)

Sep 13, 2019
Article should says that "longest distant light coming from universe is 2 billion light years shorter than 13.7 billion light years". The universe is very much vast and we are observing it by light wave only. You should not judge age of universe from light / photon observation.
If possible observe the universe with gravity wave (actual gravity wave), then even black hole (photon hole) will look transparent and we can see edge of graviton hole ( i.e. the universe).

Sep 13, 2019
In other words speed of gravity >>> speed of light

Sep 13, 2019
Also ...
C is the photon "snap" speed back to it's zero weight space caused by proton destruction.
A photon released from a dark mass aperture trap, will keep accelerating until it finds it's zero weight space, possibly much faster than C.

Sep 13, 2019
In other words speed of gravity >>> speed of light


Trivially false. As shown by the simultaneous detection of gravitational waves and the EM signature from the neutron star binary merger in 2017. Do try to keep up.

Sep 13, 2019
This "constant" is anything but, and a misnomer. By the way, why is the universe continuing to expand at an ever increasing rate? DM is BS.
says Bart_A

It isn't really expanding. Everything is simply 'flowing' around a central point and going round and round that central point without stopping.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

Even for YOU, that's a loony assertion!
You respond to a loony assertion with an even more loony one.
The loons are all here commenting above.

Sep 13, 2019
A gravity wave is a result of Gravity not the cause of Gravity.

Sep 13, 2019
In other words speed of gravity >>> speed of light

"Trivially false. As shown by the simultaneous detection of gravitational waves and the EM signature from the neutron star binary merger in 2017. Do try to keep up."

existence of black hole (photon hole) and universe (graviton hole) expansion exceeding cp speed is the proof of cg>>>cp. what else proof you want. Lorentz transformation never set speed limit up to cp.

Sep 13, 2019
All these calculations assume time is a true constant. If it's space itself that is expanding, time is likely also expanding. Although constant in any one instance, the relative time constant of the light source and distance in between needs to be considered. This could be calculated via the redshift.

Sep 13, 2019
A gravity wave is a result of Gravity not the cause of Gravity.


And is the speed at which the gravitational force operates. Fact. Unless you have some peer-reviewed science that you could show us that claims otherwise? Thought not.

https://arstechni...gravity/

Sep 13, 2019
In other words speed of gravity >>> speed of light

"Trivially false. As shown by the simultaneous detection of gravitational waves and the EM signature from the neutron star binary merger in 2017. Do try to keep up."

existence of black hole (photon hole) and universe (graviton hole) expansion exceeding cp speed is the proof of cg>>>cp. what else proof you want. Lorentz transformation never set speed limit up to cp.


Gibberish. Just link to the peer-reviewed paper where this is spelled out.

Sep 13, 2019
"And is the speed at which the gravitational force operates."
No that is an assumption.

Where is the peer reviewed paper that proves G propogates at C ?
Especially in the Gravity weight space ?

LIGO will assume G propogates at C until proven otherwise.

Your problem is you believe NZ Government lies about the Metric system that your Government pays for, and forces your teachers to sign fucking non disclosures about as well.

No doubt you're one of the thieving maggots that actually signed that fucking Non Disclosure.

As a result you are the one spouting Gibberish, Even when I (Who has been called Einstein for the last 38 fucking years) describe it simply, you still do not understand.

Sep 13, 2019
Here you go ...
Draw a scale on paper going down (i.e. Y axis) and the scale is in nC^3

Then draw the Electron and the Proton on their appropriate weight scale.
Then draw a skin line from the zero weight down around each particle and back to the 0 weight line.

(The Q.G.R. Might have better numbers for these scales but it explains it well enough,
Photons/EM fill the 1C^3 ~ 4C^3 weights
Electrons 5C^3~6C^3
And Protons 7C^3 ~ 10C^3
Neutrons 11C^3 and higher

Anything below the Proton equatorial boundary has a Time dilation high enough to prevent energy transfer.
The Heavier a particle is the higher it's time dilation boundary condition, so energy transfer is slower.
(I.E. The G-Zero weight boundary is light and the bottom of the G-Curve is heavy)

(C) 1981 Marcel Bernhard Eringa

Sep 13, 2019
And the fucking second page that no one reads ...
** The Time Dilated Skin back to the Zero weight or "Gravity curve" is Magnetism theory. **
1. Magnetism is an exposed deeper weight particles Gravity curve.
2. Proton weights occlude these deeper curves in non-magnetic crystalline structures.
(I.E. Visible matter is proton weight or lighter and Dark matter is all the masses below proton weight)
3. Polarisation is caused by the total G-Zero skins weight differential.
(I.E. The G-Zero weight boundary is light and the bottom of the G-Curve is heavy and aligns to the prevailing Gravity field(s))

(C) 1981 Marcel Bernhard Eringa

Sep 13, 2019
And finally for those who do fucking know who I am ...
Stephen Hawking and I had quite a different outlook on the formation of the Super-Verse, but I like to think we respected each others perspectives.

This is mine ....
1 . The Singularity is a dimensionless space if you disregard time, it contains nothing, and is only time.
2. The 2 spaces in the Reality paper I wrote in 81 (G space and the 3d space) we call space grew from that dimensionless space .
3. Photons started forming.
4. As the weight of light increased, heavier particles (protons) started forming.
5. At this early stage of the Super-Verse, there was not enough Gravity/Weight to stabalise the proton shell structures with Time Dilation (Which is simply caused by spacial compression), so it started "Banging", i.e. protons structures collapse/explode back into photon structures.
6. Our Big Bang is something that happened a very very very long time after that.

Sep 13, 2019
If it's space itself that is expanding, time is likely also expanding.
Anonym557927

This above assertion is complete gibberish to anyone who understands the physics theories and/or facts.
You (and certain other loons here) really should stop commenting about things (mainly physics) you know or understand NOTHING about.

Sep 13, 2019
Jimmybobber

jimmybobber> @Granville
It pains me to even respond to you but what are your calculations for the age of the universe

Jimmybobber
theories come back and bite you when you're theories fall flat
consequently jimmybobber, I do not have any theories
the vacuum of space is not a theory
because a vacuum
cannot be stretched
cannot be bent
cannot be compressed
and you cannot have half a vacuum
consequently, you cannot have two vacuums in the vacuum of space, as vacuum is Singular
Jimmybobber, this means as the Universe, is the vacuum of space, this Universe is also singular
One of these Constants of this Heaven, this Universe, this Space is they are The Vacuous Vacuum
consequently, this Heaven, this Universe, this Space are singular
As this Heaven, this Universe, this Space are vacuum, there is no beginning or end to this Vacuum
So we have jimmybobber
This Eternal Infinite Vacuous Vacuum of this heaven, Universe, Space

There is no age to this Universe, JB

Sep 13, 2019
There is no age to this Universe, JB

Jimmybobber
when we are describing this age of this Universe
it not this age of this Universe we are talking about
we are, jimmybobber
describing these Galaxies and Stars occupying this Universe
as this Universe is this vacuum
these Galaxies and Stars are occupying this vacuum
we come to
this proton and scrumptious electron all a alone in this vacuum
where
this neutron decays to
a pristine proton
a pristine electron
for this cycle jimmybobber, continues eternally fore ever, fore eternity in this vacuum
fore though it is said this Yotta life proton and scrumptious electron
these protons could be one minute old, or one billion years old or even a billion trillion years old
it all depends
when this neutron decays
Into these pristine protons and their scrumptious electrons

For this Neutron lives repeatedly decaying in this vacuum eternally
Just as we cannot have half a Neutron, we cannot have half a vacuum

Bennies Half a Neutron Lives Eternally

Sep 13, 2019
"And is the speed at which the gravitational force operates."
No that is an assumption.

Where is the peer reviewed paper that proves G propogates at C ?
Especially in the Gravity weight space ?

LIGO will assume G propogates at C until proven otherwise.

Your problem is you believe NZ Government lies about the Metric system that your Government pays for, and forces your teachers to sign fucking non disclosures about as well.

No doubt you're one of the thieving maggots that actually signed that fucking Non Disclosure.

As a result you are the one spouting Gibberish, Even when I (Who has been called Einstein for the last 38 fucking years) describe it simply, you still do not understand.


Wow! Another head case! Lol. We get the lot here! WTF has the NZ govt's 52 year use of the metric system got to do with anything? Go take your meds, and have a lie down.

Sep 13, 2019
A gravity wave is a result of Gravity not the cause of Gravity.

And Gravity is result from what.

Equivalent principle cannot tell about interaction does not require interacting wave. Electromagnetic interaction also can come in the framework of equivalence principle.

Feynman already told that any interaction is result of the interacting wave. So for electromagnetic interaction is result of virtual photon. For gravity we may not have real graviton but definitely have virtual graviton.

We observe only virtual graviton in universe because universe is result of graviton confinement, i.e., graviton hole, similarly black hole is result of photon confinement i.e., photon hole.

Sep 13, 2019
Birds of a Feather Flock Together in this Vacuum

These clouds of dust
clouds of molecule and atom
in this vacuum, clump together
Jimmybobber, these clouds
these clouds of dust, molecules and atoms
are as far as the eye can see in this vacuum
for Jimmybobber, these clouds of matter are conglomerated into humongous 15billion Lys clumps
where these 15billion Ly clumps are spread eternally throughout this infinite vacuum
for this reason Jimmybobber
these protons and there scrumptious electrons are spread eternally throughout this infinite vacuum
fore, jimmybobber
matter is never spread evenly
the spread of matter is always unevenly spread
This mean Jimmybobber, these clouds of matter clump together unevenly together in this vacuum

Fore it is said
These clouds of matter of galaxies and there stars in this vacuum
These conglomerated clouds of matter are what we called this "Universe"

For this name, "Universe" is simply a descriptive to describe this 15billion Ly collection of Galaxies

Sep 13, 2019
And is the Speed at which the Gravitational Force Operates

Castrogiovanni, idjyit
What on earth does this mean "And is the speed at which the gravitational force operates"

There is only one speed for these massless entities in space
Laid down by that sage of space and time Albert, that is this lightspeed - 299792458 m-1

GW170817's radio signal and this gravity wave arrived simultaneously
Fore is has always known gravity travels at lightspeed
GW170817 was simply a Conformation

Which comes to this statement?
"And is the speed at which the gravitational force operates"
Gravity by its very physical apparition
Gravity is only detected by its force, which is gravity waves

It was this force of gravity that GW170817 was measured by LIGO
This force of gravity arrived at this same time as these radio waves

The Speed of Gravity, is the Speed of the Force of Gravity, which is Lightspeed

Sep 13, 2019
Correction in time and space
299792458 m-1 should read 299792458 m.s-1

Sep 13, 2019
ENTROPY!
I know, right?
Can't find rational consensus with it..........can't argue incessantly without it.

Sep 13, 2019
Ok cranks, this should be an easy one. Since all of this gravity stuff is wrong, and basically everything else in modern cosmology, using your framework, how would you predict and calculate the existence of Neptune and find it as was done in 1846? You can't see it, just using the motion of the planets, please calculate and show your work, be it a z-pinch, birkeland current, god, whatever your chosen crank ideology of choice. This is a very simple prediction, should take you a couple of minutes. TIA.

Sep 13, 2019
What is they say about empty vessels making the most noise? That certainly seems to be the case for our resident cranks.

Poor ejit. Not just dumb, but also, so deaf he can't hear his own noise.

Sep 13, 2019
What is they say about empty vessels making the most noise? That certainly seems to be the case for our resident cranks.

Poor ejit. Not just dumb, but also, so deaf he can't hear his own noise.


You still here, dumbo? Why?

Sep 13, 2019
From my work it looks like the universe has size, but not age. The acceleration is from rotation. Please see, The Mass, Size, and Equilibrium Density of the Universe in a
Rotating Universe . For the variation in the Hubble constant, it looks like the gravity from adjacent universes causes the Hubble constant to be variable, depending on the distance from adjacent universes. Please see Sphere Theory Explains the Prevalence of the Golden Ratio in Nature .

Sep 13, 2019
I believe that the Universe is more like 100 billion years old, in terms of Earth years going by the 24 hour clock (sunrise to sunrise cycle). It is a personal belief due to the fact that the Universe is a mechanism and all of the galaxies are like the cogs and wheels in a natural clock. The movements and momentum of each galaxy and its Stars are all a part of the Clockwork of the Universe.
I agree with the cog like mechanism.

Sep 13, 2019
I have asked a few times regarding the expansion of space, where does space expand to. Nobody knew. And it could also be asked, which seems more likely for a human driving a car to do - drive round and round on a roundabout road, or drive his car off a cliff or a road leading to nowhere?
Replace the car with galaxies, Stars and planets and try to determine which is far more preferable for survival. Think big.
These are good questions!

Sep 13, 2019
The Lord of Host's is with us
SEU> My human host is every bit of a human being as any other human being

The Lord of hosts is with us: Psalm 46:7

This is the reason for all Zion's security
and for the overthrow of her foe
The Lord rules the angels
the stars
the elements
and all the hosts of heaven
and the heaven of heavens are under his sway
The armies of men though they know it not
are made to subserve his will
This Generalissimo of the forces of the land
and the Lord High Admiral of the seas
is on our side
our august ally
woe unto those who fight against him
for they shall fly like smoke before the wind
when he gives the word to scatter them
The God of Jacob is our refuge
Immanuel is Jehovah of Hosts
a
It is difficult to not believe in a creator.

Sep 13, 2019
And finally for those who do fucking know who I am ...
Stephen Hawking and I had quite a different outlook on the formation of the Super-Verse, but I like to think we respected each others perspectives.

This is mine ....
1 . The Singularity is a dimensionless space if you disregard time, it contains nothing, and is only time.
2. The 2 spaces in the Reality paper I wrote in 81 (G space and the 3d space) we call space grew from that dimensionless space .
3. Photons started forming.
4. As the weight of light increased, heavier particles (protons) started forming.
5. At this early stage of the Super-Verse, there was not enough Gravity/Weight to stabalise the proton shell structures with Time Dilation (Which is simply caused by spacial compression), so it started "Banging", i.e. protons structures collapse/explode back into photon structures.
6. Our Big Bang is something that happened a very very very long time after that.
Interesting thoughts

Sep 13, 2019
This Super-Verse: by idjyit

And finally
for those
who do fucking know
who I am

Stephen Hawking
and I had quite a different outlook
on the formation of the Super-Verse
but I like to think we respected
each others perspectives.

This is mine.
1 . The Singularity
is a dimensionless space
if you disregard time
it contains nothing, and is only time

2. The 2 spaces in the Reality paper
I wrote in 81
G space and the 3d space
we call space grew from that dimensionless space

3. Photons started forming

4. As the weight of light increased
heavier particles
protons
started forming

5. At this early stage
of the Super-Verse
there was not enough Gravity
Weight to stabalise the proton shell structures
with Time Dilation
Which is simply caused by spacial compression
so it started "Banging"
i.e. protons structures collapse
explode back into photon structures

6. Our Big Bang
is something that happened
a very very very long time after that


Sep 13, 2019
... Please see Sphere Theory Explains the Prevalence of the Golden Ratio in Nature .
Can't find any relevant sources for this particular "theory"...

Sep 13, 2019
This Super-Verse: by idjyit

Idjyit, M.S. word spell checker is working overtime on your Thesis - This Super-Verse
now it is transcribed, unchanged in word and spelling
we at phys.org, will pull it to shreds
idjyit
fore in this ancient city of Cambridge
as you walk down these Hallowed Halls and Colleges
that once Stephen Hawkins once tread
metaphorically speaking, idjyit
foreth, his wheels quietly tread
idjyit, when you uploaded your theory, This Super-Verse
to this public forum of phys.org, idjyit
you foregone all right of ownership

But don't lose any sleep over This Super-Verse
Everyone here at phys.org also have this same theory
so idjyit, when you have a theory, to gain ownership
make sure it is novel and new
or
else, idjyit
You will find untold 1000s have all ready thought of This Super-Verse

So good luck with your Super-Verse but don't hold your breath

Sep 13, 2019
A priest's eye view
Until this web of phsy.org materialised, Georges Lemaitre seemed an irrelevance

SEU> @granville
Georges Lemaitre must have been quite an interesting deep thinker. It is too bad that I did not have a chance to meet him.
Are you aware that the sciences are heavily laden with Philosophy, and are very dependent on Philosophy to think, posit, conjecture and explain old and new ideas?

Now Georges Lemaitre is this rock of ages
is this physics pedestal
Fore without Georges Lemaitre, the foundations of physics will crumble

Sep 13, 2019
LOL For some reason, this computer's Spellcheck has you down as antigovernment as soon as the first 6 letters of your user name is typed. Is this Spellcheck prophetic?
.......And your birthday is coming up, isn't that right?

SEU, nope. That's the universe telling you, all that's you, especially your failings, is predestined, so you're not to blame. Spellcheck is but its messenger.
And, I believe that since my first day, my birthday has always been coming up. Isn't that right?


That's a certainty, antigoracle.

Sep 13, 2019
All these calculations assume time is a true constant. If it's space itself that is expanding, time is likely also expanding. Although constant in any one instance, the relative time constant of the light source and distance in between needs to be considered. This could be calculated via the redshift.


This appears as the only post related to the topic of some mistaken concepts of Max P. Institute article about the relations of the age T4 of universe (time) vs its decelerated or accelerated expansion rate C4 of the 4-sphere radius R4 at the heart of Einstein GR and Feynman 'biggest mystery'. It was solved in the unified GR/QM theory of Suntola DU and readily explained in terms of the extended Gaussian estimation and inverse theory of loop inverses in array calculus. Using the past PO posted examples I computed the optical distance of the first test case of z=0.295 getting D=907 Mpc not far from 810 Mpc relative estimate of the article, getting dC4/C4 = - 41.5 km/s per Mpc!

Sep 13, 2019
The deceleration (vs. mistaken acceleration) rate of -41.5 km/s/Mpc during the past 900 Mpc makes sense with today's rate of -35.5 km/s/Mpc = -1.15 10^-21 ms 'strain' enabling LIGO GW detection of events exceeding this uniform 3-D cosmic gravitational pull (requiring 3 vs only 2 vacuum tubes of interferometers!). Hubble constant H0= dR4/R4/Mpc is a meaningless measure for deceleration vs acceleration of the bouncing universe, today found from dC4/C4 by multiplying it with -2 to get H0=71km/s. The trick is the concept of 'time' that is expanding with 3rd vs 2d power of ratio C4_1/C4/2 for ratio R4_2/R4_1 among two expansion epochs T4_2 and T4_1. This has completely confused most GR/QM concepts resulting in today's crisis in cosmology and physics foundations, not least in this Max P article about T4, see DU book Fig 6.2.3-1 and 2 for survival in physics field!

The surprises will keep coming, for decades, if not centuries. Talking margin of error, there is a long way between 8-15 billion years and the actual 46 trillion years:
http://www.future...port_228

Sep 14, 2019
This appears as the only post related to the topic of some mistaken concepts of Max P. Institute article about the relations of the age T4 of universe (time) vs its decelerated or accelerated expansion rate C4 of the 4-sphere radius R4 at the heart of Einstein GR and Feynman 'biggest mystery'. It was solved in the ....................................................This has completely confused most GR/QM concepts resulting in today's crisis in cosmology and physics foundations, not least in this Max P article about T4, see DU book Fig 6.2.3-1 and 2 for survival in physics field!
---
My pleasure.

Yours truly,
The Universe.

Sep 14, 2019
The surprises will keep coming, for decades, if not centuries. Talking margin of error, there is a long way between 8-15 billion years and the actual 46 trillion years:
http://www.future...port_228


Unfortunately, your "Commander P'taah" of the Pleiades is nothing more than an imaginary unicorn faerie tale that someone thought up to make some money. There are 'visitors' here on planet Earth, but they are not from the Pleiades and haven't much to do with humans if they can help it.
If you like your beliefs, then keep your beliefs, but you are wasting your time trying to sell it here in physorg where the site is filled with mostly atheists who only pray at the altar of Einstein.

Sep 14, 2019
^^^^^^^^And this, folks, is what things look like when the lunatics take over the asylum!

Sep 14, 2019
^^^^^^^^And this, folks, is what things look like when the lunatics take over the asylum!


You describe yourself extremely well, CastroVagina. You have come to take over, so do what you must. Your fandom might be along anytime now, unless they're too embarrassed by you.
Your reference to physorg as an asylum is hilarious.

Sep 14, 2019
A Leaf from RealityCheck: by Anonym262722

The deceleration
(vs. mistaken acceleration)
rate of -41.5 km/s
/Mpc during the past 900 Mpc makes sense with today's rate
of -35.5 km/s/Mpc = -1.15 10^-21 ms 'strain'
enabling LIGO GW detection
of events exceeding
this uniform 3-D cosmic gravitational pull
(requiring 3 vs only 2 vacuum tubes of interferometers!).
Hubble constant H0= dR4/R4/Mpc
is a meaningless measure
for deceleration vs acceleration
of the bouncing universe,
today found from dC4/C4
by multiplying it with -2 to get H0=71km/s.
The trick is the concept of 'time'
that is expanding with 3rd vs 2d power
of ratio C4_1/C4/2
for ratio R4_2/R4_1
among two expansion epochsT4_2 and T4_1.
This has completely confused most GR/QM concepts
resulting in today's crisis in cosmology
and physics foundations,
not least
in this Max P article about T4,
see DU book Fig 6.2.3-1
and 2 for survival in physics field!

Transcribed down to the last full stop: You have a worthy competitor, RealityCheck

Sep 14, 2019
I will make the risky assumption that the universe is not expanding at all. Yes, our universe is changing, but what is interpreted as expansion with acceleration is not such.
It really looks more like ballooning, but there is no real movement to increase the distance between objects in this ballooning.
If we draw an analogy with a balloon, then the points drawn on its surface will have different distances, if we inflate it a little more. But the ratio of distances will not change. Those as the balloon becomes more and more inflated, we will be able to observe an "increase" in the distance between points, but this increase in distances indicates an increase in space, and not about the movement of points relative to this space. Those. the removal of galaxies that we observe tells us that space itself is inflated, but it is precisely the movement of galaxies relative to this space that does not occur. In addition to the motion due to gravity connecting clusters of galaxies themselves.
But

Sep 14, 2019
The universe is not expanding at all, yes, our universe is changing

Dmytron1966, when you say
the universe is not expanding
in this context of this Universe expanding or contracting
What exactly do you mean?

Do you mean
this universe is this very fabric of space
that when this unIverse expands and contracts
The very fabric of space expands and contracts?

For you have an intriguing concept, for you are saying
this universe is this space
as this space is this vacuum
and we all know from our school yard days
a vacuum, is devoid of all material matter
A vacuum cannot expand or contract

For dmytron1966, our vacuum is not our flexible friend

Sep 14, 2019

You describe yourself extremely well, CastroVagina. You have come to take over, so do what you must. Your fandom might be along anytime now, unless they're too embarrassed by you.
Your reference to physorg as an asylum is hilarious.


So sad, yet hilarious. :D
@StupidEgg
So what galaxy do you come from ?

Sep 14, 2019
but what is interpreted as expansion with acceleration is not such.
It really looks more like ballooning, but there is no real movement to increase the distance between objects in this ballooning.
If we draw an analogy with a balloon, then the points drawn on its surface will have different distances, if we inflate it a little more. But the ratio of distances will not change. Those as the balloon becomes more and more inflated, we will be able to observe an "increase" in the distance between points, but this increase in distances indicates an increase in space, and not about the movement of points relative to this space. Those. the removal of galaxies that we observe tells us that space itself is inflated, but it is precisely the movement of galaxies relative to this space that does not occur. In addition to the motion due to gravity connecting clusters of galaxies themselves.


https://i.pinimg.com/originals/44/0c/2a/440c2a3bc2ec95c07cbcbbcc22ea78af.jpg

Sep 14, 2019
It's this time again


You describe yourself extremely well, Castrogiovanni. You have come to take over, so do what you must. Your fandom might be along anytime now, unless they're too embarrassed by you.
Your reference to physorg as an asylum is hilarious.


So sad, yet hilarious. :D
@StupidEgg
So what galaxy do you come from ?

This Cox and Box time, kl31415
Fore, Castrogiovanni will be along shortly, kl31415
A passing on the stairs, fore this night shift
Till, this Cox and Box time, comes round, once again, kl31415

Sep 14, 2019
this cox and box time, kl31415
when your find your peace
and settle with one and only one
then all of peace will descend
fore there will be only one on the stairs
then cox and box will be now more

Sep 14, 2019
The universe is not expanding at all, yes, our universe is changing

Dmytron1966, when you say
....
For you have an intriguing concept, for you are saying
this universe is this space
as this space is this vacuum
and we all know from our school yard days
a vacuum, is devoid of all material matter
A vacuum cannot expand or contract

For dmytron1966, our vacuum is not our flexible friend


What was taught (and still taught now) at school is crude and very primitive interpretations of theories of past centuries. For example, the "laws" of Newton. Or the "law" of Ohm. School books, and especially in physics, are rubbish. And the concept of vacuum - especially. Physics taught at school has lagged behind the forefront of science for centuries.

Sep 14, 2019
The universe is not expanding at all, yes, our universe is changing

For dmytron1966, our vacuum is not our flexible friend


Dear Mr. Bean, said?
.....
Vacuum is only a concept that can be used only in some models.
When it comes to the topology of the space of our universe, the vacuum has nothing to do with it at all.

Sep 14, 2019
Unfortunately, your "Commander P'taah" of the Pleiades is nothing more than an imaginary unicorn faerie tale that someone thought up to make some money. There are 'visitors' here on planet Earth, but they are not from the Pleiades and haven't much to do with humans if they can help it.
If you like your beliefs, then keep your beliefs, but you are wasting your time trying to sell it here in physorg where the site is filled with mostly atheists who only pray at the altar of Einstein.
......actually most of them have just about zero comprehension with regard to the sciences of Special & General Relativity.

They invoke Einstein as a means of gaining a measure of credibility for the next preposterous statements they will make in the sentences to follow, such as "General Relativity predicts the existence of black holes", but they never followup such statements with an actual quote from GR itself or Einstein's own denial that his GR predicts any such thing.

Sep 14, 2019
@Benni.

Actually Einstein never denied that general relativity predicted black holes. He just assumed they were an artifact of the mathematics.

Just because Einstein had doubts doesn't negate general relativity.

What you said is completely incorrect

Benni Quote:

"..but they never followup such statements with an actual quote from GR itself or Einstein's own denial that his GR predicts any such thing."

Sep 14, 2019
Erroneous, click bait title. This is not what the group propose, they just report a rate for later confirmation or rejection.

The proposed age of the article is impossible, since we both predict and observe stars older than that. The universe is 14 billion years old, but the physics for it while becoming that old is the area of investigation.

Sep 14, 2019
The thread is mostly unreadable: isn't it funny (and liberating) how blocking the persistent trolls painlessly removes 95 % as gibberish!?

But some gibberish remains:

Article should says that "longest distant light coming from universe is 2 billion light years shorter than 13.7 billion light years". The universe is very much vast and we are observing it by light wave only. You should not judge age of universe from light / photon observation.
If possible observe the universe with gravity wave (actual gravity wave), then even black hole (photon hole) will look transparent and we can see edge of graviton hole ( i.e. the universe).


In other words speed of gravity >>> speed of light


The many observations methods are not limited to visible light, they use the whole EM range and gravitational waves as well (which you somehow ask for, despite that being published for years now) - you may want to read why and how this science works.

And no, gravity speed is light's.

Sep 14, 2019
A gravity wave is a result of Gravity not the cause of Gravity.


And again!? Blocked for inane trolling.

A gravity wave is a meteorological phenomena. A gravitational wave on the other hand is a resonant wave in space, and as much as space is gravity according to general relativity it *is* gravity; the analogy transfer to quantum gravity too.

Sep 14, 2019
I will make the risky assumption that the universe is not expanding at all.


That would have you propose a physics that replace many predictions. Such as cosmological redshifts increasing with distance, the cosmic background radiation being 3 K instead of the 3,000 K it should be if not the universe had expanded 1,000 times since reionization, and in generally Olber's paradox - why is the night sky dark instead of radiating like the stars that you would inevitably eventually see in a static universe looking out in all directions.

Since you don't do any of that, we will simply note that your assumption is not risky but uninformed and failed.

Sep 14, 2019
What was taught (and still taught now) at school is crude and very primitive interpretations of theories of past centuries. For example, the "laws" of Newton. Or the "law" of Ohm. School books, and especially in physics, are rubbish. And the concept of vacuum - especially. Physics taught at school has lagged behind the forefront of science for centuries.


Yet science works. And despite an inevitable lag in school books they keep up with the science - which you obviously have not managed to do if you are so uninformed on science.

Sep 14, 2019
The proposed age of the article is impossible, since we both predict and observe stars older than that. The universe is 14 billion years old, but the physics for it while becoming that old is the area of investigation.

Hejsan tbl, time 14 B yrs since R4=0 assumes a thought experimental (vs physical GPS atomic) clock where its ticking rate (length of second, speed of light c and length definition of meter) has remained the same as arbitrarily defined recently. Using the total number of ticks since R4=0 multiplied by the 'tick length' of today's second would provide 14 B yrs. But the energy balance law of DU (noticed valid by Feynman in the special case of R4=0) reduces the expansion speed (decay rate of weak force, etc) C4 of R4 together with the accumulated time = age by the simple physical rules as outlined in DU. It has a cascade of concrete proofs since historical times and recent carbon dating of coral fossils, etc. resulting in dynamic age=2/3 R4/C4= 9.2 B yrs for R4=13.8 B ly.

Sep 14, 2019
Conformal expansion of 4-sphere in analogy to 3/4/5-D photogrammetry and array calculus. This topic is very hard to understand by physicists, math and other experts being a partial reason for the confusion especially in cosmology and astro-physics. I was fortunate to start studying this subject of advanced Gauss-Riemann surveying math science as a student of its ground-breaking scientists while developing its industrial applications in mapping projects of the Earth and space sciences. It earned my retirement 15 yrs ago and leisure hobby of reading recent space science literature. But after 2013 publishing of my 'final' word in photogrammetry I found out Suntola's work of DU - 'ruining' my leisure time to learn its advanced physics shared with you. Now I let you make your own studies of the combined DU & math photogrammetry via
https://www.degru...0032.pdf

Sep 14, 2019
This Campaign of Ignore: by torbjorn_b_g_larsson

A gravity wave is a result of Gravity not the cause of Gravity.


torbjorn_b_g_larsson> And again Blocked for inane trolling
A gravity wave is a meteorological phenomena
A gravitational wave on the other hand is a resonant wave in space
and as much as space is gravity according to general relativity
it is gravity
the analogy transfer to quantum gravity too

Really, torbjorn_b_g_larsson
Putting a commentator on ignore for commentating
Really takes the biscuit
All because
He said gravity wave
When discussing gravitational waves
If your ethos
Is to put fellow commentators
On ignore
For such a common infraction of common parlance
When you log on, torbjorn_b_g_larsson
Your phys.org is going to be a quiet lonely place
As your little circle of friends
Are put on this ignore
For little infractions of common parlance of speech

So go ahead torbjorn_b_g_larsson, maybe you're destined foreth thiseth monastic calling!

Sep 14, 2019
Why is the Universe is not Continuing to Expand at an ever Increasing Rate: by Surveillance_Egg_Unit

It isn't really expanding
Everything is simply 'flowing
Around a central point
And going round
And round that central point
Without stopping
Think of a Merry-go-round
Where the horses and riders
Galaxies and galaxy clusters
Are moving at a steady pace
The horses and riders
Are following each other
As they all keep moving around the centre of it
None of them can move out of sync
Either going too fast or too slow
Else there will be collisions
And mergers
But even despite those collisions
And mergers
The "ride" continues on without stopping
I doubt that they have discovered this yet
Because the 'method' is too orderly
And almost too precise
And we all know
That humans mostly prefer
The disorderly
And chaotic
For the 'surprise' effect
That it gives them

Sep 14, 2019
Unbelievable. You can buy the parts to prove Ohm's Law for under US$10. In fact, it's probably a lot less. Certainly it's one of the things any EE does in lab in the first year of class. Anyone inveighing against Ohm's Law gets the big horse laugh from anyone who knows anything about EE.

And BTW if Newton's Laws don't work, how come we got New Horizons to Pluto? Another horse laugh.

Silliness.

Sep 14, 2019
We are not living in the First Big Bang of our Universe by idjyit - part 1

The Universe is expanding
because it is growing proton
and lighter masses
which makes the entire universe lighter
expanding the Universe' zero weight aperture
Which is what we actually observe
at the photon weights scale
or better known as the EM field weight scale
The Universe
I.E. Visible Mass
is expanding SEU.
Space just keeps on going past
the zero weight boundary forever.
If it was even possible to leave space
our matter would unravel back to nothing.
If you can't handle the truth don't ask 8-)
Also
C is the photon
snap speed back to it's zero weight
space caused by proton destruction.
A photon released from a dark mass aperture trap
will keep accelerating
until it finds it's zero weight space
possibly much faster than C

Sep 14, 2019
We are not living in the First Big Bang of our Universe by idjyit - part 2

A gravity wave is a result of Gravity not the cause of Gravity.
And is the speed at which the gravitational force operates
No that is an assumption
Where is the peer reviewed paper
that proves G propagates at C
Especially in the Gravity weight space
LIGO will assume G propagates at C until proven otherwise.
Your problem
is you believe Government lies
about the Metric system that your Government pays for
and forces your teachers to sign non disclosures about as well.
No doubt you're one of the thieving maggots
that actually signed that Non Disclosure.
As a result you are the one spouting Gibberish
Even when
I
Who has been called Einstein
for the last 38 years
describe it simply
you still do not understand

Sep 14, 2019
Why is the Universe is not Continuing to Expand at an ever Increasing Rate: by Surveillance_Egg_Unit

It isn't really expanding
Everything is simply 'flowing
Around a central point
And going round
And round that central point
Without stopping
Think of a Merry-go-round
Where the horses and riders
Galaxies and galaxy clusters
Are moving at a steady pace
The horses and riders
Are following each other
As they all keep moving around the centre of it
None of them can move out of sync
Either going too fast or too slow
Else there will be collisions
And mergers
But even despite those collisions
And mergers
The "ride" continues on without stopping
I doubt that they have discovered this yet
Because the 'method' is too orderly
And almost too precise
And we all know
That humans mostly prefer
The disorderly
And chaotic
For the 'surprise' effect
That it gives them
........go granDy, all is flowing around a BARYCENTER inside a stellar island we call the Universe governed by the ENTROPY god.

Sep 14, 2019
^^^^^^^Lol. Nurse! They're out of bed again!

Sep 14, 2019
From my work it looks like the universe has size, but not age. The acceleration is from rotation. Please see, The Mass, Size, and Equilibrium Density of the Universe in a
Rotating Universe . For the variation in the Hubble constant, it looks like the gravity from adjacent universes causes the Hubble constant to be variable, depending on the distance from adjacent universes. Please see Sphere Theory Explains the Prevalence of the Golden Ratio in Nature .


The "rotation" to which you make reference is simply the mechanics of a BARYCENTER of orbital motion. In a barycenter of motion the distances from one galaxy to the next are constantly changing within galactic clusters, then they repeat a similar orbital path (rotation) about the center of mass over the course of a lifetime. Simplyexpand galctic cluster of motion to the so-called acceleration we see in all other galaxies & you have it, but this is not expansion, a Universe governed by ENTROPY cannot expand.

Sep 14, 2019
All is flowing around a BARYCENTER inside a stellar island we call the Universe governed by the ENTROPY god

........go granDy, all is flowing around a BARYCENTER inside a stellar island we call the Universe governed by the ENTROPY god

Why is the Universe is not Continuing to Expand at an ever Increasing Rate: by Surveillance_Egg_Unit

Everything is simply 'flowing
Around a central point
And going round
And round that central point
Without stopping
As they all keep moving around the centre of it
None of them can move out of sync

Flowing around a BARYCENTER inside a stellar island: by Benni

all is flowing
around a BARYCENTER
inside a stellar island
we call the Universe
governed by the ENTROPY god

There's magic a foot this night, Benni

Sep 14, 2019
@Benni.

Actually Einstein never denied that general relativity predicted black holes. He just assumed they were an artifact of the mathematics.
....and that's why he concluded "On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses" with this statement: "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality."

Just because Einstein had doubts doesn't negate general relativity.
"doesn't negate general relativity" because it never had anything to do with GR in the first place, it's all a matter of psycho-babblers like YOU who keep trying to insert it where Einstein himself states it has no place in his GR.

Einstein negates the BH singularity thus making the central construct to BH theory entirely absurd.


Sep 14, 2019
Castrogiovanni in his cot
cries out in the dead of night
^^^^^^^Lol. Nurse! They're out of bed again!

Sep 14, 2019
Sez the great granDY:

There's magic a foot this night, Benni
......the Entropy GOD demands it o'granDy one. The Entropy God can never be defeated, it is all powerful, it crushes ALL dissent making even powerful earthly souls look impotent (there's got to be a poem within these words of wit & wisdom granDy)

Sep 14, 2019
Benni
This collection of trillions of Galaxies
Are in a honey comb matrix
Held gravitationally together
That in this 15bilion Ly radius
As a total mass
Are in binary orbit with each other
Which as a collection
Of a 15bilion Ly radius of galaxies
Are in binary orbit around a central point

For this collective 15billion Ly radius of galaxies are occupying the vacuum of space

Sep 14, 2019
Watch this space, Benni
Sez the great granDY:

There's magic a foot this night, Benni
......the Entropy GOD demands it o'granDy one. The Entropy God can never be defeated, it is all powerful, it crushes ALL dissent making even powerful earthly souls look impotent (there's got to be a poem within these words of wit & wisdom granDy)

Fore the poem of entropy gods

Sep 14, 2019
@Benni

"This paper received no citations, and the conclusions are well understood to be wrong. Einstein's argument itself only shows that stable spinning objects have to spin faster and faster to stay stable before the point where they collapse. But it is well understood today (and was understood well by some even then) that collapse cannot happen through stationary states the way Einstein imagined. Nevertheless, the extent to which the models of black holes in classical general relativity correspond to physical reality remains unclear, and in particular the implications of the central singularity implicit in these models are still not understood.

Closely related to his rejection of black holes, Einstein believed that the exclusion of singularities might restrict the class of solutions of the field equations so as to force solutions compatible with quantum mechanics, but no such theory has ever been found."

https://en.wikipe...igations

Sep 14, 2019
This "constant" is anything but, and a misnomer. By the way, why is the universe continuing to expand at an ever increasing rate? DM is BS.
says Bart_A

It isn't really expanding. Everything is simply 'flowing' around a central point and going round and round that central point without stopping.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

Even for YOU, that's a loony assertion!
You respond to a loony assertion with an even more loony one.
The loons are all here commenting above.
says humy

Then why are YOU still commenting when there's nothing but loonies here? Unless you're a loony yourself?
As I told Bart, the Universe is not really expanding. It only SEEMS to be expanding due to Mass (in the form of galaxies) are in motion heading away from the observer.
What is perceived as expansion of the Universe is really only galaxies, clusters moving away BEYOND the observers' sight. The MW is merely following in their path behind them.
-contd-

Sep 14, 2019
@Benni

..... the extent to which the models of black holes in classical general relativity correspond to physical reality remains unclear, and in particular the implications of the central singularity implicit in these models are still not understood.
.....no jimbo, the models are not "unclear". There is NO model that substantiates ANY possibility that GRAVITY is NOT Mass Dependent, something BH Singularity requires for it's existence.

Closely related to his rejection of black holes, Einstein believed that the exclusion of singularities might restrict the class of solutions of the field equations so as to force solutions compatible with quantum mechanics, but no such theory has ever been found."
.....and in what section of Sr or GR did YOU find this? Or is it just another made up Wiki thing you're so fond of using for unnamed sourcing of your idiotic quotes?


Sep 14, 2019
-contd-
@humy
The 'oldest' galaxies in the Universe are far ahead of the MilkyWay and have gone around, or about to go around the 'bend'. Picture a circular racetrack where stock cars are racing each other. The ones out in front are leading the way and your car is following. But the ones that are out in front will have to steer a bit to the left or else they will hit the wall. YOUR car will also have to steer to the left and you are far behind the ones in front. Your car and all the others do this for many laps, endlessly.
The Universe has to be very much like a circular racetrack with galaxies far behind us that can't be seen, and those far ahead of us that we can see because they haven't gone around the bend yet.
Whether you choose to believe it or not, is not important to me. If there was nothing ahead but a straight path, where does that path lead? Think about it.
Some might say that it leads into another dimension or Universe. But it would have to be connected to this one.

Sep 14, 2019
The Universe has to be very much like a circular racetrack with galaxies far behind us that can't be seen, and those far ahead of us that we can see because they haven't gone around the bend yet.
.......the perfect description of a BARYCENTER of motion.

Sep 14, 2019
Watch this space, Benni
Sez the great granDY:


There's magic a foot this night, Benni
......the Entropy GOD demands it o'granDy one. The Entropy God can never be defeated, it is all powerful, it crushes ALL dissent making even powerful earthly souls look impotent (there's got to be a poem within these words of wit & wisdom granDy)

Fore the poem of entropy gods
....For which we await words of wit & wisdom satisfying the demands of the ENTROPY god in it's demands for our fealty of loyalty or be crushed by it's demands.

Sep 14, 2019
@Benni

Einstein knew general relativity was incomplete. He worked on a Theory of Everything for decades hoping that it would rid general relativity of singularities.

Coulomb's law has a singularity you know. When the scalar distance between two charges goes to zero the Force between the charges is not defined. It's also an inverse square law (your favorite). What happens when r squared goes to zero?

Do you not "believe" in Coulomb's Law?

How does one use Coulomb's Law when it has a singularity?

I'm guessing you are a fan of Coulomb's Law.
Because it's electric. Boogie woogie woogie.


Sep 14, 2019
The Universe has to be very much like a circular racetrack with galaxies far behind us that can't be seen, and those far ahead of us that we can see because they haven't gone around the bend yet.
.......the perfect description of a BARYCENTER of motion.
says Benni

IF there was such a thing as Universe/Space expansion, it could only be that the aforementioned Universal "racetrack" could widen, possibly making more room between the centre and the outermost region. But I don't think that would be necessary, as there is only a finite amount of normal Matter/Energy at ~5% and the remainder is the 'vacuous vacuum'. Everything is fairly well balanced regarding distances between bodies of Mass. And the Clocks are all running well. :)

Sep 14, 2019
Going back to the possibility that the Universe is 2 billion years younger, that is not possible - it is far older than even 13.8 billion years. This is for the simple reason that immediately after the Universe was created, there were no Stars, planets, galaxies. There was Matter and Energy that was still loosely spread out in the vacuum, and had yet to accrete to become the first Stars. Then, it took a very long time for the accretion of dust and gases to come together to form the first Stars. The dust/gas had to be just the right amount of Hydrogen that would start the Fission process that would lead to Fusion of Helium.
There was plenty of Hydrogen available, but no heavy elements yet. Given the time that it takes for all of these initial processes to work out successfully until now, it should be somewhere between 50 - 100 billion Earth years in length since the Big Bang/creation.
After the first billion Stars and planets formed, then came Life.

Sep 15, 2019
Time Runs like a River: Stephen Hawkins's Universe

This is the is the global positioning system or GPS
A network of 36 global positioning satellites around the earth
Satellites make satellite navigation possible
But this also reveals time runs faster up here
Than it does down on earth
Inside each space craft is a very precise clock
But despite being so accurate
They all gain around a 1/3 of billionth of a second every day
The system has to correct for drift
Otherwise that drift would upset the whole system
Causing every GPS devise on earth to go out by about six miles a day
You can just imagine the may hem that would cause
The problem doesn't lie with the clocks they run fast
Because time runs faster up here than it does down below
And the reason for this extraordinary fact is the mass of the earth
Einstein realised matter drags on time
Slows it down like the slow part of a river
The heavier the object the more it drags it drags on time
This opens the possibility of time travel

Sep 15, 2019
Can you not see?

Inside each space craft is a very precise clock
But despite being so accurate
They all gain around a 1/3 of billionth of a second every day
The system has to correct for drift
Otherwise that drift would upset the whole system
Causing every GPS devise on earth to go out by about six miles a day!

Can you not see what is happening here?
If these satellites keep in time with this very precise clock
Maintain their velocity to keep in time with this very precise clock
They will move over this earth a difference of about six miles a day
The problem doesn't lie with the clocks they run fast
Because time runs faster up here than it does down below
And the reason for this extraordinary fact is the mass of the earth
Einstein realised matter drags on time
Slows it down like the slow part of a river

Fore Can You Not See
The mass of earth's gravity is affecting this very precise clock
There by making these satellites miss their target by six miles a day


Sep 15, 2019
Satellites keeping in time with this very precise clock

Foreth: these satellites keeping in time with this very precise clock
Where by
This very precise clock
Varies it time
Depending on altitude from planet earth
Making these satellites
Miss their target by 6 miles a day
This meaneths
This spatial distance
These 2 points on earth
This satellite travels between
Did not change in accordance with Albert's relativity
For if this spatial distance between A and B changed in keeping with this very precise clock
These satellites would not miss their target by six miles a day!

Satellites keeping in time with this very precise clock

Sep 15, 2019
] The Universe has to be very much like a circular racetrack with galaxies far behind us that can't be seen, and those far ahead of us that we can see because they haven't gone around the bend yet.
.......the perfect description of a BARYCENTER of motion.
says Benni

IF there was such a thing as Universe/Space expansion, it could only be that the aforementioned Universal "racetrack" could widen, possibly making more room between the centre and the outermost region. But I don't think that would be necessary, as there is only a finite amount of normal Matter/Energy at ~5% and the remainder is the 'vacuous vacuum'. Everything is fairly well balanced regarding distances between bodies of Mass. And the Clocks are all running well. :)


It's called ENTROPY, the greatest & most high source of the immutable sustenance of the Universe that Pop-Cosmology NEVER wants to talk about, right Jimbobobber?

Sep 15, 2019
@Benni

Why are you addressing me. Why not address my comment instead of changing the subject.
You know the statement I made that Coulomb's Law has a singularity when r = 0.

Sep 15, 2019
jimmybobber
9 hours ago
@Benni

Einstein knew general relativity was incomplete.
.......no, he didn't know any such thing, you just made that up as is characteristic of the proclivities of almost everything Pop-Cosmology aficionados do.

He worked on a Theory of Everything for decades hoping that it would rid general relativity of singularities.
......and where in anything Einstein ever wrote did you find the singularity issue within the content of GR? Quote us the section this is found in GR?

Pop-Cosmology acolytes, like you, put up arguments hoping the words you put into the mouths of reknown scientists can create enough head spin as to become believable by the casual reader.

Everytime I challenge you to Copy & Paste the relevant sections of SR or GR for your off the wall conclusions, you punt by quoting some Wiki source who also doesn't quote the appropriate sections.

Sep 15, 2019
@Benni

Why are you addressing me. Why not address my comment instead of changing the subject.
You know the statement I made that Coulomb's Law has a singularity when r = 0.
.....engaging in psycho-babble is a fruitless pursuit of time, but that's why you do it, it's the only means you have to counter the immutable laws of physics that you abhor, such as ENTROPY.

You hate ANYTHING that carves out even the smallest framework on which the immutable fantasies of Pop-Cosmology are based for which you can find zero (0) evidence based on REAL science, so what do you do? You knowingly credit reknown works of science with CONTENT that doesn't exist, DECEPTION is the label for doing this.

Sep 15, 2019
Need to understand that radiated frequencies appear and can travel independent of source. Additionally, we can only measure what we can see of the observable universe. Some of the radiated frequencies we are could have been travelling for trillions of years prior to coming into our view within our observable universe. Measuring the redshift wave lengths or changing brightness of deep space light can only provide us a window into the distance we can perceive from within our observable universe; which appears to be about 14 billion years, give or take a few billion.
Example: As light waves or radio frequencies travel independent of their source and make there way into our observable universe, we have a limited expectation of when and where they began. As the light of our galaxy travels beyond our observable universe, other radiated signals from beyond our observable universe are free to enter.
Remember to qualify measurements as not to the age of the universe, but to what we can see.

Sep 15, 2019
This 'double image' of object in terms of DU 4-sphere is illustrated in DU book fig. 6.4.2-1. The Max P. Institute article appears to make traditional GR based mistakes shown in Section 6.2.3 of expanding (gravitationally vs EM bound) objects in DU space using the angular size measures near galaxies and quasars with gravitational lensing. See also Fig 6.2.2-1 to understand the key distance measure of optical distance D to determine the deceleration rate dC4/C4 and relative expansion distance H0=dR4/R4 at various D values from todays R4=13.8 B ly. SEU, Gran and Benny could modify the carousel illustration in terms of the 4/5-D expansion of DU. After some 5-6 years of spending my leisure time in studies of Suntola DU I don't want to confuse you with my understanding of these profound new concepts - you may have to retire yourself to find some time to learn DU...

Sep 15, 2019
The Speed of Light is Identified with the Speed of Expansion: by Tuomo Suntola

Tuomo Suntola born in 1943
Is a Finnish industrial and academic researcher
Inventor and lecturer
His research is in semiconductor physics
And
More recently
Cosmology

The Dynamic Universe (DU) theory is a holistic description of the observable Universe

In recent years
Suntola has become increasingly engaged in issues around cosmological problems
In which he sought a holistic view
Of observable physical reality
And the concept of relativity
He believes that The Dynamic Universe
presents such a perspective
In the Dynamic Universe
The DU model
He converts Einstein's space-time
In dynamic coordinates
To dynamic space in absolute coordinates
Instead of curving the space coordinates
To conform to observations
As in the theory of relativity
He treats the universe itself as dynamic
The universe expands
And
The speed of light is identified with the speed of expansion
In DU, the speed of light is not constant

Sep 15, 2019
@Benni

This entropy that you speak of.
Please tell us how you calculate it without mathematics.


Sep 15, 2019
The Dynamic Universe (DU) theory is a holistic description of the observable Universe

For Anonym262722
Is this was you believe: The Speed of Light is Identified with the Speed of Expansion

If we don't hear anything we'll take that as a yes!


Sep 15, 2019
The DU balancing principle of positive motion and negative gravitational energies of the total energized mass M= 2.3 10^ 53 kg ties the expansion speed C4 OF space or rest energy M C4^2 with 4-radius R4 of the gravitational equation G M M"/R4 between M and M"=0.776 M mass equivalence of whole space in center of 4-sphere. Solving C4 = sqrt(GM"/R4) =300,000 km/s or it equals the speed of light c IN homogeneous space. Adding local mass structures provides the local c as function of C4 and the local motion & gravitational states, typically within 1 ppm from C4. This means that also C slows down as R4 expands - but you cannot locally observe dC as the frequency of physical atomic clock (say in GPS) is slowing down at the same rate (together with other atomic processes such as decay rate). GR postulate of constant c is the biggest 'epicycle mistake' of past 400-500 yrs - but who dares to say this to avoid the fate of Bruno, Galileo and others or being jailed as annoying Mouse by PO cops.

Sep 15, 2019
jimmybobber
2 hours ago
@Benni

This entropy that you speak of.
Please tell us how you calculate it without mathematics.
.........it figures that only an aficionado of Pop-Cosmology would ask a question containing it's own contradiction. Hey, jimbo, how can you READ without the use of WORDS?

Sep 15, 2019
But you didn't answer the question: how do you calculate entropy without math?

Sep 15, 2019
Definition of entropy:

A thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work.

Now, define thermal energy and work without numbers.

Sep 15, 2019
Definition of entropy:

A thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work.

Now, define thermal energy and work without numbers.
......you just did it: "A thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work." but could repeat it it so you couldn't prattle on that I won't answer your question: A thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work.

Sep 15, 2019
But you dodged the question: define work and energy without numbers.

Otherwise you might as well say that entropy is the blork of the spingule. It has as much meaning as your bloviation.

Sep 15, 2019
@Benni While your calculating.

Please calculate the entropy of a standard deck of 52 playing cards in unknown order without numbers and formula.

Sep 15, 2019
But you dodged the question: define work and energy without numbers.

Otherwise you might as well say that entropy is the blork of the spingule. It has as much meaning as your bloviation.
.....I defined ENTROPY without using numbers & now you're complaining that I did, and I even used your own quote.

Sep 15, 2019
But your definition was circular. It's meaningless.

And you still haven't defined work or energy without numbers.

Sep 15, 2019
We know what the definition is Benni. Now calculate the entropy.

I think we are close to seeing the Benni bot break down, start talking like a child, refer to himself in the third person, and disappear for a few days.

Sep 15, 2019
But your definition was circular. It's meaningless.

And you still haven't defined work or energy without numbers.
.....then so is yours meaningless, after all I copied what you wrote, now you complain. Try placing copy protection on what you write?

Sep 15, 2019
Mine is defined: energy and work have numbers, and that means they must be dealt with using math. You're the one trying to pretend math doesn't work.

Sep 15, 2019
@Benni While your calculating.

Please calculate the entropy of a standard deck of 52 playing cards in unknown order without numbers and formula.
......you're asking because you don't know how, I can understand that. You don't know how & willingly accede to one of a higher level of accomplishment, but jimbo, you can't even get 1/0 figured out so how could I expect you to follow the answer to this question?

Sep 15, 2019
Define work and energy without numbers, in any way that permits predictions of the outcomes of experiments.

Or, going with @jimmybobber's question, that predicts the fall of the cards.

Waiting over here, @Benni.

Sep 15, 2019
....I defined ENTROPY without using numbers & now you're complaining that I did, and I even used your own quote.
Your definition included the word "quantity" which is as numerical as it gets...

Sep 15, 2019
Wondering how someone that hates and can't do math got a degree in any kind of engineering.

Sep 15, 2019
This Entropy God

The unavailability
Of thermal energies
Conversion into mechanical work
But this Universe
Is not continuing to Expand
At an ever Increasing Rate
Everything simply flowing
Around a central point
Without stopping
Fore Entropy
Is the available of the proton
And its scrumptious electron
So far removed from one another
In this vacuum of space
That this proton and scrumptious cannot join
In holy union
in holy matrimony
For in this infinite eternal vacuum of space
These protons and scrumptious electron always attract
For ever increasing mass in this infinite eternal vacuum
The very antipathy of entropy
For in this infinite vacuum
If these protons are too far removed
From their scrumptious
They decay
Into particles
Electrons, neutrinos
That day when these electrons
Meet a lonely proton in this vacuum
Start this cycle of conglomeration again
Matter rotating around its Barycentre

This Entropy God: In battle with this proton attracted to its scrumptious forever conglomerating

Sep 15, 2019
@Benni
I do know what is and I'm going to show you how to "calculate" it.

A deck of 52 playing cards in unknown order has a total of 52 factorial possible combinations.
Therefore the entropy is log base 2 (52!) which equals approximately 225. The entropy 225 is understood to be the amount of bits needed to store 52 factorial states where a bit can be 0 or 1.

Sep 15, 2019
@Benni

Similar to bits in a computer. If I need to store a value between 0 through 7 I would need 8 states therefore the entropy would equal log base 2 (8) = 3 bits to store a value between 0 through 7.

000 = 0
001 = 1
010 = 2
011 = 2 + 1 = 3
100 = 4
101 = 4 + 1 = 5
110 = 4 + 2 = 6
111 = 4 + 2 + 1 = 7

3 bits of information to store 8 states

Sep 15, 2019
@Benni
I do know what is and I'm going to show you how to "calculate" it.

A deck of 52 playing cards in unknown order has a total of 52 factorial possible combinations.
Therefore the entropy is log base 2 (52!) which equals approximately 225. The entropy 225 is understood to be the amount of bits needed to store 52 factorial states where a bit can be 0 or 1.
....if you think this is the correct answer, then why did you bother to ask in the first place?

Sep 15, 2019
@Benni

Because I want you to prove you know what your talking about.
You clearly don't because you can't do simple math.

Sep 15, 2019
@Benni can't do math and doesn't know what a factorial signifies. Nor what the difference is between number of combinations and number of permutations. ;)

Why anyone who doesn't know the basics of statistics is bloviating about entropy, err, escapes me. Pun intended.

Sep 15, 2019
@Benni

Because I want you to prove you know what your talking about.
You clearly don't because you can't do simple math.
...why do you think your answer is right?

Sep 15, 2019
...why do you think your answer is right?
Because it's proven by experiment. I can do the math and I did. @Proto is right. It's pretty easy stuff. And I'm pretty good at poker and bridge, not to mention pinochle and piquet. We played them in my house when I was a kid.

Why do you think yours is?

Sep 15, 2019
So you have no explanation for your views, and downvote?

Coward. Your bullshit is exposed and you're flailing. I'll just keep beating up on you until you use up all your downvotes and they stop working. Prepare to be heavily trolled.

Sep 15, 2019
What we have!

000 = 0
001 = 1
010 = 2
011 = 2 + 1 = 3
100 = 4
101 = 4 + 1 = 5
110 = 4 + 2 = 6
111 = 4 + 2 + 1 = 7

What we have is an ever increasing set of numbers!
Increasing numbers do not have anything of relevance in Entropy
Now ever decreasing numbers, maybe
As these numbers decrease as they disperse in this Vacuum of Entropy
But, Increasing numbers
Is this proton and scrumptious conglomerating in their trillions in this vacuum

Which is why jimmybobber, we are here, on this Earth, this conglomerated Earth
Fore conglomerating, if Entropy was this end in this vacuum

if Entropy was this End, we would have Ceased to Exist, Trillions of Years Ago, Jimmybobber!

Sep 16, 2019
"The huge swings in scientists' estimates—even this new calculation could be off by billions of years—reflect different approaches to the tricky problem of figuring the universe's real age."

The very fact that humans are aware of the 24 hour clock that is the sole measurement of the length of Earth's rotation and its sunrise to sunrise daily cycle has made that extraordinary measurement the only one available for the measurement of age everywhere else in the Universe.
A billion years on Earth, provided that there hasn't been any fluctuations/disturbances in the sunrise to sunrise cycle/rotation of the planet, would not necessarily be the very SAME billion years out there in the Cosmos. As has been previously stated, ALL planets and Stars have differing rotational periods from all the rest. So that what humans consider as a billion years, may be more than or less than a billion elsewhere or anywhere else.
What I am saying is that the true AGE OF THE UNIVERSE can never be known.

Sep 16, 2019
Science may say that the Universe is approximately 13.7 billions of years old, but science is only going by the measurements that are derived from the physical influences of one tiny planet that lives in one tiny corner of a tiny galaxy. We cannot SEE to the ends of the Universe, even with the best space telescopes. So, what does it all mean to say that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old?
That is the number that they have settled on -- for now.
I believe it to be far older since the beginning.

Sep 16, 2019

@SEU
Books are amazing things. They contain knowledge. Seek them out and learn things.
-- jimmyblobber.
Books contain information. Knowledge depends on your capacity to read, comprehend, analyze and question that information. All of which, you most certainly, lack. Why bother seeking them out, you can't learn anything.

Sep 16, 2019
These Conglomerated protons and their electrons in this Infinite Vacuum

SEU> Science may say that the Universe is approximately 13.7 billions of years old

SEU, as these conglomerating
Protons and scrumptious electrons
Are spread throughout this vacuum
This infinite vacuous vacuum
Fore if we did not already know
This infinite vacuum
By its definition, Infinite
Is infinitely bigger
Than 15Billion Lys
For these protons and scrumptious electrons
Being as they are spread throughout this infinite vacuum
Like our earth
Our universe
Is not the only Conglomeration of protons and their electrons in this Infinite Vacuum

Fore, SEU,
It is arrogance
Equivalent to this earth centric single earth
To say this 15billion conglomeration
To be this one
This only one

So, fore ever hold your peace
For this earth is this centre of this vacuum
As this earth is this only one

Sep 16, 2019
@Benni

Similar to bits in a computer. If I need to store a value between 0 through 7 I would need 8 states therefore the entropy would equal log base 2 (8) = 3 bits to store a value between 0 through 7.

000 = 0
001 = 1
010 = 2
011 = 2 + 1 = 3
100 = 4
101 = 4 + 1 = 5
110 = 4 + 2 = 6
111 = 4 + 2 + 1 = 7

3 bits of information to store 8 states
........and the ONLY place you can find ENTROPY is in a deck of cards? But not within the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

Why won't you & the rest of the Pop-Cosmology acolytes living here, make ANY reference to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as you muddle on with your psycho-babble?

Ah yes, ENTROPY, that great cosmic force governing the highest stretches of the Universe as well as the lowest in a deck of cards. As inanimate as it is, still it governs every move you make, the greatest immutable overseer of the Universe, unshakeable as it is, so much in evidence all about us that it even exists in a deck of cards.


Sep 16, 2019
So what? The 2LOT governs gravity too. Are you claiming it doesn't?

Sep 16, 2019
Entropy: by jimmybobber

000 = 0
001 = 1
010 = 2
011 = 2 + 1 = 3
100 = 4
101 = 4 + 1 = 5
110 = 4 + 2 = 6
111 = 4 + 2 + 1 = 7

For who knows, in this mathematical, wonder land world, of Alice

Sep 16, 2019
LOL, ever hear of potential energy? C'mon, downvote me again. I dare you.

Sep 16, 2019
@Benni

Nobody claimed "the ONLY place you can find ENTROPY is in a deck of cards"
Except you.

I gave you an simple example to calculate entropy.

I was being generous taking time out of my day to show you the solution. Hoping that you would actually try to understand it and learn something.

Oh well. That is your loss.

Keep bloviating.

Sep 16, 2019
@granville

You are cherry picking what I wrote. That is dishonest.
Typical of you.

Sep 16, 2019
SEU: This Universe is not an Entity: It does not exist

SEU> Science may say that the Universe is approximately 13.7 billions of years old
So, what does it all mean to say that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old?
I believe it to be far older since the beginning.

This Universe is simply a "noun"
Describing our collection of conglomerating galaxies
Where our galaxies occupy this vacuum
It is these galaxies that are moving in relation to one and other
This Universe, SEU
Is a descriptive, a noun
Which we use, to call our collection, of our conglomerating galaxies

This Universe is not an Entity: It does not exist, our Galaxies do!

Sep 16, 2019
This "Universe"

When dealing with these aspects of atoms occupying this vacuum
These terms we use
When these atoms
In this infinite vacuum
Form clumps of matter
By electrical and gravitational attraction

Foreth:
If everyone has not already noticed
As we are discussing atoms occupying this vacuum
We are discussing conglomeration
Not expansion
For if you also have not already noticed
This "Universe" does not come into this discussion at all

This "Universe"

Sep 16, 2019
This Jargon that is Science

This "Universe"
Is one of these words
These jargonistic words
That we use
That now
As we have got lost
In this jargonistic world
This jargonistic "Universe"
For this noun, "Universe"
Has provided sucker
To this infinite, infinity of infinite theories, in this infinite vacuum

This Jargon that is Science

Sep 16, 2019
Locally, does human activity increase or decrease the entropy of the universe?

Is a broken coffee mug, and the time required for it to randomly reassemble itself, a proper measure of the local entropy?

Sep 16, 2019
The dynamic age of universe is tied to the accelerating/decelerating speed C4 of R4 as the square root of G M M"/R4 had the negative sign before R4=0 and positive since then for 9.2B yrs to reach R4=13.8B ly. It is easy see that the age was -infinite before the bounce (BB replacement) and we have a long way to reach age of +infinite. Use the elementary rule for "real" cosmic space travel to the past or future for any C4 increase/decrease by factor 1/k to get present R4 and T4 values multiplied by k^2 and k^3, respectively. See my past example for 2C4 of R4/4 and T4/8, z=3, D=3/4R4_today. Note the 'change of arrow of time' at R4=4 as the 3rd power of C4 to get T4 changed its sign together with C4. Use this math to compute the DU travel time from D=900 Mpc of Max P Institute - GR is not far off. Project this D=900 Mpc to future to get third derivative of deceleration - local GR estimate is still ok! DU is indeed a unifying theory.

Sep 16, 2019
'Note the 'change of arrow of time' at R4=4 as the 3rd power' , typo of R4=0

Sep 16, 2019
ENTROPY in this 15Billion Ly Radius Universe

Benni> Ah yes, ENTROPY, that great cosmic force governing the highest stretches of the Universe

The Third law of thermodynamics
The Entropy of a system approaches a constant value as its temperature approaches absolute zero.

For in this vacuum
In these cubic metres of vacuum
There exist single atoms
If you take this 15Bllion Ly radius Universe
Add up all this matter
Its density is 3x10-28 kg/m³
For an electron is 9.1x10-31kg
For this implies 330 electrons a cubic metre

For if you believe this Fallacy
That in every Cubic Metre, there exist 330 Electrons, in this 15billion Ly radius Universe
For all of this Entropy
Is the Hogwash it deserves to be
For there are More than 330 Electrons
In a Single Hair of your Little Toe

Sep 16, 2019
The Moral of this Entropy Hogwash

In this vacuum
There exist atoms
That our atmosphere
Makes these atoms
Appear vacuous

But no matter how vacuous
Our vacuum appears to be
There exists, not metres away
Matter so tightly bound together
That this density is just a Fallacy

For even surrounding these questionable blackholes
Is a density in the surrounding vacuum approaching one atom a cubic metre

For this Entropy
This Entropy Hogwash, is not Achievable in this Vacuum, even if its radius was 15Trillion Billion Lys

Sep 16, 2019
Granville reported for spam.

Sep 16, 2019
The Moral of this Entropy
In this vacuum
there exist atoms
that our atmosphere
makes these atoms
appear vacuous

jimmybobber> Granville reported for spam.

and now in this vacuous vacuum
there exists
an ethos
that if this matter
occupying this vacuum
is stretched
out so far
it existed as one atom every cubic metre
according to: professor jimmybobber
this reality of physics is spam
Spam, a sad end, to this heat death, of this universe

Sep 16, 2019
Granville583762 put on ignore list months ago.

Sep 16, 2019
Dear Professor Jimmybobber

Of all the words that have been spoken on this phys.org
That would make Beelzebub blush
So to drive a point home
Not in anyone's wildest dreams
Would any one dream
That the word hogwash was in included in these Beelzebub expletives
For in these gentler times, jimmybobber
Far more expletive words are still spoken
Than the word, hogwash
For this example of angelically gentleness
We at phys.org
Knight you with this sword, of honesty, truth and of spoken word

Sep 16, 2019
@granville

You are cherry picking what I wrote. That is dishonest.
Typical of you.
Jimbo.....just like your deck of cards.

Sep 16, 2019
@granville

You are cherry picking what I wrote. That is dishonest.
Typical of you.
Jimbo.....just like your deck of cards.


At least Jimmy is playing with a full deck!

Sep 16, 2019
@Benni, still waiting for your energy and entropy without numbers.

Also noticed you don't want to talk about gravitational entropy.

Sep 16, 2019
Entropy: by jimmybobber

000 = 0
001 = 1
010 = 2
011 = 2 + 1 = 3
100 = 4
101 = 4 + 1 = 5
110 = 4 + 2 = 6
111 = 4 + 2 + 1 = 7

For who knows, in this mathematical, wonder land world, of Alice
.......and all the wonders she brings us, that inanimate god ENTROPY genderless as it is, ruling from the highest heights of the Universe to the lowest suits contained within a deck of cards, all pervasive ENTROPY that great force distributing energy to the furthest bounds of it's kingdom.

Yes, the ENTROPY god, it does not ask your fealty, it simply takes it, forcing you to bow so low & you don't even know you're doing it as you do it. Yes, ENTROPY, the inanimate energy distribution source that gives you sustenance when you eat, as you eat you partake of ENTROPY be it a cracker or a steak (my favorite).

Jimbobobby, you should be thankful ENTROPY is not limited to a deck of cards, otherwise you may not make it to your next cracker, and me to my next steak.

Sep 16, 2019
@Benni
You fool. You aren't getting it. The entropy example was not about the cards.
It was about information and disorder.
The entropy in my example is directly analogous to statistical thermodynamics.

Sep 16, 2019
@Benni
. You aren't getting it. The entropy example was not about the cards.
It was about information and disorder.
The entropy in my example is directly analogous to statistical thermodynamics.
.....and jimbobobby is on to his next cracker.

Sep 16, 2019
Jimmybobbers's full deck

@granville
You are cherry picking what I wrote. That is dishonest.
Typical of you.

Entropy: by jimmybobber

Similar to bits in a computer. If I need to store a value between 0 through 7 I would need 8 states therefore the entropy would equal log base 2 (8) = 3 bits to store a value between 0 through 7.

000 = 0
001 = 1
010 = 2
011 = 2 + 1 = 3
100 = 4
101 = 4 + 1 = 5
110 = 4 + 2 = 6
111 = 4 + 2 + 1 = 7

3 bits of information to store 8 states

For who knows, in this mathematical, wonder land world, of Alice
To winkle out this mind set behind this mathematics
For Entropy is more than statistical bits

@ Castrogiovanni
At least Jimmy is playing with a full deck!

Who brought the cards in!

Sep 16, 2019
I found this link for you Benni and Granville.
You fools.
http://www.scienc...entropy/

Sep 16, 2019
ENTROPY is not limited to a deck of card: by Benni

.......and all the wonders she brings us
that inanimate god ENTROPY
genderless as it is
ruling from the highest heights
of the Universe
to the lowest suits
contained within a deck of cards
all pervasive ENTROPY
that great force
distributing energy
To the furthest bounds of it's kingdom.

Yes, the ENTROPY god
it does not ask your fealty
it simply takes it
forcing you to bow so low
& you don't even know
you're doing it
as you do it
Yes, ENTROPY
the inanimate energy distribution source
that gives you sustenance
when you eat
as you eat
you partake of ENTROPY
be it a cracker
Or a steak (my favourite).

Sep 16, 2019
Watch this space, Benni

There's magic a foot this night, Benni
Fore this poem of entropy gods
Is a poem of your own making, Benni
Transcribed and unedited in text
ENTROPY is not limited to a deck of card: by Benni, cannot be bettered

Sep 16, 2019
ENTROPY is not limited to a deck of card: by Benni

.......and all the wonders she brings us
that inanimate god ENTROPY
genderless as it is
ruling from the highest heights
of the Universe
to the lowest suits
contained within a deck of cards
all pervasive ENTROPY
that great force
distributing energy
To the furthest bounds of it's kingdom.

Yes, the ENTROPY god
it does not ask your fealty
it simply takes it
forcing you to bow so low
& you don't even know
you're doing it
as you do it
Yes, ENTROPY
the inanimate energy distribution source
that gives you sustenance
when you eat
as you eat
you partake of ENTROPY
be it a cracker
Or a steak (my favourite).
granDDDDDDy.......I knew you could do it.

Sep 16, 2019
Gran, Benny

This entropy stuff was created when, according to outdated GR/QM, the speed of light c and its source of C4 (due to energy balancing principle of entire energized mass M in universe) feeding the energy interactions ruled for ever vs. gradually dying out. This still may be true at the mighty energy levels of C, C4 of R4 less than R4_present/4, not too far from our Max P Institute example of observable D= 907Mpc. Entropy theory needs be revised according to DU principles. So, Gran, after studying DU you may want to add one more verse to your poetry. See the puny DU energy level M C4^2 already when C4=C4_present/2 at T4=8 times 9.2= 73.6 B yrs - when boogie-boarding spirits of rr_Mousie and JD buddies would cry about the puny effect of their bomb! After Earth with mankind of other habitable planets are already destroyed due to past and today's infighting with silly religious & political beliefs of cosmological faiths...Amen.

Sep 17, 2019
Entropy theory needs be revised according to DU principles: by Anonym262722

This entropy stuff
was created when
according to
outdated GR
QM
the speed of light c
and its source of C4
due to energy balancing principle
of
entire energized mass M
in universe
feeding the energy interactions
ruled for ever
vs
gradually dying out
This still may be true
At
the mighty energy levels
of C
C4
of R4
less than R4_present/4
not too far from our Max P Institute example
of observable D= 907Mpc
Entropy theory needs be revised
according to DU principles
So
Gran
after studying DU
you may want to add
one more verse to your poetry
See the puny DU energy level M C4^2
already when C4=C4_present/2
at T4=8 times 9.2= 73.6 B yrs
when boogie
boarding spirits
of rr
Mousie
and JD buddies
would cry about
the puny effect of their bomb
After Earth
with mankind
of other
habitable planets
are already destroyed
due to past
and today's infighting
with silly religious
&
political beliefs
of cosmological faiths
...Amen

Sep 17, 2019
ENTROPY is not limited to a deck of card: by Benni

.......and all the wonders she brings us
that inanimate god ENTROPY

granDDDDDDy.......I knew you could do it.

Thanks, Benni!!!!!!

Sep 20, 2019
@granville

You are cherry picking what I wrote. That is dishonest.
Typical of you.
Jimbo.....just like your deck of cards.


At least Jimmy is playing with a full deck!

How would you know. Are you his queen or joker?

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