Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

It's an interesting piece but there are even misleading elements to it, no one has proven black holes exist, has ever seen one or detected one. That is the scientific fact. So the line Hawking proved Hawking radiation in black holes when black holes have not been proven, they are entirely theoretical. It lends to the view that Black holes are proven to exist. This is true for so many pieces on line and quite a bit of stuff, even some on the Princeton Astrophysics website is actually incorrect and proven to be wrong in labs yet there it is for people to read.

As for singularities, they are generally accepted not to exist and there is good reason, special relativity does not allow for infinite mass with infinite density.
Another black hole question is why the maths says the escape velocity of a black hole is equal to the speed of light in a vacuum. But black hole theory says not even light can escape so.. wtf.

The sun's model as we currently believe it to be looks to be shot down. Lack of Neutrinos, photosphere 6,000 degrees, yet further out, 10,000 degrees and further out still 1,000,000 degrees. This really does suggest the hat does not come form the core, fusion does not work like that at all. The heat comes from the core.
And the movement within the sun is not enough to transfer that energy to the surface now it seems. 20-100 times less convection.

For me dark matter never made sense. it's too convenient and only backed by math and a lensing affect that could literally be anything we've not thought of yet, funnily enough discovered by the same japanese guy who got a nobel for figuring out only a third of the neutrinos the sun should have been emitting were reaching earth.

New studies suggest redshift which we use to determine distance might actually be detecting age rather than distance which is massive if true, out goes big bang, inflation theory and a lot of other stuff.

"Stephen Hawking, the British physicist, proved that black holes leak—the seepage is called Hawking radiation—and given enough time, will evaporate entirely."
This is misleading, no one has proven black holes exist, never seen one or detected one. That's scientific fact. This gives the impression he has proven black holes exist, of which he certainly has not.

 

Will all these black holes not bend time and space that much that, eventually, after having hovered up all the matter in universe they'll eventually all join up - perhaps causing the singularity to burst in a, er, big bang?

 

Don`t worry Sisu, Nibiru is due to pass this way in the near future and then the Nephilim will come down and make all this obvious to us. I Recommend you watch Ancient Aliens, there are some very convincing arguments on there (including photos of cave drawings and carvings depicting helicopters and astronaughts) which prove todays accepted science is totelly wrong and needs a complete rethink.

 

I often wonder what caused the big bang in a total void (nothing existed before time) and where did this void exist, or to put it another way what is outside the universe that could have caused it to be borne.

 

Or is it all really a fable constructed to obscure our misunderstandings? Is astrophysics a conspiracy? Who knows

 

Dave, we have learnt a lot but know **** all!

 

Dave it's not conspiracy, it's just human nature and astrophysics is a dogma. to question the mainstream view is now heresy.

What happens when those that peer review others are judging their peers by their own beliefs, as in how can a physicists get a paper published on black holes not existing if the career of the peer reviewer is totally based on such assumptions.? Gal-Yam is a perfect example of this at the Weismann institute in Israel. He's in with the Hawking gang they all love each others work, how the **** are new ideas meant to get any traction if it goes against what they believe.

Or take you, anything you don't agree with is crap. Imagine you were peer reviewing stuff

 

This is true. To think that in our wee cameo of a few hundred years have igured out the universe even it's beginnings is insane.

I am of the assumption that science has no ****ing idea what happened 1 second after a big bang that probably never happened.

Red shift shows Universe age not distance goes the new theory. IN that case there was no big bang, such a ****ing stupid idea anyway, something appearing out of nothing, more magic like dark matter if you ask me, infinite density is more magic to make equations work.

 

But, age IS distance

#devilsadvocate

 

Explain? do you mean age is distance as in expansion theory?

you are totally right being objective lad

 

Sounds right to me......

 

Yes that's how it currently goes. But..

This is born out of inflation theory which is borne of big bang theory which is born of redshift.

Age is not equal to distance btw even in redshift, red is moving away and the more red the further it is, same with blue, actually has nothing to do with age if the universe is not actually expanding, it's all based on that assumption.

So in a literal sense age is not actually distance, you need to add expansion theory for that to be assumed.

Redshift is being questioned as new quasars are shown to be so much closer than previously thought, born of newer active galaxies, this throws redshift out the window as these quasars were deemed to be the oldest things in the galaxy

 

Halton Arp worked on this, namely quasars being closer to galaxies than thought even though redshift says they were billions of light years distant from each other.

I guess the question is, and it's a a biggie, is redshift actually telling us distance or age, are not the same. Age and Distance have been made synonymous with expansion and big bang theory. But the actual reality could be that the quasar is just a lot older than a nearby galaxy, maybe the quasars have something to do with galaxy evolution or certain galaxy type evolution, no idea tbh

My biggest issue with our predictions is our window of reference, it is a split second in galactic timescales. In that context we should never assume we are correct with theoretical theory. We could be wrong about almost everything and to not think in that way causes something to be lost in science,a critical objectivity.

Those that are objective, like those in Electric Universe theory are almost accused of heresy. Astrophysics still does not account for the work of Plasma cosmology, a science that explains almost everything about the sun we can see, explains quasars even the sifting from x-ray and radio emissions. How stars actually form, not from accretion discs as thought. In millions of years less too and not in hot spots but along filaments of plasma in groups and form with 20% of the mass required by gravitational theory.

The problem for electric Universe is mainly it theorises that black holes Neutron stars big bang inflation dark matter, are all wrong. Given that the careers of all peers reviewers are built upon those very things EU theory says are not real, how can there be effective and objective peer review.

 

Then you know very little about academic research, publication and the process of peer review.

Academic papers are written at the end or at specific points in the research process. They describe the aims and objectives of the research and most importantly the terms of reference which describes the limits within which the research operates. The paper will then describe the methodology of the research and the analytical processes to which the findings will be subjected. It will then reveal the findings and finally come to some conclusions. Prior to publication the paper will then be subjected to peer review. The reviewers are NOT there to express their own opinions but to comment upon the exactness and appropriateness of the research and how the results are related to the conclusions.

As with all human processes, attitudes can influence how and where new research is recieved - that merely is a fact of life. However, I can assure you that there are many ways to to get the work out there.

As for may own involvement then I can tell you that I have peer reviewed work. Likewise I have had my own work (and that conducted with others) reviewed. I can assure you that the publishing board would not accept such a review that was merely a prejudiced attack without substance. Now you can believe that or not I don't care but it is the truth.

 

Science has become the new religion? As to your next point, at some stage we must address, even if we're nowhere near to understanding how. that something came out of nothing. If you put this universe inside a box and say that something created this universe (possible) then by that logic - something created the something that created, and so forth. The point that this known universe goes back into a singularity has been established (orthodox?) since Hubble.

My late dad, however, always doubted this and was a follower of Hoyle and his steady state hypothesis, arguing that the same expansion would occur if matter (dark?) was being created throughout the cosmos. Two problems though - we're still talking of something being created from nothing with no explanation, and the mathematics, according to Hawking and Penrose, is bollocks.

 

To respond to your first point, what presently passes for science has become a religion in its own right for some. It is interesting to see that as man attempts to rely upon his own understanding to test the boundaries of knowledge, the more he questions the basis of that understanding. The only true difference is that whilst Christians can identify what they put their trust (faith) in non-believers only have themselves to fall back upon.

 

Do the other religions count as non-believers?

 

As those who follow other religions do not believe in the same things as Christians they are by definition non-believers in Christian terms. Now I do not have a comprehensive enough knowledge of other religions to know if they would support my contention. So I can only suggest that you ask them.

 

Yet, dogma, current accepted astrophysics theory is a dogma. Also you are not in for much of a career going against this dogma. No Discovery Channel shows and the like Papers won't be published and the like.

Something does not come out of nothing you are right there. This is where common sense deviates from theorists imo. It's magical. Someone's ideas and yet so many people just assume the big bang is part of history, a fact. It is nothing of the sort, inflation is not proven.
Singularities in black holes are being dropped, they can't exist according to physics.

What you are not accounting for and that's interpretation of data. In order to make data fit current models the most outlandish stuff is coming out in the media.
Now apparently Bicep 2 has detected gravitational waves traveling through space, ripples in space time from the big bang. Hilarious, gravity waves traveling though space, nothing but imagination in the mind of those interpreting the data, alternate theories are much more logical and do not require magical matter creation out of nothing.

What about the speed of light nonsense that has trapped everyone into this Einstein theories. The speed of light is not and never was the limit. Quantum entanglement shows that on a sub atomic level information can travel billions of time faster than light, so here we have more contradictions in two pieces of work accepted as right. Yet another, science is full of them and they are ignored.

Physicists for a long time have been saying Redshift is a measure of a galaxies youthfulness and blueshift is a measure of age of galaxies, this is not one or two, this is picking up traction in physics. Halton Arp raised this quite some years ago, of course no one listened.
If this is the case then inflation and big bang theories just got raped. If those are debunked then we have to question everything from black holes to gravity and everything we think about anything in the universe.

Current solar theory is crumbling fast as they fail to find the answers for the questions the data is asking. Plasma physics has it nailed down but no one seems to be aware.

"If you put this universe inside a box and say that something created this universe (possible) then by that logic - something created the something that created, and so forth"

That's the thing, and I see the logic you put forward but that's besides the point, my position is that is is all completely imaginary, we have no idea what the universe is how big it is how old it is where it came from and anything else you might dream up. none of those have been answered

What grinds my gears is that a lot of this stuff gets put out in the media as proven facts, they are nothing of the sort. Almost all of it is theory. Black holes dark matter bark energy neutron stars pulsars big bang inflation solar fusion, all of that is best guess theory, every last shred. Meanwhile alternate scientific views are ignored and or discarded.

 

And, Dogma is a set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Dogma has nothing to do with religion lad but religion can be dogmatic I don't care if Jay and Silent Bob disagree

It requires that we adjust the way we look at the cosmos. We tend to overlook the most important features of our stellar environment, without which it makes far less sense. The universe is an all-encompassing electro-magnetic field with some things in it. That’s a pretty simplistic way of describing the magnificent complexity that surrounds and sustains us, but at least it gets the priorities right.
~Hilton Ratcliffe, The Virtue of Heresy – Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer

Also a good quote