Black hole maximum size.

[xelasnave]

I put the proposition recently that a black hole in my view could not influence a galaxy given its relative size to the galaxy.

I searched to find information to provide some specific details of maximum size attainable by a black hole.
The best I could find (so far) is there is an upper limit on the size of a black hole of approx 100 million solar masses.

Here is the link...

http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/05_releases/press_021505.html


Given that our galaxy for example may have 300 billion “Suns” I suggest that a black hole could not play a significant role in holding a galaxy together…(I guess others must think similar if they seek dark energy to help out).

For our galaxy we need our black hole therefore to be some 30 times larger than the current upper limit to have a chance of a “gravity” balance … and of course when the inverse square rule is taken into account to determine the gravitational effect we would find that a black hole of even greater size (many fold thirty times as large) would be required for the “balance” required for a significant gravitational effect on the rest of the galaxy.

I also discovered that far less matter is “shot” into space from a black hole than the theory and prior expectations would suggest.

I still have to find all the matters called upon to determine the presence of a black hole however it appears they are found by “activity” associated with “active” galaxies.

I find plenty of artists impressions but not photo of an actual “black hole” but then given their properties of not letting even light escape that is perhaps reasonable.

Another interesting matter was someone is said to have found a black hole in a globular cluster. I have for a long time considered that globular are in fact the core of captured galaxies… given the orbit of globular which suggest capture and the possibility of a black hole being found in a globular cluster I feel there is some merit in the possibility that globular clusters are galaxy remnants stripped of the outer matter to leave the central core.

Why are black holes no larger than 100 million solar masses.. It seems they have run out of food!
Again I say that if they have such a large gravitational effect as many seem to think it would seem that if they were running out of food they could simply pull more in.. Well if they don’t it makes me wonder again how significant they really are.. as to gravitational input to the galaxy.



And although I see story after story of black hole observation I do not feel anything to date offers conclusive evidence of anything more than a determination that black holes will be found and so they are.


Given black holes are born out of theory and the general determination that they are a fact I question “could they be observing something else but consideration of an alternative explanation is sidelined because the expectation takes the theory as fact before evidence can be assessed and alternatives offered.

Also given the fact that a black hole represents a singularity … time and gravity become infinite.. how can any determination be placed upon their size… the message of gravity if it could escape would not withstanding the inverse square rule still must be infinite one would think… nothing therefore would be to far away to escape the influence of black hole.

I must have something wrong when it comes to my understanding of general relativity and the “black hole” it tells us about.


I know you all think I am mad to think such a thing but I do not see the proposition as unreasonable… that an alternative may well exist which will never be considered because the expectations of the theory of general relativity have colored any data that may be gathered.

And if black holes for all practical purposes reach an upper limit and from that point they consume no more after that point what does this tell us about the prospect of them being a singularity…

Alex

[mickoking]

As far as I am aware the is no upper mass limit for black holes. I would have to check up on this but the Black hole in the core of Quasar 3C 273 has a mass over one billion suns.

[bojan]

As far as existence of black holes is concerned... How this central mass concentration can be explained otherwise? (see attachment, unzip this mpeg file to view)
And this?
http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php

[mill]

First off all you are not mad and second a lot of science is just theory.
Maybe a black hole isn't even what they think it is but something totally different.
Scientists as we have seen many times have a theory that is so called proven but years later someone else proves it wrong.
It is the same with the speed of light, they just assume nothing can go faster.
The thing is that they don't really know do they?
The whole problem with science and theories is that it is all based on what we can comprehend.
If it is something that is outside of the square then it can't be true or cant be done.
I am just happy with people like you who think outside the square, people like you make other people think more different.
All in all black holes and dark matter for that matter could be something totally different than what people think.

[xelasnave]

Thank you both so much for the help.
I am looking at the info on the quasar and awaiting the movie download.

I notice that in respect of the Milky Way the black hole is rated at 3.6 million solar masses, which would seem far too small to offer any influence on the rest of the galaxy with approx 3 billion Suns.

How can the mass concentraton be explained otherwise I dont know..
certainly I can not offer an ideas with any math in support.

I am just on a trip where I question why the laws of nature have to break down...simply because the sums suggest it..

The only possibility I can think is that maybe there are two massive stars orbiting close that produce distorted gravitational effects... how big and how close I dont know but such an arrangement would see similar "jets" of matter thrown into space via the vortex such an orbit would possibly create. But one would think that these would be visable given, presumably they would be capable of giving off light... however if shrouded in gas maybe even if they were there we could not see them.

I have in the past seen black holes as the glue that holds the galaxy together and be this right or wrong it is this conception that now makes me wonder what role they play given that the numbers tell us that they are not large enough to influence very much at all other than their immediate region.
From what I have seen recently they may contribute to star formation by providing "refinned" materials necessary.
This seems contrary to the fact (my impression really) that they do not allow anything to escape... and I was under the impression that the only thing that escaped was "Hawking" radiation.. not matter. But it seems 4% to 5% of matter (percentage of what I am not sure but presumably of a star that is being eaten)

But as I say I dont know.. something just does not seem right which I can not put my finger on ..so I guess I need to understand more and learn more.
Thanks again for the help.
alex

[mickoking]

Black holes were perhaps the object that the baby galaxy formed around but dark matter maybe is the thing that holds them together?

[xelasnave]

Sorry Mill I missed your post whilst typing I guess.

Thanks for the encouragement.

I simply can not go along with something until I understand it and I can not understand why even if theoretically possible that there could not be other answers.
Not saying the current ideas are not valid it just seems strange that all we know has to die and a new environment with different laws be introduced because an extrapolation takes us so far.

To me it seems more logical to seek alternatives that dont see physics become irrelevant as we understand.

It seems more logical to ask could the theory be leading us to a conclusion that does not exist in the real Universe.
I guess as Bojan asks..what other explanation could there be for such an apparent concentration of mass.. As I said I can not offer much of any consequence but I feel that Bojans question could be given serious thought..what else could produce the effects we see..is there no alternative? or is there an alternative that is not aired because everyone is so preocupied on proving the theory correct.
Not everyone is as independant as me who can even suggest the possibility...maybe if I was in research I would not be bucking the common view..but I am not so I can think about possibilities ...ignorance also helps my approach no doubt.
On another note.. the focuser has been cut down and I am trying to fit it..not a small task..but I have given up for the night so as not to annoy the neighbours with all the noise... drills etc.
But it looks so good so far near as big as the scope it is being fitted to.
But it should help the photos heaps.
alex

[Kal]

Not all galaxies have central black holes. In fact, two galaxies (albiet small and irregular satellite galaxies) that you would have observed countless times don't have central black holes - the small and the large magellanic clouds.

Also, for galaxies that do have central black holes - they do influence the galaxy. They are observed by looking at the rotation of the stars around the galaxy core - put simply, the stars rotate faster due to the gravitational influence of the black hole. By this simple definition, black holes influence galaxies.



Perhaps they are just too young? Ask this question again in 150 billion years and they might be bigger ;) although I suspect that some scientist somewhere will be able to come up with a theory that suggests in the first 100 thousand years of the universe age some sort of thing happened whereby the density of the universe was decreasing at a specific rate due to the universes expansion which put an upper limit on these things (just as we could also put an upper limit on galaxy size - we don't see galaxies with 4 trillion stars for example)

[xelasnave]

Hi Andrew,
I will look again in a billion years:) .
Too young is reasonable if you go along with that new fangle "big bang notion" and dont subscribe to the steady state idea. Yes that could be it despite what we think we only have a limited view time wise of where we are.
Bojan I saw the movie and that was excellent. Thanks again.
I expect if they keep taking photos of the area that star that swings close st should drop in ... now that would make a great movie.
I can not find the size for the black hole in the quasar however but still looking.
Thanks to everyone for the help and explanations.
alex

[freespace]

1. the speed of light is not arbitary, it is calculated from 2 emperical parameters of the physical universe.

2. special relativity tells us the mass of any object approaches infinity as it approaches the speed of light. For this reason, you can never produce enough force to accelerate something to the speed of light.

3. Gravity of an apple is felt even infinitly far away. It just it ceases to become significant infinitly far away, or just a little away.

4. scientific theories are never proven, they are only not-wrong-yet.

5. a blackhole isn't a distortion in space time which is infinite, it is merely strong enough that light can not escape. The size of a blackhole, commonly defined as the event-horizon, the point of no-return, depends on its mass. Gravitationally speaking, outside the event horizon, a blackhole is identical to a non-blackhole of the same mass.

6. Gravity of visible matter, blackhole and all visible matter, can not hold galaxies together. I have observed the velocities of hydrogen clouds in our galaxy - it does NOT exhibit the correct linear velocity profile. There is something thats holding galaxies together, and its nothing we can detect so far.

7. "Proof" for blackhole is more than merely observation of the centre of galaxies. We have observed a single instance of gravitational lensing caused by a blackhole - where a blackhole was observed to pass between us and a star.

8. The limit of blackhole, from what I understand from the link you are given, is that they ate all the surrounding material. Given an even distribution of matter, it is possible to create a localised vaccum if you took all the matter in a localised region, because the effect of gravity is inverse squared. Whether this is a real limit, I don't know - I have not came across it until now.

9. There is great support for big bang theory, and great evidence against steady state. That is not to say big bang is right, merely observations are well explained by it.

[bojan]

I think that most of the confusions about almost anything, not just black holes, is created by non-adequate presentations of the scientific facts and theories...
The attempts to explain those things in simplistic terms, inevitably means that only some parts of essential information is passed to the non-suspecting reader who does not necessarily have the adequate math skills to fully understand the issue. This is a potential problem for anyone today, regardless of the level of education, who is not employed full time in a particular scientific field.
What is more dangerous though, the partial understanding of scientific issues sometimes creates the "second" generation of presenters who simplify things even more, creating totally wrong impressions about those things in public which is then beyond repair.
Popularization of science is a very hard, serious and responsible job.... and mostly neglected by the media who in general are not interested in scientific truth, but in just a quick buck to be made and that serves nobody's interest in the long run.
The best example of those consequences are all those recently blooming ID theories. And people who accept them are not to blame because they are simply not adequately trained/educated in scientific methods.

[xelasnave]

Good morning Freespace welcome from me to Iceinspace and thank you for your very informative input.

I must say I like your approach as I see it as one based on reasonable and careful consideration together with I suspect hands on experience.

Given that I am not a scientist and have no degree that I fear the University awarding same will demand its return when I air my views... I say I do not believe gravity is a force of attraction but is in effect a pushing force which I think is generated by the radiation (somehow) of all the stars ( matter generally) in the Universe. Maybe the dark energy observers grab to explain gravitational inconsistencies)... I believe there is no force of attraction which makes it very hard to fit my views into the current thinking... but they are my views and I will hold them and others can say what they like about them and me... the pushing approach makes sense to me as it is the only way I can envisage there can be any communication through out the Universe.
I can not accept that a grain of sand makes it presence known by sending a message to the whole Universe that it is "there"... whereas pressure of radiation (particles whatever) requires no such message to be sent.
I see it is the flow of these particles and the resulatant pressure that bends the graph of space time.

You obviously understand that galaxies are not held together by an internal force (that's what I read into what you have said so forgive me if I have misinterpreted your meaning) such as attraction but by something "outside" that pushes.

I see gravity as a pressure that acts on everything rather than a force from an object that individually relates to everything else in the Universe.

It is perhaps my views on the way gravity works that started me thinking about the black hole concept... firstly because a pushing Universe may well do things differently to a Universe of attraction and secondly I find extrapolations to reach a view unsatisfactory.

I see extrapolations like taking a poll... the views of say 1000 people surely can not represent the views of everyone and may well have asked 1000 people representing in effect the minority view. Needless to say a poll can be spot on but it can also be very off the mark.

I am uncomfortable with the current big bang theory simply because I see it as a result arrived at from an extrapolation of the "observed" expansion... and feel simply because there is expansion this does not mean that at one end we will find a start "at a point" (and I understand there are different views on a start at a point as opposed to a overall change in condition).

Your point 7 interests me greatly as that sounds better than a mere inference drawn from "expected activity in the region" and I will search out that observation. Thank you for pointing that out I will be a happy man today as you have given me a mission.

As to point 8 from what I have read the limit seems accepted.

It interests me that the "cleaned out area" is in fact cleaned out. And that where matter was taken from the outer region of the cleaned out region why during the cleaning out more matter would not have come in... not necessarily from the influence of the black hole (limited by the inverse square rule) but simply the gravitational relationship between the matter in the outer regions (originally) to matter now sitting at the edge of the cleaned out region.... or put another way... why when the matter started moving in why matter further out would not have moved in to replace it. It seems hard to answer by saying the matter moved away too fast and therefore left the remaining matter in place... gravity (whichever way you see it would move much faster than the matter seeking to escape it). Maybe the outter matter was draw back by the influence of the galaxy... still you can see the strange things that pop into my thinking... but in my defence at least I try and think about these things.

My other difficulty with the big bang (not that I have to be convinced before the world excepts it) is it seems to rely very heavily upon the "theory of inflation".. which I think has little right to be called a theory in the sense that I understand a "theory" in science requires more than the "theory of inflation" has provided. I feel it is a big ask to expect the Universe could have expanded at such a rate (I know not expanded just doubled and doubled) ..to me it is unsupported nonsense... my view, not saying I am right or wrong just how I see it... I have asked many times seeking to be told my view is unreasonable and that I should take on board such and such so as to find it reasonable. Seeking a point much like your black hole and star observation which takes it to a new level for me.

I find it amusing that proponents of the big bang will point to the bible and a six day building plan as unreasonable yet then tell us that all we see reached a size even greater than we can observe in a mere fraction of a second... if you see my drift.(and I say I am not of any faith it is a mere observation of a curiosity)

Yet it seems inflation because it saved the big bang is readily accepted and a matter that is not seen as a flaw in the big bang theory.

I think there must be a better explanation but I can not suggest something to replace it.
Maybe if we remove inflation the age of the Universe could be reviewed and some inconsistent findings (stars older than they should be) reviewed again.

It seems inflation was introduced to fix the problem of how everything could be the same all over... maybe there are other solutions to get past this point that do not ask us to accept such a rapid "ïnflation".

Thank you so much for your reply I found it informative and comforting as you seem to have a view that does not get carried away easily.


alex

[xelasnave]

I agree.
I am unfortunately without an education in science and incompetent in math.
So I read a little and form a view... informed but not really informed because the "facts" I get are via a journalist or a web site host trying to make something very complex understandable for folk like me.
Add to that a tendency for media to make things exciting to a reader it is no way to get at the real science.
I do read every scientific report I can find on things that interest me... I like reading stuff in the NED data base and the like. It is hard going but not unlike reading a law report... and flicking to the end is tempting when reading either.

Still I will have a go.
I thank you all for the respect you give my enquiries, all could simply say you need so much more before you can dabble in these areas, and I appreciate the opportunity to hear views of people more educated than myself.

Thanks again
alex

[Doug]

Alex,
I confess to not having read all the posts in this thread so pardon me if I am repeating what might have gone before.

It seems to me that the size/mass of a black hole is not all that significant in the overall gravity relationships throughout a galaxy, as you seem to suppose.
It seems to me that a black hole will strongly influence nearby space, which will inturn influence all nearby space. That not well expressed! Notice that galaxies are not hollow centered, but rather tightly packed toward the core thining out until gradually the 'disc breaks apart leaving spiral arms. It is reasonable that the gravitational density within a galaxy is highest at the core, and gradually deminishes at it radiates outward. But consider; the black hole might only effect perhapd the first 45% or so of the solid galactic disk, the outer extremities of that, effecting the more outer areas with ever diminishing effect untill finally the net gravitation of the galaxy is no longer able to influence anything. If this is so, then the upper limit (theoretical) need not dictate the ultimate mass limit of a galaxy as it will be somewhat self supporting in itself.....me thinks

[xelasnave]

Hi Doug always interested to hear your view as I am sure you know:thumbsup: .

The upper current mass limit seems to be set from what I have read so far.

And as Para two of your post... My original views were that black holes were sort of the hub that controlled the rest of the galaxy but as you suggest and the conclusion I arrived at is their mass would have to be so much greater than even the largest known to date to act in the manner I assumed..that of a "control" over the whole galaxy by direct influence.

The cleaning out thing I have read about can only be in respect of a relatively small region one would think because of the inverse square rule application... so in the middle of the densest region there appears to be an area that the black hole has eaten everything...at least with the big ones.. little ones appear to be still munching away as there is still matter for them to consume... but I must look and see what these cleaned out regions are in size relative to various sized black holes.

If you include attraction in the mix I would imagine it must work much as you say... if you include attraction in the mix that is;) as you know I will include it on the one hand ( to understand current thinking) and exclude it on the other to build my Gravity Rain Universe...

I now think it is the dark energy that has the major influence overall... not just because of my gravity rain views but because it seems thats what many who know more than me think...An external pushing force seems to be accepted unless its just my morosophia playing up again.

I think it is this feature of galaxies being held together no via a central hub attraction that raises the prospect of dark matter and dark energy.

But as always still learning.

Great to have your input ..thank you very much for taking the time to post.

alex

[freespace]

Thanks :D
I try to do my best. I have on paper worked out most of modern physics as part of my university degree in astrophysics, so I have a little faith in them :-) Some of my laboratory work also born out the results I calculated, so I am fairly confident what we know is pretty good (it might not be 100% correct, but its pretty good to get us to where we are today).

You need to be more specific. Gravity isn't so much a force of attraction as it is a distortion of space time. General relativity explains gravity very very well, down to something like 0.001%, as recent gravity probe B shows. See http://einstein.stanford.edu/. Perhaps you are right, but you have a mountain of existing observations to explain. Anywho, radiation pressure is insignificant, unless its a form we do not know of.

I am interested to know why not, and why this pushing is required for communication. For the record, there is a fundamental barrier to communication. Due to the fact expansion of space-time increases as a function of distance, theory predicts there will be such a point where space time expands faster than light can travel. Outside this limit, no information can reach us.

Gravity propagates at the speed of light. There is not contradiction I can see.

As I said, if you can explain current observations with your theory, and also make some predictions about strctures on the level of galaxies, you might have something. Though, not to put you down, I doubt you can with a pushing force.

Big bang theory was initally hinted at by running the observed expansion backwards. There are other supporting evidence, such as the fact our universe is finite in age as far as we can tell(the fact we have dark skies, for example), and also cosmic background radiation, something predicted by the big band model, something which we have found and fits well into our models. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiati on

There is more than "expected activity" which strong supports the existence of blackholes. The mathematics tell us such objects should exists, and models which consider what happens to gas falling into a blackhole closely matches observation of X-rays being emitted from centre of galaxies etc.

I would like to shed light on the upper mass limit, and I can next Wednesday when I go back to uni.

The expansion of the universe, inflation, is observed in the redshift of distant galaxies. Its hard for the first cosmologists to accept it, but in the face of evidence, they had to. Space /is/ expanding. Objects further away from us are accelerating away from us, as shown by the fact light from them are red shifted. Very /VERY/ few distance objects are accelerating towards us.

It is not entirely unreasonable. When you consider space itself was expanding, momentum and inertia plays no role. We can not say for sure exactly what happened during the big bang, if indeed there was one, but from what we can observe today, we can make predictions on what should have happened. The rate of expansion etc can be inferred from the background radiation, the amount of hydrogen and helium we can see, etc. IF you look into it, varying the rate of expansion in the inital big bang changes a few things. More information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang Note Big Bang isn't entirely with out problems. Science isn't blind to its own short comings. Big Bang is "accepted" because it is the least wrong of our theories :-)

Sorry, inflation wasn't introduced, it was observed. To explain the inflation we proposed the Big Bang theory.

My pleasure, I do my best, however I may have slipped. I am by no means a fully qualified physicist, and my year off from uni has robbed me of some memories :P

Cheers,
Steve

[xelasnave]

Good afternoon Steve,
Thank you for taking the time to provide such a thoughtful reply.
All I talk about is not a theory but a mere idea. My idea has none of the requirements of a theory in the scientific sense.
I may give the impression I am prepared to tear the world down to push an idea but must say that is not the case but more a reflection of my “style” of argument management and moreover a reflection of the frustration of finding the more I learn the less I know and every question I ask raises many more.

say I do not believe gravity is a force of attraction but is in effect a pushing force which I think is generated by the radiation (somehow) of all the stars ( matter generally) in the Universe.
You need to be more specific. Gravity isn't so much a force of attraction as it is a distortion of space time. General relativity explains gravity very very well, down to something like 0.001%, as recent gravity probe B shows. See http://einstein.stanford.edu/. Perhaps you are right, but you have a mountain of existing observations to explain. Anywho, radiation pressure is insignificant, unless its a form we do not know of.
I except gravity is not a force of attraction according to General Relativity however somewhere humans interpret it so. That is part of what I am on about I guess.
My understanding of the current position is that General Relativity says gravity in not a force at all (either pushing or pulling) it simply states the relationship between mass and how mass “bends” the geometric grid we as humans use to visualize “space”.
I see “space time” as “geometry” and I gained that impression originally from seeing it explained as being related to the concept of a Pythagoras theory with the addition of a negative time line.
General Relativity (in fact nothing I can find) describes the forces responsible for the distortion in space time. Nothing seems to say how gravity works...general relativity certainly handles the book keeping but says nothing of the machine that makes it happen. I mean using General Relativity I see gravity is “recorded”… and what it may do is calculated using General Relativity but the way I see it offers no explanation of why two bodies (two masses) should interact…. They just do from the approach of General Relativity.
With that in mind I don’t see the prospect of a “gravity rain” explanation as contradicting or seeking to replace General Relativity... The results should be the same… Gravity Rain is merely the machinery that causes the geometry to say what it says... I see no conflict.
The General Relativity does not require any attraction (or pushing) from what I can make out. Where humans bring in the force of attraction I can not see... I don’t see that General Relativity gives any authority for any force at all… it just is.
I guess I seek to propose the manner by which space time is bent… and suggest that there is indeed a pressure created by something within the electromagnetic spectrum we do not yet know about…
Taking neutrinos for example... first thought to be mass less and traveling at C are now seen as having mass… without seeking more candidates (as no doubt there may be) they could provide the environment I suggest for gravity rain..they may well be it… they are going everywhere at C from everywhere, they don’t die off when in space … so notwithstanding their apparent insignificance I say they come very close to the particle I feel could be making a gravity rain environment.



I believe there is no force of attraction which makes it very hard to fit my views into the current thinking... but they are my views and I will hold them and others can say what they like about them and me... the pushing approach makes sense to me as it is the only way I can envisage there can be
any communication through out the Universe.

I am interested to know why not, and why this pushing is required for communication. For the record, there is a fundamental barrier to communication. Due to the fact expansion of space-time increases as a function of distance, theory predicts there will be such a point where space time expands faster than light can travel. Outside this limit, no information can reach us.
Put simply and keeping it local so as not to engage the aspect of expansion I feel a machinery to run an attraction system beyond a reasonable explanation.
I can not accept that one body when relating to another basically says… I am here! And the other body also says “well I am here” ..it offers only a two way communication system that means a message must be sent and a reply received.
Sorry that is so crude an explanation and hope at least what I see here you can understand… irrespective of whether you accept my proposition
On the assumption that gravity communication will be at the speed of light (and I think that is the suggestion that is acceptable to current thinking) I see that this would mean that interaction of gravity will then be at half the speed of light..given that messages must go out and come back as it were. Of course if messages can travel faster than C that is a new ball game but sticking to C as being the limit is my effort to stay within the current boundaries.
However in a pushing environment there is no need to return the call. The push does not need to go back to its source for a decision of interaction is made.

I can not accept that a grain of sand makes it presence known by sending a message to the whole Universe that it is "there"... whereas pressure of radiation (particles whatever) requires no such message to be sent.
Gravity propagates at the speed of light. There is not contradiction I can see.

I go along with the current speed limit and as I tried to explain above it is the fact C is what it is that I see a different way needed than attraction..this again is not really included by General Relativity..but say for an attraction system to work I feel that we would need messages to be communicated at twice the speed of light ( presumably unreasonable) for the message to go out and come back.

You obviously understand that galaxies are not held together by an internal force (that's what I read into what you have said so forgive me if I have misinterpreted your meaning) such as attraction but by something "outside" that pushes.

I see gravity as a pressure that acts on everything rather than a force from an object that individually relates to everything else in the Universe.
As I said, if you can explain current observations with your theory, and also make some predictions about strctures on the level of galaxies, you might have something. Though, not to put you down, I doubt you can with a pushing force.

Steve never worry about offending me, insulting me or maybe worrying that something sounds like a put down. But I sure appreciate your concern and the respect you extend to me.. I have no ego, I am me and there will be greater and lesser persons I meet as they say, so if I am outrageous or unreasonable it can be only myself I can fault. My style is verbose, my manner seemingly disrespectful and unfortunately when I try and make a point it does sound as if I am saying that I am right others are wrong. This is not the case but certainly would be a reasonable impression for a normal person to form.
Needless to say a mug like me involving himself in such matter will draw reasonable attacks and not unreasonably generate unreasonable attacks because of my apparent impertinences. .
Well lets take a galaxy .. it can not be held together by attraction (even if one accepts its existence which I do not) but must be held together because of an external yet universal pushing force. My understanding in my view is reflecting the current thought in so far as I think “they” see something more is needed for galaxies to behave as they do.
I use the example of a long bendy rod. Hold a long rod in the middle and wiggle it up and down.. the force travels along the rod but slowly in so far as when you are pushing up the ends of the rod are still in the down position… it does this because the force is internal.. a galaxy being help together by attraction would act similar as any message of change will take a long time to be felt all over. To illustrate an external pushing force I take the rod under water. When we attempt to wiggle the rod up and down the internal force (our pushing it up and down) is resisted by an overall external pushing force.. the water. The pressure or presence of the water becomes the dominate controlling force making the rod respond slowly to and take into account the force of the water. Now the rod obeys the water when responding to the internal push…it is the water that hold it..we now see when we push up the ends follow more slowly meeting the resistance of the water.
I see galaxies as a rod under water.. held somewhat rigid because of an external force that smoothes out any internal movement. And from what I gather the problem at the moment is to reconcile why galaxies hold together when gravitational communication is limited to C. In the case of our galaxy at say 150,000 light years across it is easy to see how long a message of internal gravity via attraction will take to register from one place to another. Dark energy is cited as I understand to explain the holding together much like in the example I offer of the water making internal movement subject to the external pressure.
Where I differ is the dark energy approach requires dark matter, because of the pre conception that dark energy must have come from the existence of dark matter, but such an approach does not take the problem past recognition of an internal force. I feel dark matter is not there and the dark energy is in fact the gravity rain I suspect to be present. If we need attraction we must have dark matter if we see pushing only we do not need dark matter.

[xelasnave]

It is perhaps my views on the way gravity works that started me thinking about the black hole concept... firstly because a pushing Universe may well do things differently to a Universe of attraction and secondly I find extrapolations to reach a view unsatisfactory.

I see extrapolations like taking a poll... the views of say 1000 people surely can not represent the views of everyone and may well have asked 1000 people representing in effect the minority view. Needless to say a poll can be spot on but it can also be very off the mark.

I am uncomfortable with the current big bang theory simply because I see it as a result arrived at from an extrapolation of the "observed" expansion... and feel simply because there is expansion this does not mean that at one end we will find a start "at a point" (and I understand there are different views on a start at a point as opposed to a overall change in condition).
Big bang theory was initally hinted at by running the observed expansion backwards. There are other supporting evidence, such as the fact our universe is finite in age as far as we can tell(the fact we have dark skies, for example), and also cosmic background radiation, something predicted by the big band model, something which we have found and fits well into our models. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...nd_radiati on
Well there is no doubt that the big bang model can be made work if you want it to work but I simply suggest that everything in support may be explained differently if one was seeking to establish a different model. Maybe that is my background in law showing being accustomed to arguing essentially the same matter from different positions and being able to argue either successfully at different times for different clients.
I am not trying to detract from the research but simply suggest if one expects to find something to support one views one will find the material in support and say it washes away the opposing ideas.. I have been labeled as morosophic with my approach to gravity rain, which I admit, but say this condition is common in humans. We will take what we find as evidence in support of our idea and somewhat gloss over things that don’t support the idea.
As to background radiation could it not be explained in a steady state Universe if one tried.. maybe it is evidence of more Universe far off and it is that corrupted message we interpret as background radiation. Needless to say anyone supporting background radiation to fit the big bang will have explanations why that is incorrect.. but mainly in that instance really be saying..”well it fits the theory it is what we expected so it is what we say.”
If a infinite Universe would we not get similar evidence of radiation from afar… if you see my drift.
Dark skies may be related to radiation running out of steam at some point rather than being a reflection of the current proposition. Again not saying that is right but such does not seem unreasonable given my limited grasp of what we are trying to explain.
Your point 7 interests me greatly as that sounds better than a mere inference drawn from "expected activity in the region" and I will search out that observation. Thank you for pointing that out I will be a happy man today as you have given me a mission.
There is more than "expected activity" which strong supports the existence of blackholes. The mathematics tell us such objects should exists, and models which consider what happens to gas falling into a blackhole closely matches observation of X-rays being emitted from centre of galaxies etc.

My point is simply here that indeed the math tells us that if such concentrations of mass are possible then we will have a black hole. I simply suggest (as indicated earlier) that the maths says that is what will happen if those conditions are reached.. I ask can they in fact be reached and the possibility that nature will not allow (for whatever reason) mass not to enter the theoretical regions we take it to on paper.
Again my ignorance is my burden as there may be good reason why it should.. but for me I feel that the Universe is not bound by what we determine on paper. The math may seek to explain a situation that is never reached. And that is not saying the math is flawed in any way but that we may be calculating a situation that never comes to pass. This view is from my hope that physics applies all the way and does not give up when a theoretical limit (self imposed) is passed.


I would like to shed light on the per mass limit, and I can next Wednesday when I go back to uni.
My other difficulty with the big bang (not that I have to be convinced before the world excepts it) is it seems to rely very heavily upon the "theory of inflation".. which I think has little right to be called a theory in the sense that I understand a "theory" in science requires more than the "theory of inflation" has provided. I feel it is a big ask to expect the Universe could have expanded at such a rate (I know not expanded just doubled and doubled) ..to me it is unsupported nonsense... my view, not saying I am right or wrong just how I see it... I have asked many times seeking to be told my view is unreasonable and that I should take on board such and such so as to find it reasonable. Seeking a point much like your black hole and star observation which takes it to a new level for me.
The expansion of the universe, inflation, is observed in the redshift of distant galaxies. Its hard for the first cosmologists to accept it, but in the face of evidence, they had to. Space /is/ expanding. Objects further away from us are accelerating away from us, as shown by the fact light from them are red shifted. Very /VERY/ few distance objects are accelerating towards us.
It is the inflationary period where the suggestion is put forward that the inflation occurred within a split second, and that in this split second we are asked to accept that the Universe grew from very small to more than we can see today.. if the inflation concept was limited to everything we see growing to that size in a split second that would be hard to swallow (it is for me) but the Universe is larger than our Observable Universe.. infinite or finite there is more to it than we can observe.. as I understand to date.
The current expansion (which I have problems with when considering an infinite Universe) is nothing like required in the inflation theory .. which is rated in the trillions of times in a second.. a fare cry from current observations.
I find it amusing that proponents of the big bang will point to the bible and a six day building plan as unreasonable yet then tell us that all we see reached a size even greater than we can observe in a mere fraction of a second... if you see my drift.(and I say I am not of any faith it is a mere observation of a curiosity)

Yet it seems inflation because it saved the big bang is readily accepted and a matter that is not seen as a flaw in the big bang theory.
It is not entirely unreasonable. When you consider space itself was expanding, momentum and inertia plays no role. We can not say for sure exactly what happened during the big bang, if indeed there was one, but from what we can observe today, we can make predictions on what should have happened. The rate of expansion etc can be inferred from the background radiation, the amount of hydrogen and helium we can see, etc. IF you look into it, varying the rate of expansion in the inital big bang changes a few things. More information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang Note Big Bang isn't entirely with out problems. Science isn't blind to its own short comings. Big Bang is "accepted" because it is the least wrong of our theories :-)

Yes indeed as I said science does not have to wait for me to be satisfied before it moves on…
My biggest problem with seeing a big bang is very basic… I can not see a state of nothing (and although that is not really put forward as all models start at a point just after the big bang..but the inference seems to me that we started with nothing and from a quantum fluctuation we derive the seed that set it all in motion. Nothing is a word that rolls off the tounge easily but when you sop to think of it ..nothing in this context points to an absence of everything.. well presumably there must have been something… I find a Universe that is expanding should be expanding into a region of nothing… which I reject saying we can not have a condition called “nothing”
Where is the fence line between the Universe and nothing, does a photon leaving our Universe and moving into nothing colonize nothing and claim it for the Universe.
I am not putting these matters forward in an effort to destroy anything but in an effort to share ideas that run through my head.
I think there must be a better explanation but I can not suggest something to replace it.
Maybe if we remove inflation the age of the Universe could be reviewed and some inconsistent findings (stars older than they should be) reviewed again.

It seems inflation was introduced to fix the problem of how everything could be the same all over... maybe there are other solutions to get past this point that do not ask us to accept such a rapid "ïnflation".
Sorry, inflation wasn't introduced, it was observed. To explain the inflation we proposed the Big Bang theory.

I question inflations introduction to the mix. As I understand a fellow by the name of Guth (I think without checking) who put it forward originally and it presents the proposition of a doubling in size of the Universe early on that as I said above sees a time where “inflation caused the Universe to double and double in a split second. If this extreme condition has current evidence I would like to know more in an effort to grow my understanding. I get the impression that such is not currently supported and read recently “they” are trying to work out an experiment to prove such occurred in a similar way to looking at the early background radiation.
How that could be done given the time that has passed and the time it is thought to have occurred will be difficult given the age of the information and the minor variations to be noted to support the prospect. But if it is required to support the current model they must seek it, as to me I still see inflation as an idea not a theory as unless I miss something it is unsupported by evidence.
Thank you so much for your reply I found it informative and comforting as you seem to have a view that does not get carried away easily.
My pleasure, I do my best, however I may have slipped. I am by no means a fully qualified physicist, and my year off from uni has robbed me of some memories

Well Steve you certainly have a better grip than me and as to being fully qualified I doubt if a life time accumulating qualifications will equip anyone to really come up with absolute proof… how can we ever know.

I think a recognition of the enormity of what we seek to deal with does not escape me or you as easily as many who have dedicated a life time to research and convincing themselves they have all the answers.

As to the concept of gravity rain it started as an idea but the more I read the more I am convinced I can make it work… that is morosophia at work but on the bright side it drives me to keep interested in stuff and seeking how gravity really works.

Thanks for all the links and particularly the time and respect you have extended to me.
alex

[xelasnave]

Sorry for not breaking things up between what was said and what is now being written but believe me it was not for the want of trying..something went wrong between word star and my post.
Sorry moderators for such a long couple of posts.
alex

[DobDobDob]

Alex, about 4.5 billion years after the Big Bang physics changed, therefore when you look back today and try to get a consistent 'smooth' explanation based in mathematical terms, you have to be cognizant of that fact.

People are not fitting the facts to suit the model but rather the model is created to suit the known facts.

You of course can believe what you will, this is your right, but you should also be aware of the tons of observational evidence that abounds today thanks to our many magnificent telescopes all championed by Hubble.

More importantly however than trying to describe what is directly or indirectly observed, is when predictions of an event are made sometimes tens of decades before hand, and then when technology catches up, actually proves the prediction, this is the quintessential force that drives researchers to new heights on an almost daily basis.

Sincerely yours.

[freespace]

No problems. I unfortunately don't have the time right now to read through all that, but I am still happy to explain what I can. If you can edit your posts, or post in dot point things you would like to understand, or things you object to, I will do what I can.

[xelasnave]

As I said Ron I do not wish to try and bring the current thinking into question as such, but if I see something I can not readily accept I will question it.

Seeing you are here perhaps you could offer up some of the matters relied upon to provide evidence for the concept of inflation..as I have indicated it is my understanding that the period of inflation occured in a split second... and in that mere split second the Universe grew at a rate of (approximately and from recollection of the "facts" I have seized upon) some trillion times (or more).

I am particualrly interested in nailing down how the theory of inflation moved from being an idea to being a theory and what in particular it offers as a reasonable proof for its acceptance other than it fixed a small problem with the big bang theory.

Also I note that inflation was not in the original big bang proposition and only called upon to fix an apparent problem (providing uniformity through out the Universe) maybe a problem that could have had a better solution... if it has been taken the heart so readily there must be stronger reasons than I can determine..I just want to know what those reason might be.

No doubt I know very little about this stuff and as already observed by Bojan what folk like me get is the tail end of the science sometimes made simple to make the news appealing..to folk like me. But you have studied these matters as I understand at University so you must be better informed.

Even though I am slow on the uptake I hope for a better understanding based on some decent evidence..with or without a background in science such does not seem unreasonable.

Also while you are on the phone my current problem is finding how "time" was included in General Relativity. From what I can understand gravity was related to acceleration and T entered at this point. If so I feel that such an inclussion may have been hasty and offerred to explain concepts rather than be a reflection of the science that actually took place.

I have no disagreedment with most of what you say, I could nit pick at minor points with out moving forward, but for me to move to a higher level of understanding I need to understand the inflation concept better I feel... I could be wrong in my current understanding for example of the time set aside for inflation or the rate of inflation..it may not say things such as it doubled in a trillionth of a second for example... but it seems that is the premise..if it is I really would like to find out upon what facts this idea moved from an idea to theory status.
Please consider my difficulty... no degree in science but with a passion for it.. outside looking in as it were..
I am not seeking to destroy anything but can not let something go by if it seems unreasonable without some convincing evidence that the idea has physical support.
You seem to understand so much and I so little so I ask what is your view on the inflationary period and am I missing something that will make it more acceptable.

As to predictions I regard them suspiciously... maybe unreasonably so.. but as you say I can believe what I choose..but my rights of belief wont get in the way of a reasonable proposition which makes it acceptable...

So to be specific and limit the question... what is your understanding of the inflation period and the evidence in support that takes the idea from that to a theory.
Your faithfully
alex

[DobDobDob]

Yes but I finished around ten years ago and believe me in that time many things have changed, as I alluded to earlier. I did very little in the intervening ten years except watch the odd news item on TV and have only recently become interested again....blame McNaught for that :P

So I am no better situated than you. I have the same tools you have, a fine mind, abundant enthusiasm and of course....the 'Net. I also have a couple of friends from my past that didn't go away from studying they are more 'academic' than me, and from time to time I can impose on them for their opinion of varying issues.

No one has all the answers, we all know that, but the empirical evidence is very good for many established beliefs. I nor any single person can prove to you or disprove entire conceptual theorem that has many facets that has evolved over a long time.

The search for truth (proof) is noble but must be done in very small increments, so please don't look for me as an individual to answer your questions, I can't. I will however from time to time, make comment on any aspect of the conversation that appeals to me.

Yours in science :thumbsup:

[xelasnave]

Steve.. what do I want to understand..thats easy...just everything.

Given there is nothing I disagree with as such I think my main problems at the moment are:-
1) What evidence supports the period of inflation I understand as being a major growth in a fraction of a second.
2) Are there any alternatives to the ïnflation idea.
3) Also as I asked Ron on what basis did Time find its way into General Relativity ..was it via formula for acceleration?..

but in truth I find this stuff not easy and read as I may I can not pick up the flow of the idea such that I can understand how time became a part of the mix.
best wishes
alex

[xelasnave]

Gee Ron I understand what you say about time .. I was in a diffent location so I missed your post.
Ron you must have missed my question.... I am keeping a list of all of them.
I simply ask given you are prepared to accept the big bang theory you must have considered the inflationary epoc. I am sincerely interested in your view.. no doubt many people are interested in your view.
I am not asking for anything other than your general "feeling" on what you learnt about it.
I say simply if one is to accept the big bang not to consider the inflationary period would seem simply to accept the big bang idea without question and I am sure that is not your style...
You are a thinking person and I know a short answer may leave you feeling that perhaps you should not comment with out all the material provided for a reader.. but I will manage with a short answer.. I trust your words I respect your opinion I seek your comment. And remember you have an ability to explain things such that someone like me can understand... it is a gift and most folk would agree with that.
alex

[DobDobDob]

In his general theory of relativity, Einstein views gravity not as a force but as a curvature of the fabric of space in the presence of a massive object like a black hole. According to Einstein, the fabric of space is a four-dimensional space representing the universe. It consists of the commonly accepted three space dimensions plus the time dimension. This four-dimensional fabric of space is also referred to as space-time. The basic elements of space-time are events. In any given space-time, an event is a unique position at a unique time. The example of an event on a universal scale is a comet crashing into another celestial body. Einstein also stated that objects with large masses can warp time by speeding it up or slowing it down.

[DobDobDob]

Okay Alex, you ask questions so quickly that one can't keep up with the answers, so here is an excerpt form good old Wiki :P

I will add some comment at the bottom.

Overview

Inflation suggests that there was a period of exponential expansion in the very early universe. The expansion is exponential because the distance between any two fixed observers is increasing exponentially, due to the metric expansion of space (http://www.answers.com/topic/metric-expansion-of-space) (a spacetime with this property is called a de Sitter space (http://www.answers.com/topic/de-sitter-space)). The physical conditions from one moment to the next are stable: the rate of expansion, called the Hubble parameter (http://www.answers.com/topic/hubble-s-law), is nearly constant, which leads to high levels of symmetry. Inflation is often called a period of accelerated expansion because the distance between two fixed observers is increasing at an accelerating rate as they move apart. (However, this does not mean that the Hubble parameter is increasing, see deceleration parameter (http://www.answers.com/topic/deceleration-parameter).)

Cosmic inflation has the important effect of smoothing out inhomogeneities (http://www.answers.com/topic/homogeneity-physics), anisotropies (http://www.answers.com/topic/anisotropy-3) and the curvature of space (http://www.answers.com/topic/shape-of-the-universe). This pushes the universe into a very simple state, in which it is completely dominated by the inflation (http://www.answers.com/topic/inflaton) field and the only significant inhomogeneities are the tiny quantum fluctuations in the inflation (http://www.answers.com/topic/inflaton). Inflation also dilutes exotic heavy particles, such as the magnetic monopoles (http://www.answers.com/topic/magnetic-monopole) predicted by many extensions to the Standard Model (http://www.answers.com/topic/standard-model) of particle physics (http://www.answers.com/topic/particle-physics). If the universe was only hot enough to form such particles before a period of inflation, they would not be observed in nature, as they would be so rare that it is quite likely that there are none in the observable universe. Together, these effects are called the inflationary "no-hair theorem"[5] (http://www.answers.com/topic/cosmic-inflation#wp-_note-1) by analogy with the no hair theorem (http://www.answers.com/topic/no-hair-theorem) for black holes (http://www.answers.com/topic/black-hole).

The "no-hair" theorem works essentially because the universe expands by an enormous factor during inflation. In an expanding universe, energy densities (http://www.answers.com/topic/energy-density) generally fall as the volume of the universe increases. For example, the density of ordinary "cold" matter (dust) goes as the inverse of the volume: when linear dimensions double, the energy density goes down by a factor of eight. The energy density in radiation goes down even more rapidly as the universe expands: when linear dimensions are doubled, the energy density in radiation falls by a factor of sixteen. During inflation, the energy density in the inflation (http://www.answers.com/topic/inflaton) field is roughly constant. However, the energy density in inhomogeneities, curvature, anisotropies and exotic particles is falling, and through sufficient inflation these become negligible. This leaves an empty, flat, and symmetric universe, which is filled with radiation when inflation ends.

A key requirement is that inflation must continue long enough to produce the present observable universe from a single, small inflationary Hubble volume (http://www.answers.com/topic/hubble-volume). This is necessary to ensure that the universe appears flat, homogeneous and isotropic at the largest observable scales. This requirement is generally thought to be satisfied if the universe expanded by a factor of at least 1026 during inflation.[6] (http://www.answers.com/topic/cosmic-inflation#wp-_note-2) At the end of inflation, a process called reheating occurs, in which the inflation (http://www.answers.com/topic/inflaton) particles decay (http://www.answers.com/topic/radioactive-decay) into the radiation that starts the hot big bang. It is not known how long inflation lasted but it is usually thought to be extremely short compared to the age of the universe. Assuming that the energy scale of inflation is between 1015 and 10 16 GeV (http://www.answers.com/topic/electronvolt), as is suggested by the simplest models, the period of inflation responsible for the observable universe probably lasted roughly 10-33 seconds.[7] (http://www.answers.com/topic/cosmic-inflation#wp-_note-3)

Motivation

Inflation resolves several problems (http://www.answers.com/topic/big-bang-theory) in the Big Bang (http://www.answers.com/topic/big-bang-theory) cosmology that were pointed out in the 1970s.[8] (http://www.answers.com/topic/cosmic-inflation#wp-_note-4) These problems arise from the observation that to look like it does today, the universe would have to have started from very finely tuned, or "special" initial conditions near the Big Bang. Inflation resolves these problems by providing a dynamical mechanism that drives the universe to this special state, thus making a universe like ours much more natural in the context of the Big Bang theory.

Okay, there are tons of links there and plenty to read but in good old plain basic English, here it comes (seeing you love my style :whistle: ).

If you believe in expansion (as you should because we can accurately measure the rate of expansion of the universe), then simply put when did it start?

There is no reason for you to think it didn't begin somewhere, sometime. Every observation of expansion in the universe can be reversed to reveal the origin of the expansion. If you have trouble understanding how they compute the rate of expansion, then join the club, that is hard to understand, but the fact that expansion did occur, regardless of the rate is what you need to come to terms with.

If there were no origin and it has just been expanding infinitely, this to my way of thinking is even harder to accept than the current singularity beginning theory.

Either way it is highly conceptual and when you write words like these, what does it really mean in your head, what do you imagine? What picture do you draw? Mighty hard to find the right words of course, therefore qualified physicists resort to mathematics to fully explain the theory.

So the final summary is really easy, it's either expanding or it ain't, and it either began or it didn't. I believe it is and did rather than isn't and didn't. My vote is for the positive as opposed to the negative, because when you select the negative, it would be nice to qualify, why not :P

[freespace]

Seems all your questions were answered :)

[DobDobDob]

Don't worry Alex had to go out to do something, but said in my best Arnie "Terminator' accent, He'll be back :P and he will definitely have more questions ;) You gotta love him, he makes this forum Rock :thumbsup:

[xelasnave]

I am back but I have nothing left in the tank and still have stuff to do before I eat and sleep.
Thank you Steve.
and Thank you Ron
I can only read once what you have posted Ron and will read it again in the morning..er afternoon maybe I feel so tired and hungry.
Thanks for the guidance I really appreciate it.
I did a little reading earlier during rest breaks and man this stuff is not easy for me I tell you.
I look up to you guys who have such minds that you can understnad this stuff so easily.

I just find it so hard going it makes me feel stupid really.. but that drives me on.. I dont want to remain stupid I want to be informed and understand all that I read on these matters.

So good night or probably good morning I will be back..sorry other things demanded my time..I dont have to work often but when I do its full on..although I put that pressure on myself to complete a promise.. but I like to get things done and out of the way so my time is my own agian.
Thanks again
alex

[xelasnave]

Well Ron you have identified something for me that was a misconception on my part apparently.. that this period of rapid inflation was more than a mere split second and I am now faced with some half a minute:eyepop: .

Well I still don't buy it frankly;) .
Qualifying my belief is not an easy matter other than to say like other humans I resort to human experience:whistle: .

I find it impossible to see a such a rate of growth as it is past my comprehension of what could be possible and as irreverent as this may present say the math may have run away with itself:shrug: .

Current observations of expansion are one thing I feel and inflation yet a entirely different proposition:) ... Expansion is observed yet I say that even that observation may be a misinterpretation of data.

Red shift is seen as a natural result of the proposed expansion as the theory says it will be that way.
If morosophia has struck those involved it would not surprise me:lol: :lol: :lol: .
If one is committed to a particular belief in a theory all that comes in will be fitted conveniently somehow.

I suppose it comes down to my suspicious beliefs and simply finding it all too much to readily accept:) .

I find that the big bang is even acceptable to the Popes view because there is a happy parallel between the big bang and christian belief... we have a start (from a condition a human will describe as nothing) and taking the extrapolation of things as they do we can therefore envisage an end:whistle: . One sees God as the answer and the other does not rule out the existence of God:shrug: .

To me it seems the science could be influenced by the hopes of the church:shrug: .

When we look to the other side of the big bang or we find any starting point even on the other side of the big bang there is still a point where to go past we can not with out passing the matter over to divine intervention. I like an infinite Universe because it offers more respect to logic and the infinite might of a divine power:D .

Now given the wealth of input into the current belief in the big bang I ask you how could someone like me come up with any proof to challenge the current accumulated knowledge:shrug: ... all I can offer is intangible feelings of scepticism really:) .

To do so simply brings cries that I will not believe the math...not true..math seems an absolute proof but I say that maths on the one hand can be very forceful but finally works with specific input .. an input that is hideously simple really when one considers he complexity of what we are seeking to understand.

I say the math proves nothing other than it can prove what it likes:eyepop: .
Leave something out and results will be irrelevant.

Consider this simple situation.
We ( an advanced caring mono sexual interfering alien group) have two islands on a new planet...one with two males and one with two females..neither island will support them for long so we do our best to help out...we calculate that we need an island to support the population of both islands on one island.. we add the numbers..2 plus 2 and find we need an island that will support 4 people..so we place all four on the island which will support 4 people.

But when we check to see how our 4 people are fairing five years later we find that our island is not supporting the 6 humans we find there:eyepop: ... the sums tell us that we should end up with 4 people but something left out of the mix (reproduction) leaves our calculation being irrelevant to the final condition:P .

Now that is a very simple proposition but without adding the reproduction factor our calculations used to select the island are greatly flawed. But why would we see reproduction as part of the mix as we have evolved past a point where we can even recall it in our history:) .

No that is a simple matter and the math is beyond question however we find the result is not what we expect at all:) .

Extend this problem with math to the Universe and its complexity I ask what "reproduction"factor could have been missed?

On our island example the people who did the calculations are called in (before you..an obvious choice for the supreme leader) to prove their math..

they do..2 plus 2 is 4..they can prove it with strict math proof:) ..they can prove it by taking two stones placing then in a box and adding another two stones..empty the box and count the stones..there are four..conclusive proof of the math from the simplest or most rigid approach..you are satisfied they can keep their jobs... but it has not shown the real situation.. when the maths consultants are shown the actual numbers on the new island not to be 4 but indeed 6 they are confused (they know nothing of reproduction) and you ask them to seek a reason why their findings do not show an answer of 6.. They can not disagree with their original sums so must invent a reason why we now have six... the additional two must have been in the bushes when we looked at the island.. they were washed up from another island...they plead but each new reason fails to take a basic premise into the mix that 2 males and 2 females will reproduce. You have them form a search party to find the other island and review the original data seeking their new home.
You have done your job..they have done their job and all agree finally that they must have been hiding in a cave that the original crew on the island did not look into.. there is no other answer they must have been hiding in the cave. The math is sound the expalnation is reasonable.

How cruel my approach must seem but is it all that unreasonable:shrug: .
In the island situation the math is not flawed but the understanding of reproduction is simply absent.

So what can that tell us about all the facts we have accumulated... one important thing... math in itself can not be faulted but its application can be very wrong if something we don't yet know is left out of the mix..in our island case a certain property of the objects being counted that finally will not reveal the real situation. We never get to find out about reproduction as we have a very good reason to explain the difficulty.

I know very little math (have you ever looked to see all the areas ..wow) but various propositions presenting a paradox do enter.

Now lets us deal with alternatives for the observed expansion and the application of proven math.

We know about wavelength, we know about Doppler effect..we combine the two, apply what we know to the data and the result is conclusive.. the Universe is expanding:) .

But what have we left out? is there something that will not contradict the math but feature as "the reproductive factor" left out in our current understanding of the information we interpret?

Well I ask how may something like a new proposition gravity rain for example effect the results? sorry just joking:D but I am sure there is indeed something we miss.

Math finally seems to me to be a reflection of logic..therefore it is the logic that is sacred not the math as such. The math supports the logic but the logic does not need the math to be correct.

And simply put there is no logic in the proposition that all we see could "inflate" in a mere 30 seconds and I suggest that the math does not support the logic in this instance but runs its course in spite of it:) .

If expansion is occurring in space may I ask where does space end in respect of matter:shrug: ... oh matter and space are different:whistle: ... really so the parts between objects is expanding but not the objects themselves:shrug: .. so space stops at the edge of an object enabling öutta:D space to expand yet the objects governed by the same rules simply stay the same size and are moved further apart:whistle: .

Does not the alarm bells ring when we see the further away the faster the expansion? could this not be the result of a condition of light travelling thru space we know nothing about (the reproduction factor).. no never;) it does not fit our current theory:whistle: ..well maybe the math is correct to assess the situation you believe you will find but has the math been working with out all the inputs:eyepop: .

Ron you like to draw parallels with "nature" and what we see here is what we can expect out there, as it were, so I conclude that as we observe that as we observe animals grow as they feed (expand) the Universe must therefore be a giant animal.. we see the consumption we see the growth... there fore being a reflection of nature we can only assume we are small beings living inside a larger animal;) .

All I am saying finally is anything can be conclusively proved beyond doubt but the result will not necessarily reveal the real situation:) .

Maths folk I feel fail to appreciate that although their math may be spot on they may not have a vital input that will provide a very different result:shrug: .
I respect their art:thumbsup: , I respect their ability:thumbsup: and brain power:thumbsup: :thumbsup: far in excess of mine:sadeyes: but I feel the basic premise of my thoughts, results mean nothing if you don't have the entire picture with all the appropriate inputs, is indeed valid.

I have seen "crack pot sites" offering other alternatives to the Doppler interpretation such as "tired light" which can be shown by supporters of the expansion interpretation as flawed.. but maybe the condition they hint at could indeed be closer to an interpretation of the data:shrug: .

The other thing to remember in all this is being right is not the exclusive prerogative of the majority:eyepop: ... think about the horse favorite example.. everyone knows the favorite will win, the market (betting odds) says so... but it is not the market that really has anything to do with the result... it is a reflection of the bulk of opinion;) .

Through out history we are met with various upsets to the market..both at the track and indeed in science:) .

So in essence I say I agree with current thinking:eyepop: :lol: :lol: :lol:
alex:):) :)

[mill]

Assuming that the energy scale of inflation is between 1015 and 10 16 GeV (http://www.answers.com/topic/electronvolt), as is suggested by the simplest models, the period of inflation responsible for the observable universe probably lasted roughly 10-33 seconds.[7] (http://www.answers.com/topic/cosmic-inflation#wp-_note-3)

To me this does mean that the universe can expand faster than the speed of light and we wont see all of the expanding universe ever.
Or it means that we are also traveling at the speed of light or faster and it looks as if the surrounding space travels as fast as us and only further in space it does go faster becouse of the expanding universe.
Those 10-33 seconds is A: a figure taken from thin air.
or B: it throws out the speed of light theory.
These are just my observations and not the opinions of others :)

[mill]

:D :D And this tread started out as a black hole question :)
Ah well anything to make a man/woman/child think .

[xelasnave]

No no no Mill there is no contradiction according to the theory:eyepop: :) not my view:) but what else will we be left with.. it all will fit:) .. I just know it:lol: :lol: :lol: .
The inflation thing takes things so far that light will look as though it in not even moving..
If we limit the size of the Universe to only the observable Universe one gets dizzy when you think of it in terms of speed.. just to use a round an under conservative number of it being only 10 billion light years.. I find it difficult to see that it could grow like that in a mere 30 odds seconds.
And the Universe is much bigger than 10 billion light years across..I have read figures like 60 billion and 150 billion light years so to get that large in 30 seconds seems rather extrodinary.

But it is not to be thought of that way:whistle: speed does not seem to matter when contemplating expansion as it is the expansion of space we refer to ..not the speed of objects... so the top speed of light does not come into it.. no contradiction finally I guess.

Does it sound reasonable.. not from this little uneducated humans view is all I am saying.

But to me, to accept this on the basis of the math supports it seems to move away from a reasonable logic... but to say it is a fact I question..who wouldnt..but if one puts forward such a thought we are reassurred that the math provides the evidence.

Inflation saved the day given the various concerns surrounding the big bang and was the best idea put forward..after some 20 years I think wrestling with the concerns..or maybe it took 20 years for the idea of inflation to gather "credibility"..probably more the truth..but I cant recall the facts clearly.

And they say I am morosophic with gravity rain:) ..well I think the condition is not limited to this poor fool;) .

alex:) :) :)

[mill]

I just came up with an brand new theory.
Lets assume we are in an infinite space an we are just a very small part of it.
And i mean an very small part.
The theory goes like this: We move in this immense space and think our part of space is the only space there is, and expanding within the infinite space.
While we are expanding, somewhere else a blob of space is also expanding (however we just cant see it because it is just too far away to even measure it with anything we have) and there could be billions of spaces as we live in.
I know it is very hard to imagine this and it is just an theory:)
Some scientist could use this assumption to make an totally different theory and even make it as explainable as the big bang.
But then again who are we to make these theories?
Nobody will ever accept it or even publish it in the fear of beeing ridiculed:thumbsup:
If i would try to publish this they would laugh at me because it can never be proven (maybe not even in a billion years).
The earth is flat and the sun goes around us:P
A lot of scientists have theories that they dont publish because they could loose their job if they do.
Lucky for us we can make theories and assumptions because we wont loose our jobs because of it:D
Thinking different is not a bad thing and so is asking questions.
Martin.

[xelasnave]

Well Mill you mention the magic word.. theory.

In science it has certain definite requirements.

It requires prediction to be backed up with experiment or prediction.

I say the "theory of inflation" not comply with the requirement.
I say that "string theory"does not comply with the requirement.

I say both are therefore not theories in the scientific sense as demanded by science itself but mere "ideas".my view but reflecting my understanding of scientific requirement.... the hypothesis point only has been reached.

I feel the theory followed by prediction method is dangerous and open to abuse, as it would seem to lead folk to look for what they expect to find.. if they find a result that matches the prediction then the theory lives.. I feel such an approach means that only limited interpretation of results can follow.(do follow in fact) and it is hard to argue with that without offering a better way to manage the building of facts. I have no alternatives but that's always the way of a critic..good at tearing apart things but offering no meaningful contribution.. but that's the job requirements I feel.

Its like if you say "there are too many young people drinking".. all one will notice are the young drunks and seize upon them to say .."there I told you so".
Will one recognise the young folk who are not drinkers.. needless to say the way around the problem in that regard is to offer all the facts, and all I can say in the area of Universe understanding how can anyone pretend to have all the relevant information.

I would not have this difficulty if not for the demand of science as to "theory", we say I have a theory..it is like saying I have a view without much more... for the lay man theory holds the meaning of ..well a theory..an idea which may be right or may be wrong.. the word "theory" in science could almost be substituted for the words "fact established beyond a fair or reasonable doubt".

So if you call "the "string" idea a theory what you are in fact saying is this is very close to fact..well its not really.

and "string theory" even fails to provide the matters that science itself demands.

String idea, or String maths maybe but never "string theory" ..unless there is something I miss and it has in fact provided ..predictions that have been observed.. and I don't know that it has. They try to grab hold but never seem to manage that feat. I feel that after 20 years a little more could be expected and certainly after twenty years could be moved back to..string idea or string maths.. but there in now an establishment who decry such a notion.

Gravity rain predicts that the space craft that have left the solar system will slow (so far they are) stop and speed up to 350 klms approx per second..if they do gravity rain can move from an idea to theory status... but it still will not prove the existence of gravity rain..if you see my drift.

I started corresponding with a chap who has come up with an idea almost parallel to the gravity rain idea.. not a fool on any other observation .. clever in math, an engineer, a judge at a science show, and heads a large "Department" .. he wants it kept a secret because he feels that if his employer was to know of his views his job would not be safe.

That sort of supports your view of just how free views can be.

Or being an atheist and working for the church may see problems as it were.
If working on inflation for example I doubt if opposing views would be welcomed by the folk who gave you the job.

Still the facts are the current system of hypothesis, observation, prediction and experiment is the best we have at the moment.

I am being unkind with all of this really and I recognise that.. but is it not great be a critic.. one has to do nothing and simply call everything else wrong.

An infinite Universe is really big, there are no fractions in an infinite Universe that can be applied to it..you cant take something away from infinite and can not be left with anything less than infinite.

Some say the big bang grew stuff to infinite.. well I say if that is the case explanation at to how many times something must be doubled to reach infinite comes up... well of course something can never be doubled and doubled to reach infinite..something doubled a trillion trillion times will still not approach a fraction of infinite.

So the big bang model will always be stuck with a dimension not matter how long or how great inflation can extrapolate.

Still most who subscribe to the big bang take the view the Universe is finite.. which then leaves the question ..in what does this finite Universe exist in.. nothing?

I one takes the Universe as approx 14 billion years old what existed for the previous 27 trillion years? the previous 100,000 trillion years...nothing? so although an infinite Universe seems on the face of it unreasonable I say it provides simpler answers than to deal with a finite Universe.
Again great minds call for the razor to vet ideas..which is simpler is the problem.
Mind you either proposition is so far beyond human comprehension, we dont , we cant adequately deal with either outcome I feel.

By the way the focus er is fitted, the worst job of my life, scratches on the focuser and the tube, cut more metal than needed ...nothing followed my perfectionist demands.. however I took some star test shots (static mount just to get a feel) and its brilliant.
So much better.
The old focuser if you moved past the focus and sought to come back it was really starting again because the thing "jumped" ..no such problem now so I can move back and forth with no problem.
Thanks again for that.
alex

[DobDobDob]

Well all I can say is that it took me nearly the entire Sunday afternoon to read (just once) the most recent posts. The award for the longest post of course goes to the undisputed King Alex :eyepop: you must have been with a few characters of being too long, in that post down the screen a bit.

It seems to me that this thread (as Mill suggested) is morphing :P

It is certainly no longer about Black Holes. Somehow Alex has managed to turn it into an issue of Not believing what scientist's say, especially if they have constructed working models based on pure mathematics.

Hmnnnn it's hard to comment on any specific aspect, because so many thread tangents have been entered into the thread.

Essentially, I would like to see the DNA of the two new people on the island to confirm their progeny.

As for acceleration in a short period of time, yes of course that is hard to understand, no argument there. I find 500 or 600 miles per hour hard to understand, but still believe it :P

I guess that the density of a Neutron star would be another thing you doubt, no way you can have 50 billion tons in a single teaspoon - no way hey :whistle:

Of course, every time you state that you find something hard to imagine or believe, there is an equal and opposite opportunity to marvel at how amazing that is.

I find it hard to understand that Jupiter is made of gas, but I believe that it is, not that I have personally been there and touched it.

Scepticism for the sake of scepticism is harmful to your development. Sure there are errors and cheats and intentional misrepresentations for personal gain, but there is also a lot of correct, proven amazing facts that IMHO by far outweigh the rouge stuff that might appear from time to time.

No one is suggesting that you blindly believe and accept everything you read or hear, certainly not, but you must give an equal share of your determination in something being incorrect as to it being correct, otherwise it is you that is flawed.

Appraise every new piece of information firstly in isolation then in context, review it, then peer review it, then think about it and make an informed decision as to whether you accept something or not.

Remember the scientific approach is on your side Alex, that is why most things stay as a Theory, very few things make it to the Law status. This precautionary process is their expressly to protect healthy scepticism like yours, providing that when something is proven, you do the right thing and acknowledge it.

Who ever said there is no right or wrong, was wrong, there is correct and incorrect, their is also maybe, should of, could of, would of, would have and should have :P

Hell, the entire universe could be inside my mind alone and I could be slowly going crazy :eyepop: :eyepop: :eyepop: :eyepop:

The only thing I think is really important in areas like what we are discussing here is that you retain your earnest objectivity and be forever fair. Do not garner a bias, don't have preconceptions, attack each new piece of data on it's merit and enjoy the ride.

[bojan]

Alex,
to shorten the story about "gravity rain", I propose you or your friend show us the derivation of the Newton's law of gravity (inverse square law) from the "Gravity rain" theory.
In other words, if you or your friend manage to show that the Newton's formula follows as a consequence of the the basic assumtions of the "gravity rain" idea, it will be a serios contribution to the discussion.
Otherwise, the theory is simply not correct.
This is the only acceptable way to test any sort of theories today
What do you say? :-)

[mill]

Hi bojan.
First of all i am not saying that Newtons law is not right.
Just saying that that is the only acceptable way to test any sorts of theories is a shortcoming of the human race.
Newtons law could be totally wrong for explaining the universe.
I am not that good in math's but a lot of calculations have been proven wrong and that is why a lot about the universe is just theories.
It is just a challenge to explain the universe in a simple way (not that it is possible to do) and understand it.
This is the reason why people always attack people who question and challenge the reasoning behind some equasions.
For all it is worth i wouldn't be hanging the whole universe on newtons laws.
And take it as gospel, in the end those laws could be proven wrong for explaining the universe.
Ps: Not by me:P

[freespace]

Space itself expands. It is not limited by the speed of light. The speed of light is only limit for objects undergoing constant acceleration. You will need constant acceleration for infinity to reach speed of light. Nothing is being violated.

[freespace]

That is simply not true. That is what crackpots like you to think. For those of us in academia, silly ideas are often the topics of tea room breaks. They are for amusement purposes, and also to stimulate discussion.

Simply put, those who claim such surpression and fear with in the scientific arena are crackpots 9 out of 10. It is how they justify support for their theories, and why real scientists reject their ideas.

[freespace]

String theory is a bit shaky, but the theory of inflation is well supported. It explains the observed distribution of matter, and the background cosmic microwave radiation

This is why scientific experiments are openly to scrutiny, and why science and academia is big on peer review. You get some one else to examine your conclusions, and decide whether or not they are valid. Scientists are not stupid, nor are they working in secret to uphold some one idea - history has shown this to be simply false. See newton, QM, relativity, etc.

No offence, but I do not believe you, or I, or any one here are in a position to criticise string theory. It is simply a subject which would require more mathematical and theoritical training than all of us here put together.

That said, there is a general consensus that string theory is perhaps a dead end. While it doesn't make any predictions yet, because they are still working on explaining existing observations with certain assumptions, doesnt mean its not a worth while investigation. At least it doesn't not try to say its right, unlike intelligent design. String theory is quite aware of its short comings.

Unless gravity rain theory can prove existing observation as well, its useless. My purple elve theory says there are purple elves who are slowing down the space craft. So if they do, am I right?

NAturally not. My purple elves make no other predictions, nor can does it expain existing observations. It is one thing to contrive a theory to explain a single observation, it is another to set up a theory which explains all existing observations, AND makes predictions for future ones.

I am sorry, but bein an engineer, clever at math, a judge at a science show, and heading a large department doesn't make him a scientist. I also don't see why it would lose him his job. We have freedom of speech after all. It seems like a crackpot theory in the making, not offence intended. It is merely a hall makr of crack pots to claim surpression of their ideas. In reality, science surpresses no ideas, it just shows they are wrong.

The folks hiring you to invesitgate inflation would welcome contradicting evidence. There is no money to be made on proving inflation. Science loves data which doesn't fit, because its exciting, its progress.

The size of the universe is finite. But it can appear to be infinite, in that you never reach "the end". Imagine an ant on a sphere. The ant can travel forever, and never reach the "end" of the sphere. Yet the sphere is definitly finite.

No one knows what the universe expands in. It is an unknown, we have not yet found a way to look outside.

It is meaning to ask what is there before the big bang. Big bang was the birth of space and time. Time didn't exists before the big bang.

That we don't understand it doesn't mean its not true. How many of you truely understand how your computers work? Yet it still works, and it exists. An intutive understanding is not required for the universe to do what it wants. Just as a fish can not comprehend quantum mechanics, perhaps it is we who can no comprehend the universe.

Tell me more, I want to eventually get a Crayford for my 102mm ST!

Cheers,
Steve

[mill]

Hmm freespace that looks like a personal attack to me and that is not acceptable and against freedom of speech.
Who is the real crackpot here i say?
You or me?
Personal attacks is not very good in this forum, it just shows that you "freespace" believe only one thing and nothing else and that is the only thing you have learned.
I protest about this attack and not respecting other peoples ideas.

[freespace]

But I didn't say you are a crackpot, or even implied it?

I don't see how I personally attacked you.

By the way, the freedom of speech says I can say what I want. Personal attacks, should they occur, are not against the freedom of speech.

[mill]

Freespace the word you is implying it don't you think?

[freespace]

You seem to have misunderstood me. I said

"crackpots like you to think"

not

"crackpot like you think"

As in, crackpots, a 3rd person, would like you, 2nd person, to think there is some sort of conspiracy in academia against "unpopular" ideas.

[mill]

I give you an example freespace.

1 Introduction: What is Relativity?
Until the end of the 19th century it was believed that Newton’s three Laws of Motion
and the associated ideas about the properties of space and time provided a basis on
which the motion of matter could be completely understood. However, the formulation
by Maxwell of a unified theory of electromagnetism disrupted this comfortable state of
affairs – the theory was extraordinarily successful, yet at a fundamental level it seemed to
be inconsistent with certain aspects of the Newtonian ideas of space and time. Ultimately,
a radical modification of these latter concepts, and consequently of Newton’s equations
themselves, was found to be necessary. It was Albert Einstein who, by combining the
experimental results and physical arguments of others with his own unique insights, first
formulated the new principles in terms of which space, time, matter and energy were to
be understood. These principles, and their consequences constitute the Special Theory
of Relativity. Later, Einstein was able to further develop this theory, leading to what
is known as the General Theory of Relativity. Amongst other things, this latter theory
is essentially a theory of gravitation. The General Theory will not be dealt with in this
course.

This means that you would call Einstein and Maxwell crackpots because they want to let us believe their "theories"

I gave my own "theory" that nobody had ever written.
Read carefully what theory i have suggested.
Nobody as i know has ever suggested a theory like this.
Btw: this is from
J D Cresser
Department of Physics
Macquarie University

[freespace]

They weren't saying they were being surpressed by academia. Newton and Einstein didn't say "Oh I have this great idea, but academia is surpressing me!!! Oh noes!!!"

Academia didn't reject their theories. Academia tested their ideas, and verified them.

If you feel you need to quote some one else, then throw their credentials at me to back up your point of view, I would argue you are arguing from a weak position.

For what its worth, I am from the department of physics, university of sydney, and school of IT, university of sydney. I was on the australian team for informatics, and a former CSIRO scholar.

That is not to say I am right - I would never say I am right simply because of my credentials: arguing from position of authority is not a good strategy. But I do know a few things, I know a crackpot theory when I see one, and I call it as it is.

Please understand, I did not call you a crackpot, or your theory a crackpot theory. I meant to say those who say their theories are surpressed by academia, while promoting their theories are generally crackpots, and their theories crackpot theories. I said nothing about you or your theory.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Identifying_pseudosci ence for the hallmarks of pseudoscience, some of which are exhibited in this thread.

Cheers,
Steve

[bojan]

All I proposed here is to derive the inverse square law from the assumption that the "gravity rain" is the cause of measurable force between the two bodies instead of gravity.
Even relativity equations are identical to inverse square law if the speed of light is postulated as infinite, so Newton's law becomes a special case of the relativistic equations.

I predict that this derivation (inverse square law of force) will not be possible, especially for the case of very high density objects (small black holes, pr example), which will tend to offer very small “screen” for gravity rain, yet the measured force could be very strong.
When I wrote that "this is the only way to prove something", what I meant is the fundamental principle of modern science:
1) you have observation of a certain phenomenon
2) you build the model that describes this phenomenon in mathematical terms. Take the linear movement for example. It is not enough just to say that something is moving. You have to quantify this movement, in terms of traveling certain distance in certain amount of time. There you have the simple model, which describes the movement and exact relationship between time, distance and speed. You can calculate the value of one parameter from the other two.
3) your theory is confirmed as long as your formula gives you the value of one physical quantity within the measurement uncertainties...
4) However, if you find discrepancies which can not be explained with the formula you have, something else is happening here and your theory needs to be either modified or thrown out (say, for example, the resistance of air in the case of rock thrown with the controlled speed towards the other side of the street... in this case the discrepancy between measurement and calculated time of arrival of the rock to the other side will be very small, but measurable.
And you will have to explain this by introducing the air drag... or some other mysterious force :-)
Anybody can agree that the above principles are very much common sense… and that is science, indeed. Only difference between science and our everyday life is that science observes and models phenomena that are in most cases do not pose significant impact on our daily lives so they go unnoticed by most people.

[xelasnave]

Ron perhaps I sound more sceptical than I really am because all that I mean to convey is simply somethings I find difficult to believe, or accept.
I like to think of myself as reasonable and think that I make concessions possibly that go unnoticed because one can focus negatively on the strength of the examples offered.
I think my reply and discussion with Steve must show that I am more looking for answers to things that concern me than to say everything is simply wrong.
When I question the possibility of a black hole I merely traced my knowledge and where I found difficulties in acceptance.
Now Steve offered something new to me..a star passing in front of a black hole.. now although I have not read anything yet about that observation that new piece of information makes me feel more comfortable.
I say I am not easily convinced but really that is perhaps not so.. If someone I respect tells me something I often accept that simply because I think they are not going to let something past that is unreasonable.
I don't think I have said at any point I simply do not believe that a black hole exists but merely questioned if the black hole was born on paper and asks us to accept that there is a point where the laws break down could there not be a proposition that notwithstanding what will happen if that point is reached could in fact that point in fact possibly not be reached.
That was the real question..yet I still await someone to say... no there is no question about that ..the mass we observe in a SN all goes into the collapse so there is no question about the mass present.. from that answer I would say ..fair enough ..just thought I would ask.
I can understand that given my rambling style that key point could go unnoticed.
So I say this in an effort to clarify the position... the theory in the event of the mass required being present in the collapse I see no reason why the black hole would not form.
I don't think my short "Island" example is unreasonable to demonstrate how in a very simple situation the math can be spot on but unknown factors may influence the result.
Calling for DNA would not be an option if one came from a race where they have no idea about reproduction.. If you wanted to tear that example apart you probably could have pointed out that there must be some reproduction process available to our alien group and they would have taken that into account..just because they are mono sexual would not preclude reproduction one would think for their species. So easy to guide people past the obvious I find and I apologize for being so slick guiding the reader past the obvious..
and I would like to think that little demonstration of slickness further supports a proposition that it is so easy not to include all the relevant input in ones calculations.
An advantage of being verbose.. the reader wil get impatient to get to the meat of the paragraph and not see the small subtleties.
alex

[xelasnave]

Sorry I was not near finished that last post went off without me looking at it and certainly not complete so please bear that in mind when reading it..must be full of errors as I was typing very fast.
Anyway where was I.
Hang on more just hit the deck let me catch up.
Anyways Ron I am not as hard on things as I must be coming across...
I simply say this... I had a concern about the alternatives for really the necessary conditions for a black hole creation.. never a problem with the math.. and that the island example was presented to point out a simple case where the math could be right but its application produce an incorrect picture because something vital was left out of the mix.
AND I want to be a good armchair scientist by looking carefully at things.. none of this is an attempt to tear things down but more to get at facts that are probably dumbed down for folk like me.. on the web and in the media generally.
I see myself as basically an honest man and it would be dishonest of me to say I accept something to your face and yet still have doubts in my mind.
Perhaps my approach is too open but what can you do?
alex

[xelasnave]

I absolutely agree.
I would not call him a friend in so far as the correspondence has been really a case of me saying ..hey I think the same as you...and him sending back a lot of stuff about who he is his family and his career, his childhood...well he goes on more than me put it that way.

But the last email I sent I asked him, given he seems to be a maths wizz, I asked him to see if he could come up with a formula, expressing the situation as I / he sees it... specifically limiting the inputs to..mass, leaving out attraction and avoiding the inclusion of time.

I emailed him days ago and a couple of days before that.. he may already given up on me or he may be busy but the way I see it if he is good at math a formula should be a snap.
He did ask me to contribute to his site in an earlier email and review his work .. maybe the fact I did not accept the offer and took time before I replied got him off side, maybe the fact I told him I did not believe in God or go to church got him off side..maybe he is more important than I think and has a busy life..maybe it is only of casual interest and not a priority.
He went to great lenghts to tell me all about himself and I am not sure if he is high on ego or wants to offer credentials as it were..
I did say Ï dont know how good he was at math and maybe that upset him as he had gone to great lenghts to say how it was his first career choice... still trying to work out his motivations etc.

But the point is I have asked for a formula.

Thanks for your interest and suggesting that I ask him to come up with something to take it further.
alex

[xelasnave]

AND the request to leave out time was in the context of its inclusion from the acceleration point of view.
alex

[xelasnave]

Steve I think the effort that went into string theory worthwhile in many respects.. my point was simply to me it seems as the scientific requirements of predictions etc have never been met. AND rightly or wrongly I feel somewhat the same way about inflation but lets put that down to me not understanding it... I was wrong on the trillionth of a second so maybe my views will change.

I do not call gravity rain a theory for the very reason it is not..it is an idea. I learnt early that to call a mere idea a theory brings the reasonable labeling of crackpot. And by the way this chap has made it to the crackpot site..

I have not read the review which I must do.. However I must say if I were to write a book I would approach it from the crack pot line simply as one probably could sell more books than if it were a legitimate scientific publication..which I could never provide.

Many crackpots make millions... take that Japanese Doctor who writes messages of peace on bottles of water..scandalous really but I think you can see the point I make here. But really I cant see my idea going far under my control.
I have similar misgivings about this chap from the USA for various reasons as he did call his idea a theory, which I pointed out was putting him in danger of being called a crack pot.. he changed it to SPUE dynamics.. my outline about him was not to place him on a pedestal but merely to let you all know what I know about him.

And as to the space craft what I said was a little loose but more to offer the sort of step required to take an idea to theory status.

Generally there is nothing I disagree with in your thoughtful reply and thank you for taking the time to post.

I still say I have a problem with the "30 seconds" period of inflation I can not say otherwise..however and hasten to point out my thoughts can never be much more than personal thoughts on the matter which I would like to share as honestly as I can.

Again in respect of the guy in the USA as I replied to Bojan I feel if he is as good at math as the impression he seeks to lead me to a formula should be a simple task.

He may have given up on me for whatever reason but I think I have given him every opportunity to get involved... maybe he thinks I am after his idea..maybe he thinks I want the money and the glory that he feels is rightfully his and is busily writing the book to beat me to the punch I will never deliver... but I assure you Steve I am not carried away by anything he has said.

Generally I don't look up to or down to any one (present company is of course different as I do look up to you guys).

As to the focuser I feel the installation of a good one makes life much better. I have one on the 12 inch and it is great.. it does not matter how good the optics if you have trouble focusing.

I believe it will have a big influence on getting better photos for the reasons I outlined.

Thanks again it is so good to have your input and everyone else's.

AND Ron I think you miss the fine point I try to make re maths and say I am not as sceptical as you must see me.
alex

[freespace]

Inflation predicts our universe is flat - from all evidence, it appears to be the case. Inflation predicts the distribution of matter in space, and again, it appears correct. Predictions don't mean something in the future in the conventional sense. It means if you assume the theory is true, then how would it predict the universe to look? Then you look at the universe you have, and judge how well the theory performed. I would say inflation has pretty good predictive powers.

More important than confirmation, is falsification. Any reasonable scientific theory will say "if you do this experiment, then you will see this result, otherwise we are wrong". Now this is important, because a theory is never right, its not-wrong. There is a subtle difference.

Often, it is hard for those of us who study physics too. The universe is larger than most reasonable minds can comprehend. No one can truely appreciate how big space is, how small atoms are, etc. But we can deal with our lack of intutive understanding through mathematics, essentially through logic. In some ways this is why a mathematical background is a good thing for hard physics - otherwise it is very difficult to be sure the results are right

Cool, I just find my new scope is a bit sticky focuser wise. Is it hard to fit a crayford, say, to a ST refractor?

My pleasure.

[xelasnave]

"Cool, I just find my new scope is a bit sticky focuser wise. Is it hard to fit a crayford, say, to a ST refractor?"Steve.

I dont know Steve but given the effort I had to fit what was designed for a 10 inch maybe a 12inch reflector to a 6 inch reflector I say anything is possible but I would be more inclined to seek out a specific unit that you could simply swap... there must be units out there that one could swap over without the drama adapting something that was not a simple swap. But Mill provided me with what I saw as a bargain so I had a go.

My curse is no math but a keen interst in science... it means one is working from a very difficult position, as you appreciate.

It is similar to my color blindness and taking a good astro photo.

That is why I appreciate you and others so much for helping me.

As I said earlier someplace my style of comment and sceptical approach is more from my frustration with my inabilities that it is really with the science.

I want to be expert in areas such as General Relativity and of course that will never be possible without the math... but that is my lot.

If I were math capable maybe I could take my ideas re gravity some place or at least satify myself there is simply no merit in the idea.

Thanks again I hope you understand how much I appreciate the time you have taken ...because I really really do.
best wishes
alex

[DobDobDob]

Hmnnnnn quite an interesting way to start a Monday morning. Firstly let me say how wonderful it is to have Steve lend a sense of sanity to the thread, I totally and 100% support his views which I must say in my own defence are exactly what I have been saying all along, however Steve said it far more eloquently. My hat's off to you Steve.

Alex, seriously, read your posts again from an outsiders point of view and you would have to agree that you came off looking as a sceptic rather than you seeking answers. I believe of course that you want answers, but the way you sometimes tear down the 'System' is an affront to those people who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of truth through science.

IMHO anyone who has laboured hard years going through Universities and worked in the field as a professional scientist, gets my unending respect.

Finally: We are all reasonable people here, as Steve stated we look to maths to explain what we as intelligent humans cannot understand. I can tell you that 8 days ago I was privileged to asked the exact same question to one of the worlds leading Scientist alive today Alex Filippenko:
http://www.melitatrips.com/bios/bio_filippenko.html (http://www.melitatrips.com/bios/bio_filippenko.html)

Quoted here for you:
[16:45] <tailwag> You obviously have a better than usual math ability, can free thinking people make intelligent contributions to cosmology without a basis in mathematics?

[16:45] <Alex> I think it is very difficult to make
[16:46] <Alex> meaningful contributions to cosmology without a
[16:46] <Alex> mathematical background or access to large telescopes; I often
[16:46] <Alex> get letters from people with cosmological theories, but the problem is that
[16:47] <Alex> like special relativity, and the people who write to me have not
[16:47] <Alex> been able to make these sorts of checks themselves. So, I think it is great to
[16:47] <Alex> have cosmology as a hobby or a strong interest, but I regret to say that I've not seen much evidence
[16:48] <Alex> that people without telescopes or a lot of mathematics can contribute.... unlike the case for,
[16:48] <Alex> say, supernovae, or comet hunting, or things like that.

As you can see, without the mathematical background it is hard, but I personally would like to urge everyone to continue to think of the thread matter discussed herein and to marvel at the universe as a whole and everything in it.

Sincerely yours. :)

[bojan]

I would go one step further, and I would say bluntly that it is not only hard, but quite impossible to contribute to the modern theoretical (and practical science as well) science without competent mathematical skills.
Anything less than that is just expressing interest or small talk during the tea break. Of course, we can enjoy it very much ;), and we do..
Those who think otherwise are just fooling themselves, and nobody else....

[duncan]

If Black Holes are real (my pocket tells me they are!) wouldn't they just continue to grow while there is something for it to feed on?
Just a thought!

[bojan]

Yes they would.. as long as there is stuff to swallow nearby, in unstable orbits around the black hole - because if the orbit is stable, the orbiting object can not fall into a black hole.. IMO.

edit:
The term "stable orbit" means all relativistic effect are taken into account, not just Newtonian mechanics.

[duncan]

Hi Bojan,
Now that's what i thought. But i've read somewhere that some theory suggests that they do reach a critical mass (so to speak). But what happens then, do they just implode to nothing, or implode then explode forming perhaps another universe:shrug: .

[bojan]

I never heard of critical mass for a black hole.
Perhaps you confused this with the critical mass of a star (1.4 solar masses) that will collapse in a black hole if its mass is bigger.
There were also some discussions about what is happening "beyond" the event horizon, but IMO those discussions are pretty meaningless because as something is appraching the black hole, due to a relativistic effects the time for that thing slows down, and stops right at the event horizon, as far as we outside observers are concerned.
The things may be different if we are falling into a black hole.... but we would never be able to tell the story to those who left behind....

[duncan]

That is true for sure. No i'm not confused with solar masses. This may have been from someone who doesn't fall into the acceptable theorist categories.
(polite way of saying crackpot,LOL). I guess it's one of those things whereby just about anything is possible. Well beyond my understanding given that we can't even physically see one of these. When we get to the stage of actually photoing one and see stuff falling in and dissappearing into a visible hole we might understand it all a bit better.
Ps If we live to tell the tale,LOL:shrug:

[Gargoyle_Steve]

"The biggest black holes, those with at least 100 million times the mass of the Sun, ate voraciously during the early Universe. Nearly all of them ran out of 'food' billions of years ago and went onto a forced starvation diet. "

The way I read this section of the original linked site was that it isn't that there is an "Upper Limit Law" as such that black holes cannot exceed, but rather that we have simply not been able to "observe" one - yet - that is larger than this size. The 100 million solar mass or so black holes seem to be nothing more than the current record holders at present.

It would seem likely to me that should a galaxy with a large central black hole collide / merge / intersect another galaxy at some future time this could potentially bring even more star food within it's grasp and it should be able to increase it's mass even further. As with all things time will tell - but there's no guarantee that we'll be around to see it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

As an aside I would like to add that I am not a professional scientist or academic, I have no affiliation with any scientists or academics, nor am I on the payroll of any Scientific Instutions, Panels, Committees, etc.
:P
Nor do I hold anything against those who are scientists, academics, cosmologists (amateur or professional).
.
.
Politicians - many of them I do dislike intently!
:lol:

[xelasnave]

I absolutely agree...
and note for the record..
1. I always see myself as a layman.
2. I mostly failed maths at school (only general maths)
3. My ideas are ideas to be seen it the light of the "tea room chat" (er net chat) but I like that way of putting it.
4. I never take myself seriously.
5. My postings offer ideas but contain very little substance.
6. I welcome help from experts.
7. The more I learn the less I know.
8. My interests are never confused with my money making activities.
9. I see more good in people than bad.
10. I will take a different position to keep a chat going.
11. My personal views never go public.

I think the wonderful thing in these forums is that the conversations are kept so civil and particularly the respect everyone extends to each other.

Ron I don't mean to offend any decent people by pointing out the nasty side of some humans... but see the point you make as valid.


alex

[freespace]

My thanks :) *blush* Its because I have had good teachers see :)

As an example of how the "System" is not out to get you, I got this in my email today:

See, cosmology is well and truely alive. Here is a scientist presenting an alternative theory, some one I can turn up on Wednesday and talk to, who is not going to lose his job because he is going against the grain of Big Bang theory.

Note how much work his theory has done. It predicts things. Not just one thing, and not just what current theory can not explain. It explains what we see and understand well, AND it explains what we see and don't understand well. That is the hallmark of a sound theory. Note how it acknowledges itself is easily refuted, and introduces no exotic particles or conditions.

I doubt any one here can turn up to that lecture, and I doubt I can either: I have lost half a tooth, and I need to see a dentist otherwise I keep whistling when I talk :P

For those interested, I can try and see if I can nab a PDF off him of his work, and maybe the slides too.

Now off to the dentist *shudder*

Cheers,
steve

[freespace]

Ah, cool, well in that case I will just see if Skywatcher sells one I can just swap on. I am not terribly good with large tools.

Its not a curse, its a gift :-) And my pleasure.

In this case its not that important. GR is intutive enough with rubber sheet examples if you can understand the concepts you would appreciate it just as well. I strong recommend a brief history of time, and also the universe in a nutshell, or just universe in a nutshell. Both books presents rather modern cosmological and physics theories in rather math-free terms that any one can enjoy. There is something to be said for popular science :)

Cheers,
Steve

[xelasnave]

Thanks from me Steve it is great to get a look from the inside as it were.
alex

[xelasnave]

Steve I did not see your last post and now thank you for that one.
I note you are in Sydney so I offer you my service should you need it an any area I could possibly help you. I am not bad with my hands as they say or finding the right folk for a job. Anything.. anything at all I would be honored to help.

Thanks for the book suggestions.
And the encouragement generally.

alex

[Kal]

That would be sweet, it would be interesting in itself to see first hand how one presents an alternate theory, let alone having an in depth read of the theory :)

[DobDobDob]

I also thank you Steve standing on top of Alex's shoulders as it were in my 'newest-to-oldest' forum structure :P

Plus, what ever you can gleam regarding the new theory would be awesome if you could obtain and share. There are dozen, probably hundreds of intensely interested members in this location.

Respectfully yours.

[bojan]

This is an interesting site for alternative cosmologies... The subscrittion to a newsletter is also possible :-)

http://www.cosmology.info/

[DobDobDob]

Thanks for the link Bojan, I just subscribed :thumbsup:

[xelasnave]

Thank you very much for the link Bojan:thumbsup: .
I have only read the titles contained in each news letter however will over time read each article.
I had a chuckle to see Big bang a religion being discussed as science given my unkind assessment somewhere above... cant wait to read that one but I will start at the start and work my way thru the lot.

If nothing else there seems to be at least a few folk out there who are prepared to question the current big bang models which I see as a good thing as it means the observations that are inconsistent with the model are deal with... somehow...

Is this site a front for ID or do you think they have an axe to grind?

I have not figured out what their game may be yet but on the face of it at least issues are being addressed... thank goodness I thought it was all in my clumbsy hands:lol: :lol: :lol:

Thanks again looks like some interesting weeks of reading lay ahead for me.
alex:) :) :)

[bojan]

You are welcome :-)
LIke with everything else, articles on this website have to be carefully considered before making any conclusions...

[xelasnave]

I suspect the "Fractal Universe" is put forward with something in mind possibly:shrug: and the "äbsence of background radiation shadows in certain instances":shrug: I fell for earlier;) ... but Bojan I assure you I wont be sold a pup... I already have one (gravity rain) and dont need another:lol: :lol: :lol: .
Thanks again:thumbsup:
alex:) :) :)