Black hole maximum size.

[freespace]

Originally Posted by 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

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 (Ron)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

But you have studied these matters as I understand at University so you must be better informed.

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

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

[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 (Ron)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

3) Also as I asked Ron on what basis did Time find its way into General Relativity ..was it via formula for acceleration

alex

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 (Ron)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Ron you must have missed my question.... I am keeping a list of all of them.

alex

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

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 (a spacetime with this property is called a de Sitter space). The physical conditions from one moment to the next are stable: the rate of expansion, called the Hubble parameter, 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.)

Cosmic inflation has the important effect of smoothing out inhomogeneities, anisotropies and the curvature of space. This pushes the universe into a very simple state, in which it is completely dominated by the inflation field and the only significant inhomogeneities are the tiny quantum fluctuations in the inflation. Inflation also dilutes exotic heavy particles, such as the magnetic monopoles predicted by many extensions to the Standard Model of 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] by analogy with the no hair theorem for black holes.

The "no-hair" theorem works essentially because the universe expands by an enormous factor during inflation. In an expanding universe, energy densities 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 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. 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] At the end of inflation, a process called reheating occurs, in which the inflation particles 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, as is suggested by the simplest models, the period of inflation responsible for the observable universe probably lasted roughly 10-33 seconds.[7]

Motivation

Inflation resolves several problems in the Big Bang cosmology that were pointed out in the 1970s.[8] 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 ).

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

[freespace]

Seems all your questions were answered

[DobDobDob (Ron)]

Originally Posted by freespace

Seems all your questions were answered

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

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by tailwag

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

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 .

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 .

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 .

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 .
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 . One sees God as the answer and the other does not rule out the existence of God .

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

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 .

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 ... 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 .
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 ... 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 .

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 .
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 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 ... oh matter and space are different ... really so the parts between objects is expanding but not the objects themselves .. so space stops at the edge of an object enabling öutta space to expand yet the objects governed by the same rules simply stay the same size and are moved further apart .

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 ..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 .

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 .
I respect their art , I respect their ability and brain power far in excess of mine 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 .

The other thing to remember in all this is being right is not the exclusive prerogative of the majority ... 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
alex

[mill (Martin)]

Assuming that the energy scale of inflation is between 1015 and 10 16 GeV, as is suggested by the simplest models, the period of inflation responsible for the observable universe probably lasted roughly 10-33 seconds.[7]

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 (Martin)]

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

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by mill

Assuming that the energy scale of inflation is between 1015 and 10 16 GeV, as is suggested by the simplest models, the period of inflation responsible for the observable universe probably lasted roughly 10-33 seconds.[7]

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

No no no Mill there is no contradiction according to the theory not my view but what else will we be left with.. it all will fit .. I just know it .
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 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 (Martin)]

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
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
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
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 (Ron)]

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 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

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

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

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

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

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 (Martin)]

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

[freespace]

Originally Posted by mill

Assuming that the energy scale of inflation is between 1015 and 10 16 GeV, as is suggested by the simplest models, the period of inflation responsible for the observable universe probably lasted roughly 10-33 seconds.[7]

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

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.