Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Never heard of these ****ers and i'm quite well in the know. I guess these are bollocks as well

In general relativity, a white hole is a hypothetical region of spacetime which cannot be entered from the outside, although matter and light can escape from it. In this sense, it is the reverse of a black hole, which can only be entered from the outside, from which nothing, including light, can escape. White holes appear in the theory of eternal black holes. In addition to a black hole region in the future, such a solution of the Einstein field equations has a white hole region in its past.[1]However, this region does not exist for black holes that have formed through gravitational collapse, nor are there any known physical processes through which a white hole could be formed. No white hole has ever been observed. Also, the laws of thermodynamics say that the net entropy in the universe can either increase or remain constant. This rule is violated by white holes, as they tend to decrease entropy.

 

When I was a kid, I thought "eventually black holes must fill up and begin to throw out matter" though I didn't think "white hole" I had considered the concept.

So if as a kid I can come to that logical conclusion, to see it 4 decades from astrophysicists later is

I think that if you want to prove white holes exist, you need to prove their forebearers exist first I would say. We've still to actualy find a black hole.

 

@Red Hadron Collider

You do know there is 4 types of black holes and 3 types of big bang universes in astrophysics literature.
Yet no one ever says which ones they are talking about and just superpose them all together.


A question I have asked many a boffin in this are of interest, that remains unanswered, is this.
What bends light, is it Newtonian forces? or General relativity space time curvature?

 

@Red Hadron Collider

Primer fields EM and everything in the universe. David LaPoint has done some brilliant work.
His theory

please log in to view this image

In reality

please log in to view this image

Lab versus what we have seen

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

his work
https://www.youtube.com/user/davelapoint777

 

Argo system data sets ocean surface and depth measurements 2005 2012.. No clima tard catastrophic warming trend whatsoever.

Surface temps 2005 1012

please log in to view this image

0 to 2000 meters 2005 to 2012.

please log in to view this image

Once again we see the surprising stability of the system. Some areas of the ocean have warmed at 2° per decade, some have cooled at -1.5° per decade. But overall? The warming is trivially small, 0.03°C per decade.

ocean warming 0.09C over the past 55 years Levitus et al

So claims the extra heat is hiding in the oceans when explaining no global warming for 18 years, is nothing but cack.

 

If that's the current warming rate then in just over 30 years there'll have been a 1 degree increase which is significant isn't it?

Surely this would result in polar ice reduction for a start off?

I've no idea what the effect would be on oceanic ecosystems but I doubt it'd be positive.....

 

.9c every 30 years is a mean temp, regional changes are as drastic as +2c or -1.5c. There is no guarantee mean temp will go up or down, 10 years on geological timescales is not even the blink of an eye. That's an issue, the very short time the data has been collected so claims of doom are really pointless.

What is important is that .3c a decade which is steady does not support the assertions that global warming has stopped because the heat is being absorbed by the oceans, being logical one might ask why the temp wasn't hiding in the oceans pre 1998? but conveniently does when the measurements show no global warming for 18 years. The rate of ocean warming is therefor dramatised to save global warming theory, yet the oceans are not showing this, the IPCC say 3 times actual measurements

You wouldn't feel the difference between water 22 degrees or 23 degrees so .9c in 30 years is nothing. There is no reason to suggest this trend will continue, it goes up and down the further you look back.

Think of it as looking at Liverpool's success in a chart, if you go back to the year of our last title and start from there, it will create a downward trend, a huge downward trend. But if you start at a date befor we started winning titles then the trend will go up and up, then down down. This is why they start from convenient points in time

Like the ice.. the data goes back to the 70s where a glaciation period had just neded, an ice high point, so any time after than will show ice loss.


Ocean warming 0.09C over the past 55 years Levitus et al paper which is .016 a decade, the sample was over a much longer time frame and so shows a far lower average.

We are coming out of an ice age still and so the planet warms as a result. Of course things are warming, who and what cause are the debate.

 

@Tobes

I ****ed up, cos I said .03 not .3

30 years will see .09 degrees.

scared?

 

That's pretty heavy Sisu. When I was a kid I was thinking how I could get into Kara Adam's knickers

 

Is that Kara Adam, world renowned astrophysicist and black hole specialist? The one who had posters of Steven Hawking on her bedroom wall when she was young?

If only there'd had been a way....

 

I wasn't all like considering the implications of a black hole and the physics I just remember thinking they must fill up at some point.
It was more a passing thought than any real consideration of the subject yeh mad thing

 

That's the one. Child genius. And great t1ts

 

She believes black holes are real, not that smart

 

Yeh...












....but great tits!

 

Talking of conspiracies (and we weren't), just watching that superb film Apollo13 on the... Syfy Channel!

Btw, I meet Jim Lovell (and Brian Cox) in November in Pontefract. Buzzing.

 

A good film, ain't seen it in a long time. Brian Cox, mind he doesn't try put his dark matter in your black hole.

 

See Hawking is warning again about robots taking over. You'd think he'd be happy, seeing as he'd easily pass himself off as one.

 

or a DJ

please log in to view this image

On our current technologial path transhumanism is more likely than rise of the machines.

I see us being genetically modified and have parts that are made. I read some stuff on red blood cells, they can make those now Ithink.


Technicaly, given how we use google for example, we've already augmented our brains in terms of knowledge, it's just not an acual physical thing, no doubt google or apple will develop something you stick in your head that gives you access to all the information on the internought or create some sort of hive mind from all people who connect.

The truth about AI is, it still sucks ass, same with "quantum computers" we still don't have an actual one, just the likes of dwave, which performs some tasks really fast and other tasks at the same speed as a bog standard laptop.

AI currently is still piss poor. The singularity is a pipe dream too.

What I really do not want is the internet of things.. where everyting from your alarm clock to house lights are connected to the internet. Too far.

Also annoying, technicalogical advances were were always told meant we would have to work less, the truth is we just get more work done, for less pay as time passes

 

be careful what you wish for. In a completely tenuous link, there's a scene from Apollo13 where the crew rip off all their body sensors as, in the words of Lovell 'We're sick of the whole western world knowing what we had for dinner and how our kidneys are functioning'. The idea of 'them' (or even hackers) knowing each time you have a crap and how many calories you've consumed is not far off. I've lgot an app for my Samsung S4 for my running and cycling. There's several blokes from work have this app they use to compare speed, distance etc on their cycling. Really creepy to me.

On the plus side, medical science is coming on bounds and bounds. By the end of this century blindness will be eradicated. But as to downloading the essence of 'us' onto a computer - well wow. We don't even fully understand the boundaries of consciousness and sub-conscious. Believe it or not, Turing did fantastic work on this 60 years ago, about the difference between computers and the consciousness of humans. Our sub-conscious has billions of years of evolution behind it. Whether we can transfer that, or develop that in AI remains to be seen. Never say never. But the ghost in the machine?

BTW, all this is linked to our subconscious desire to live forever/survival. I can think of nothing more petrifying, in all honesty. The deal, passed onto to you by generations of ancestors, is that you get your turn on the merry-go-round, then you give it up to the next generation. That's how nature decided was the best way to propagate life, and the accumulated knowledge is passed on, with all its flaws and inacuracies, like a torch from one generation to another. And values and behaviours adapt too, from stimulii in their environment, just like any other Darwinian system, as opposed to being stuck in time at the behest of 3000 year old artificially supported 'elders'. Like those stretched faces in Millennium.

I'm rambling again. But enjoy you children and grand children then **** off and let the universe use your molecules to make something else, is my snappy motto.

 

Apparently Jezzer's brother Piers Corbyn is a weather forecaster and climate change denier. Piers for PM says Sisu