# Why No One Has Measured The Speed Of Light



## qubit (May 14, 2021)

Fascinating. I never knew this was a problem until I saw this video. It's from a reputable channel, too.











*UPDATE*
For another perspective, here's another source explaining why the speed can never be measured.









						There's no way to Measure the Speed of Light in a Single Direction
					

A new study shows that not even cosmology can verify Einstein's assumption about the speed of light.




					www.universetoday.com
				





*ANOTHER UPDATE*

Three animations which give a good feel for the speed of light.









						The speed of light is torturously slow, and these 3 simple animations by a scientist at NASA prove it
					

A scientist at NASA animated how long it takes light to travel around Earth, to the moon, and to Mars. The movies show just how slow light can be.




					www.businessinsider.com


----------



## W1zzard (May 14, 2021)

Kinda clickbaity, It's not a "problem" ? Better sources to learn GR and SR. Otoh, if it can get anyone interested in science, +1 from me


----------



## wolf (May 14, 2021)

I blow my load faster than that, cmon.


----------



## qubit (May 14, 2021)

W1zzard said:


> Kinda clickbaity, It's not a "problem" ? Better sources to learn GR and SR. Otoh, if it can get anyone interested in science, +1 from me


There's no clickbait. It's exactly a problem, because it's not possible to do away with the assumption of the speed of light, regardless of how you try to measure it and that's what makes the video interesting. This video isn't intended to teach all about SR & GR, just how it relates to measuring the speed of light. And yes, the presentation makes a big difference to user engagement.   This channel is pretty good at that.


----------



## kayjay010101 (May 14, 2021)

Yes! Veritasium is a great channel, very informative topics. Been following it for a while now, always happy to see a new video in my sub box. That video did get my old noggin' churning when I watched it when it first came out. Very interesting topic that you just wouldn't ever think about.
And yeah, I disagree with Wizzard. It is a problem, not one that's paramount to our daily lives but neither are most scientific problems. A scientific problem is simply something we just don't understand, it doesn't have to change our lives by finding the solution.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 14, 2021)

I can accept that the speed of light is impossible to measure to an exact amount. However, the presenter established another narrative which is that we can't be sure it doesn't travel at two different speeds. The initial premise for that is based on physical science, where light will travel at speeds other than C. I guess a black holes gravitational well is evidence of that. However, in much of the YT vid, he talks about a communication from Earth to Mars. That's a path through 'standard' space in a stable planetary model where gravity and such is held in balance. All the host ends up doing, IMO, is to look like a conceited ass with the instantaneous speed concept. My problem with his problem is that he provides no sound science for the general assumption he makes that light speed could be 1/2 C and instantaneous in a round trip. That's where this video fails hardest. It's not science to postulate a random thought, it's pseudo-science. He's taking Einsteins theory which accepts C isn't truly constant and adds an arbitrary value. 

It's that sort of extrapolation of scientific data, specifically twisting the scientific theory, to create a novel problem or hypothesis which whack-jobs use to befuddle others. Because, thing is, it takes a clever misapplication of science to create pseudo-science.

Now, I'm not saying this guy is doing that across his channel but what was presented in the vid is pretty much 95% science to create a convincing foundation for his entirely unscientific postulation. He could have left out his BS and kept it very interesting by focussing on the difficult issues of measuring light speed through different mediums.


----------



## qubit (May 14, 2021)

@the54thvoid It's a tricky one, but going by the measurement with a mirror example, he's right that the value we arrive at is an average value of both trips, so he took it to the limit of instantaneous one way and double speed the other for it to give the same result. Thinking about it, one could also say that light speed varies in the one direction too, a but like wow and flutter on a cassette for an analogy, so how do we prove that it doesn't happen?

The problem of course, is that there's nothing faster than light to compare with.

Also, Einstein _did_ say that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. All that changes is blueshift or redshift depending on gravity and whether one is going fast or slow. Why do you think otherwise?


----------



## dorsetknob (May 14, 2021)

Speed of light from A to B is the same as from B to A


----------



## ExcuseMeWtf (May 14, 2021)

dorsetknob said:


> Speed of light from A to B is the same as from B to A


It would be for certain if we could measure both at exact same time instance.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 14, 2021)

qubit said:


> @the54thvoid It's a tricky one, but going by the measurement with a mirror example, he's right that the value we arrive at is an average value of both trips, so he took it to the limit of instantaneous one way and double speed the other for it to give the same result. Thinking about it, one could also say that light speed varies in the one direction too, a but like wow and flutter on a cassette for an analogy, so how do we prove that it doesn't happen?
> 
> The problem of course, is that there's nothing faster than light to compare with.
> 
> Also, *Einstein did say that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant*. All that changes is blueshift or redshift depending on gravity and whether one is going fast or slow. Why do you think otherwise?


From the vid, he shows the actual equation to illustrate it uses the average of a round trip. From this he makes the arbitrary statement, what if it's 'instantaneous'. Technically, and strangely, this phenomenon was used in a Star Trek TNG episose when Wesley becomes the 'traveller'(?). If anything can move at an instantaneous speed, it can exist everywhere at once. Which, under quantum physics is impossible, no? I'm sure I've watched this described in such a way that two electrons cannot inhabit the same specific energy space, which is linked to spooky entanglement. You change the property of an entangled photon and it's counterpart, no matter how far away must also change it's behaviour.

Actually... entanglement supports instantaneous speed of interaction, if not travel.

I'm waving the white flag, I work in a freaking gym, man. Gonna do me some reps to get me some biggness.


----------



## qubit (May 14, 2021)

@the54thvoid It's that last sentence that you've got the laughing emoji for - you've cracked me up!   

To be honest, the video confuses me a bit, but I trust he's making sense due to his reputation. Just don't tell anyone I got mixed up, ok? Oh...


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 14, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> I'm waving the white flag, I work in a freaking gym, man. Gonna do me some reps to get me some biggness.



The amount of "bro" that ancient philosophers had makes me think that the hang-out spot for philosophers (like Socrates, Arostotile, etc. etc.) was a glorified gym. Seriously.



> “No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable.”



All that thinking had to come from somewhere, and its evident that maybe Socrates was doing that "thinking" in between reps. Lol.


----------



## Shrek (May 14, 2021)

If it has no physical consequences (the reason it can't be measured) then it is irrelevant (has no effects); so one is free to define it to be direction independent.


----------



## robot zombie (May 14, 2021)

dragontamer5788 said:


> The amount of "bro" that ancient philosophers had makes me think that the hang-out spot for philosophers (like Socrates, Arostotile, etc. etc.) was a glorified gym. Seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> All that thinking had to come from somewhere, and its evident that maybe Socrates was doing that "thinking" in between reps. Lol.


People dont give thier bodies enough credit for the thoughts in thier heads, sometimes. If I had a nickle for every "unsolvable" issue that dissappeared when I became more active...


----------



## qubit (May 14, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> If it has no physical consequences (the reason it can't be measured) then it is irrelevant (has no effects); so one is free to define it to be direction independent.


Thing is, this is science, another word for the pursuit of the deepest understanding of reality possible, so it matters in that sense. And who knows, it might even matter in some real life sense that we just don't know about yet.


----------



## Hemmingstamp (May 14, 2021)

qubit said:


> Thing is, this is science, another word for the pursuit of the deepest understanding of reality possible, so it matters in that sense. And who knows, it might even matter in some real life sense that we just don't know about yet.


I agree, although I think much of the unknow should remain just that, unknow, and unsolvable since Man tends to exploit it for it's destructive powers instead of what it can do for the greater good. Deep thought over....


----------



## qubit (May 14, 2021)

Hemmingstamp said:


> I agree, although I think much of the unknow should remain just that, unknow, and unsolvable since Man tends to exploit it for it's destructive powers instead of what it can do for the greater good. Deep thought over....


Well, there's an argument for misuse there, I'll give you that. Unfortunately, we can't discuss that here.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 14, 2021)

robot zombie said:


> People dont give thier bodies enough credit for the thoughts in thier heads, sometimes. If I had a nickle for every "unsolvable" issue that dissappeared when I became more active...











						Gamer Life - Daily Routine in the Life of a Gamer | Intel
					

Insights into gamer life as told through exclusive interviews with competitive gamers. Get a look into the life of a gamer as they navigate professional gaming and healthy living.




					www.intel.com
				




I mean, its weird, but true. There's something about fitness that helps in purely mental tasks (like playing video games at a professional level). That's why eSports players hit the gym.



> “I had never been to a gym prior to joining this team,” Gallagher says. “I did some physical activities in high school, but nothing super specific. When I joined [the Philadelphia Fusion*], I talked to Tucker [Roberts], who is the owner, and was like, ‘I want a personal trainer for the team. Even if it’s only me using it, I want a gym and a personal trainer. I think that will be really beneficial for me as a player.’”
> 
> They’re still in the process of getting that set up, but Elk says that “using online advice,” he has already begun to take advantage of the gym they have at the team house. “Fusion* supplied us with a cable machine, lots of dumbbells, a bench press, deadlifts … a lot of really basic equipment, which has been nice.”
> 
> ...



Gotta stay fit if you want to remain an elite video gamer. I dunno what this has to do with the speed of light though, lol. I'll try to be more on topic now


----------



## dorsetknob (May 14, 2021)

The "Speed of Light " is a bit of a misnomer..............
I would say it does vary depending on the light Frequency
Infra red light thru to ultraviolet covers a wide spectrum we can see but light also exists at frequencys both far below and way above
So comes the Question
Which light Speed are you measuring.


----------



## Shrek (May 14, 2021)

It is well known that the speed does not depend on the energy (for light), strange as that might seem.

EVEN stranger, even if one is passing a beam of light, one will still measure the same speed, even if going at say 99% the speed of light. Ridiculous? Absolutely; but true never-the-less.


Actually, there are many equations involving c; take Maxwell's equations for example. One would notice if c was direction dependent.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (May 14, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> It is well known that the speed does not depend on the energy (for light), strange as that might seem.
> 
> EVEN stranger, even if one is passing a beam of light, one will still measure the same speed, even if going at say 99% the speed of light. Ridiculous? Absolutely; but true never-the-less.
> 
> ...



Note: "The Speed of Light" changes. Light in a vacuum is faster than light in fiber optics. When physicists talk about "The Speed of Light", they're using shorthand for "The Speed of Causality" (which light in a vacuum, or "c", happens to match).

"Causality", that is, how quickly the rest of the world "reacts" to changes, propagates at a fundamentally constant velocity. In fact, the big surprise is that there's a "speed of causality" at all, and that there are physics experiments that prove it has a speed (and that its a constant).


----------



## Shrek (May 14, 2021)

How true, and as a result electrons can go faster than the speed of light (in a material) and the shock wave is Cherenkov radiation.


----------



## Bones (May 14, 2021)

I have to assume the speed they are "Looking For" is based on how fast it travels naturally from a star to a planet through space. 
It's true the speed of light does change depending on conditions..... 
And I seem to recall from years ago it was proven magnetism can actually move faster than light itself can. 

It has been proven as fact in the case of black holes, lines of magnetic force do_ emanate *from *a black hole_ and that means it's coming up from the hole *through it's event horizon.*
So if you must go faster than light itself to make it up and out of the event horizon, well - There you go. 

I don't believe it's possible to nail it down to an exact speed but we can get close. 
For example it's been said a radio transmission travels at the speed of light. It takes a radio transmisison about 4 seconds to travel from Earth to the moon and you can get an approximate speed based on the distance it must travel during those 4 seconds but also, there is no actual way to 100% measure this distance accurately at any time either. As the moon orbits, it either gets closer or further away as it orbits, that also being relative to the transmission point of the signal on Earth to the receiving point on the moon.


----------



## qubit (May 14, 2021)

dorsetknob said:


> The "Speed of Light " is a bit of a misnomer..............
> I would say it does vary depending on the light Frequency
> Infra red light thru to ultraviolet covers a wide spectrum we can see but light also exists at frequencys both far below and way above
> So comes the Question
> Which light Speed are you measuring.


That's a misconception. Light travels at the same speed regardless of its frequency. It doesn't change with intensity, either.




Andy Shiekh said:


> How true, and as a result electrons can go faster than the speed of light (in a material) and the shock wave is Cherenkov radiation.


Yup, Cherenkov radiation is effectively a sonic boom. How cool is that?! Read all about it, here:








						Cherenkov radiation - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				







Bones said:


> I have to assume the speed they are "Looking For" is based on how fast it travels naturally from a star to a planet through space.
> It's true the speed of light does change depending on conditions.....
> And I seem to recall from years ago it was proven magnetism can actually move faster than light itself can.
> 
> ...


It's about 1.3 seconds to get to the moon, quite a bit faster.


----------



## ExcuseMeWtf (May 15, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> How true, and as a result electrons can go faster than the speed of light (in a material) and the shock wave is Cherenkov radiation.



_In a medium_ is the key part here.

By current knowledge speed of light in vacuum is considered invariant and unreachable in practice by any matter (with increasing energy input one can get arbitrarily close).


----------



## Bones (May 15, 2021)

qubit said:


> That's a misconception. Light travels at the same speed regardless of its frequency. It doesn't change with intensity, either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I knew it wasn't instantaneous and heard that 4 seconds was the delay value at one time. 
1.3 however does sound more reasonable.


----------



## xtreemchaos (May 15, 2021)

the speed of light is so 1930s ,its the speed of Dark im interested in   .


----------



## Caring1 (May 15, 2021)

Bones said:


> It has been proven as fact in the case of black holes, lines of magnetic force do_ emanate *from *a black hole_ and that means it's coming up from the hole *through it's event horizon.*
> So if you must go faster than light itself to make it up and out of the event horizon, well - There you go.


I highly doubt this is "fact" but as a non scientist I cannot explain why.


----------



## ExcuseMeWtf (May 15, 2021)

> It has been proven as fact in the case of black holes, lines of magnetic force do_ emanate *from *a black hole_ and that means it's coming up from the hole *through it's event horizon.*


Was it shown specifically to emanate FROM it? Because I see plenty of proof for magnetic fields _in the immediate vicinty_ of a black hole, but not necessarily _emanating from it_.

Hawking radiation is emanating from black holes specifically and it is due to quantum effects which are still yet to be combined with relativity in all-encompassing way.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 15, 2021)

Nobody has measured yet because Mother Russia hasn't found way to send dog faster than speed of light yet.


----------



## Shrek (May 15, 2021)

Schrodinger, he used cat... but the collapse of the quantum wave function, it beats the speed of light.



ExcuseMeWtf said:


> Hawking radiation is emanating from black holes specifically and it is due to quantum effects which are still yet to be combined with relativity in all-encompassing way.


Dyson suspected that there may be no need to combine, that gravity can stay classical.



Bones said:


> It has been proven as fact in the case of black holes, lines of magnetic force do_ emanate *from *a black hole_ and that means it's coming up from the hole *through it's event horizon.*
> So if you must go faster than light itself to make it up and out of the event horizon, well - There you go.


The magnetic field is one thing, electromagnetic radiation another. The second emanates, the first is just frozen in.


----------



## Bones (May 16, 2021)

Caring1 said:


> I highly doubt this is "fact" but as a non scientist I cannot explain why.


Had to re-research it from what I recalled earlier to make sure. I know once I saw an article/vid about magnetic fields and black holes that was beyond just interesting.
I believe this is it along with a few others for additional reading about this and related things.

Massive Black Hole Photographed Reportedly 'Burping' Light

Magnetic Field around a Black Hole Mapped for the First Time - Scientific American

Magnetic Fields May Be Key to Black Hole Activity | NASA

This seemed interesting enough to include:

Galaxy Survives Black Hole’s Feast – For Now | NASA

What will we find in the next 10 years that's gonna make us lose our minds over what we think we "know" today?
Time will tell and should be.... Interesting.


----------



## Tardian (May 16, 2021)

This issue is the nature of timespace both at a quantum level and at galactic size.  Since all timespace is curved the direction light travels is unimportant, as emr travelling on the x axis is also travelling to some degree through the Y & Z axis.  It very likely that if light had a different speed for the opposite of a particular direction there would be measurable outcomes.  The comparison with antimatter v matter is unfortunate and misplaced.  The video is like candy for the high IQ audience.  I am concerned some might take it seriously and it could a physics earworm.


----------



## ExcuseMeWtf (May 16, 2021)

> Dyson suspected that there may be no need to combine, that gravity can stay classical.


Given the continued efforts to unify the two, it doesn't seem likely to be the case.


----------



## Shrek (May 16, 2021)

One could argue the other way around; so much effort for so long and still no success.


----------



## ExcuseMeWtf (May 16, 2021)

That's most definitely not a winning attitude, not just in science, but in many other aspects of life.


----------



## Shrek (May 16, 2021)

Nature decides if gravity is classical or quantum.

This is Science, not Engineering.


----------



## freeagent (May 16, 2021)




----------



## the54thvoid (May 16, 2021)

freeagent said:


> View attachment 200547



Try harder.

 (added to make it clear we're playing here)









						The Great Pyramid’s location isn’t as spooky as this post makes out - Full Fact
					

A line of latitude going through the Great Pyramid in Egypt does match the speed of light, but about 20,000 other lines go through the pyramid as well.




					fullfact.org


----------



## freeagent (May 16, 2021)

I wasn’t trying 

You guys are pulsing brains, I am no match. I quit reading that stuff years ago.


----------



## dorsetknob (May 16, 2021)

the54thvoid said:


> Try harder.
> 
> (added to make it clear we're playing here)


I can play to
Just asking when in Time that is
*Precession* – As Earth rotates, it *wobbles* slightly upon its axis, like a slightly off-center spinning toy top. This *wobble* is due to tidal forces caused by the gravitational influences of the Sun and Moon that cause Earth to bulge at the equator, affecting its rotation.


----------



## ExcuseMeWtf (May 16, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Nature decides if gravity is classical or quantum.
> 
> This is Science, not Engineering.



Classical it certainly isn't, though on certain scales it is good enough approximation. If anything, perhaps you meant described by GR.

Or maybe has duality, much like light.

Or maybe it is neither. And we have to start building theories from scratch...


----------



## Tardian (Aug 16, 2021)

dorsetknob said:


> I can play to
> Just asking when in Time that is
> *Precession* – As Earth rotates, it *wobbles* slightly upon its axis, like a slightly off-center spinning toy top. This *wobble* is due to _tidal forces caused by the gravitational influences of the Sun and Moon that cause Earth to bulge at the equator,_ affecting its rotation.


In modern parlance: Incorrect.  BITD: Nice try but no cigar.



> An *equatorial bulge* is a difference between the equatorial and polar diameters of a planet, due to the centrifugal force exerted by the rotation about the body's axis. A rotating body tends to form an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere.


Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_bulge 



> All parts of the Earth rotate at the same angular speed. As the latitude decreases, moving towards the equator, the radius of revolution (at the Earth's surface) increases. Therefore the parts closer to the equator need larger centripetal forces to keep them revolving. To get those larger forces, the material of the Earth must "stretch out" more, similar to a spring whose tension force increases as you stretch it.
> 
> Source https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...y-does-the-earth-bulge-at-the-equator.745030/





> The *Fizeau–Foucault apparatus* is either of two types of instrument historically used to measure the speed of light. The conflation of the two instrument types arises in part because Hippolyte Fizeau and Léon Foucault had originally been friends and collaborators.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau–Foucault_apparatus





> *Albert Abraham Michelson* FFRS HFRSE (December 19, 1852 – May 9, 1931) was an American physicist known for his work on measuring the speed of light and especially for the Michelson–Morley experiment. In 1907 he received the Nobel Prize in Physics, becoming the first American to win the Nobel Prize in a science.
> 
> The period after 1927 marked the advent of new measurements of the speed of light using novel electro-optic devices, all substantially lower than Michelson's 1926 value.
> Michelson sought another measurement, but this time in an evacuated tube to avoid difficulties in interpreting the image owing to atmospheric effects. In 1929, he began a collaboration with Francis G. Pease and Fred Pearson to perform a measurement in a 1.6 km tube 3 feet in diameter at the Irvine Ranch near Santa Ana, California.[35][36] In multiple reflections the light path was increased to 5 miles. For the first time in history the speed of light was measured in an almost perfect vacuum of 0.5 mm of mercury. Michelson died with only 36 of the 233 measurement series completed and the experiment was subsequently beset by geological instability and condensation problems before the result of 299,774 ± 11 km/s, consistent with the prevailing electro-optic values, was published posthumously in 1935.[36]
> ...


Some of our forum members should undertake some simple Google searches before posting blether.


----------



## Athlonite (Aug 16, 2021)

In an Ideal Universe the speed of light is a constant but because we don't exist in an ideal universe there is some discrepancies where spacetime is warped beyond normal


----------



## Tardian (Aug 16, 2021)

Athlonite said:


> In an Ideal Universe the speed of light is a constant but because we don't exist in an ideal universe there is some discrepancies where spacetime is warped beyond normal


Are you trolling me for a comment? The speed of light remains constant regardless of the curvature of spacetime. However, the redshift of light will be impacted.









						Speed of light - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				





> The *speed of light* in vacuum, commonly denoted *c*, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its exact value is defined as 299792458 metres per second (approximately 300000 km/s, or 186000 mi/s).[Note 3] It is exact because, by international agreement, a metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299792458 second.[Note 4][3] According to special relativity, c is the upper limit for the speed at which conventional matter, energy or any signal carrying information can travel through space.
> The speed at which light waves propagate in vacuum is independent both of the motion of the wave source and of the inertial frame of reference of the observer.[Note 5] This invariance of the speed of light was postulated by Einstein in 1905,[6] after being motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous aether;[16] it has since been consistently confirmed by many experiments.[Note 6]
> The special theory of relativity explores the consequences of this invariance of _c_ with the assumption that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.[19][20] One consequence is that _c_ is the speed at which all massless particles and waves, including light, must travel in vacuum.
> Special relativity has many counterintuitive and experimentally verified implications.[21] These include the equivalence of mass and energy (_E_ = _mc_2), length contraction (moving objects shorten),[Note 7] and time dilation (moving clocks run more slowly). The factor _γ_ by which lengths contract and times dilate is known as the Lorentz factor and is given by _γ_ = (1 − _v_2/_c_2)−1/2, where _v_ is the speed of the object. The difference of _γ_ from 1 is negligible for speeds much slower than _c_, such as most everyday speeds—in which case special relativity is closely approximated by Galilean relativity—but it increases at relativistic speeds and diverges to infinity as _v_ approaches _c_. For example, a time dilation factor of _γ_ = 2 occurs at a relative velocity of 86.6% of the speed of light (_v_ = 0.866 _c_). Similarly, a time dilation factor of _γ_ = 10 occurs at _v_ = 99.5% _c_.
> ...


----------



## xtreemchaos (Aug 16, 2021)

Oooo theres a lot of Source here but some nice thinking as well, i like thinking out the box. i carnt remember who said this but "what we know about the universe is = to putting a small box over ones head and looking through a pin hole" i think it was Pat Moore but could be wrong.


----------



## Tardian (Aug 16, 2021)

xtreemchaos said:


> Oooo theres a lot of Source here but some nice thinking as well, i like thinking out the box. i carnt remember who said this but "what we know about the universe is = to putting a small box over ones head and looking through a pin hole" i think it was Pat Moore but could be wrong.





> The Sky at Night appealed hugely to laymen as well as experts. This was largely because of Moore's ability to make inspired connections and analogies: linking the Milky Way to a fried egg, a solar eclipse to a Spanish taxi-driver and the moon to a dog walking uphill. Few people with degrees in science – *he had no degrees in anything except many honorary doctorates* – could have held the audience so imaginatively and with so little self-importance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am not sure that Sir Patrick Moore is an authoritative source. Yes, we all know people with university degrees but know nothing.

I'll give some more out of the box (mostly) unsourced comments:

Due to the curvature of spacetime, we can't image (in any spectrum) the whole of the universe.
The earth is at the centre of the universe because every point in the universe is at the centre of the universe. https://textureoftime.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/blushing-*omnicentricity*/
The universe is infinitely old.
The universe is a black hole. See: Schwarzschild solution
The Big Bang event (if there was one) was when enough matter had entered the black hole reducing density sufficiently to allow spacetime to be created. Consider the density of TON 618?
Redshifting of stars is not due to the doppler effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light
Euclidean space only holds over cosmically tiny distances.
Spacetime is a _manifold._
Traveling in the x-axis over cosmic distances results in deviation on both the y and z-axis.
Light is impacted by the above point causing redshifting.
Matter traveling at c, cosmic rays do not lose energy as a result of timespace curvature. Conservation of momentum
The correct model of the cosmos was explained by Albert Einstein in _The Theory of Relativity_.
Protons do not decay.
The current model gives an age for the universe insufficient to allow time for TON 618 and other hyper massive black holes to form.
When a model needs constant changes to allow for new observations: it is wrong!
Much of modern cosmology is poorly peer-reviewed (insufficiently multidisciplinary).
If it is difficult to comprehend by really smart people then it is probably wrong: John Maynard Keynes & Occam's Razor.
CBR is caused by the manifold nature of timespace.
There are only rotating uncharged axially-symmetric black holes with a quasispherical event horizon: Kerr Metric.
The matter that falls onto a black hole forms an external accretion disk heated by friction, forming quasars, some of the brightest objects in the universe. So black holes are anything but black.
The first false-colour image in radio waves of the supermassive black hole at the core of supergiant elliptical galaxy Messier 87 (with a mass about 7 billion times that of the Sun) released by the Event Horizon Telescope on 10 April 2019 was NOT a photograph. It was an exercise in modeling a tiny number of pixels using super-resolution techniques.
None of the above thoughts are original.

The most famous equation in the world: E=mc2 was (with all due respect to Albert Einstein) was not original. Each part had already been discovered.

*Tardian*, Lord of Timespace



> Fourth Doctor: “You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they don’t alter their views to fit the facts; they alter the facts to fit their views.”


----------



## FireFox (Aug 16, 2021)

This thread seems more like a *Flash* season
Btw, very interesting topic.
As always sorry for the off-topic.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Aug 16, 2021)

Tardian said:


> I am not sure that Sir Patrick Moore is an authoritative source


i value everybody on this planet as my = and to think anything else would be a disservice to myself. Pat was one of the brightest sparks id ever met .


----------



## qubit (Aug 16, 2021)

Tardian said:


> I am not sure that Sir Patrick Moore is an authoritative source. Yes, we all know people with university degrees but know nothing.


There are several incorrect statements in your post, but I'll just concentrate on this one, or it will go one forever.

It's disingenious to dismiss Patrick Moore as not authoritative. One doesn't have to have degrees and doctorates in a particilar subject to know what they're talking about. Going by your logic, everything you've said or willever say will be invalid because you don't have a formal qualification in the subject. Can you now see where your assertion is wrong?

Also, everything that Patrick said on the Sky at Night was fact checked by researchers and astronomers / scientists, it wasn't just his uninformed opinion like you make out, so you can be sure that it was correct.




xtreemchaos said:


> i value everybody on this planet as my = and to think anything else would be a disservice to myself. *Pat was one of the brightest sparks id ever met .*


Indeed he was. I remember wanting to meet him too, but there was no clear way to do so and then he rather selfishly died before I had the chance, tsk.

RIP Sir Patrick.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Aug 16, 2021)

yes agreed i kept in in touch with him from my first days of me learning Astronomy in the late 60s all the way upto his passing. he was friends with a lot of people including some of the best scientist to ever live and rock stars too. sorry you didnt get the chance if you would of sent him a letter he would of wrote back for sure.


----------



## Tardian (Aug 16, 2021)

xtreemchaos said:


> i value everybody on this planet as my = and to think anything else would be a disservice to myself. Pat was one of the brightest sparks id ever met .


In my humble experience, the brightest people (measured IQ of 160-200) I ever worked with (a few _rare_ exceptions aside), made the dumbest mistakes.

Hint: I worked as a peak expert of the most difficult part (in the most complex jurisdiction) of the field that Albert Einstein famously once said:



> The hardest thing in the world to understand is ...​



My comment, however, did NOT mean to impune Sir Patrick Moore. I merely thought that he would not be the person who I would quote as the source.

Not knowing who uttered the phrase, I would have guessed Paul Davies, Stephen W. Hawking, Richard P. Feynman, or Douglas Adams.


----------



## Shrek (Aug 16, 2021)

Tardian said:


> Euclidean space only holds over cosmically tiny distances.


The Universe is measured to be flat


----------



## xtreemchaos (Aug 16, 2021)

The hardest thing in the world to understand is .. .income tax, Einstein. but id say knowing what not to understand because some things are best left quite.


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 16, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> The Universe is measured to be flat


Debatable, all measurements to date have show that there is some curvature.


----------



## qubit (Aug 16, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> Debatable, all measurements to date have show that there is some curvature.


It's the opposite. Curvature around masses like the sun, planets etc, but on the biggest scales it looks flat as far as they can tell. Astronomers continue to refine their measurements to try and detect any curvature, though.


----------



## Steevo (Aug 16, 2021)

The speed of light is the speed of electromagnetic field propagation through space time. The field appears to act like a superfluid when space time is the only medium it interacts with, which itself seems to act like a superfluid to normal matter except for the existence of gravity, and a Nobel prize and fame to be had for the mathematical relationship that works at quantum and classical levels for this interaction is the prize. It’s the new ultraviolet catastrophe so to speak.

At the end it seems everything is merely a vibration in the space time field that we experience as different physical manifestations from matter, light, gravity to life, love and death from time. Or a very complex procedurally generated simulation.


----------



## bug (Aug 16, 2021)

I missed this before, but here goes: light speed is not measured, light speed is defined/postulated to be what it is (299,792,458 meters per second) and the rest of the physics is derived from that.


----------



## Shrek (Aug 16, 2021)

Steevo said:


> and a Nobel prize and fame to be had for the mathematical relationship that works at quantum and classical levels for this interaction is the prize.



Freeman Dyson believed that gravity may not need quantizing


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Aug 16, 2021)

> *Albert Abraham Michelson* FFRS HFRSE (December 19, 1852 – May 9, 1931)



This guy not only has my birth date, 12/19, but he was a super genius in his time. 

Measuring the Speed of Light with the tools available in that time period was difficult enough. If he was able to do the same 100 years later, he'd be tied up in red tape for years, pay out bribes to city officials and politicians just to get enough room to build his device without a labor union getting involved too.

So yea, SoL is not accurate enough for some folk that like to dismiss evidence just to make headlines and 15 minutes of fame on some youtube channel.


----------



## Shrek (Aug 16, 2021)

We have now defined the speed of light in a vacuum to be a constant

One wonders what consequences this will have if it turns out to have some variance (unlikely, but still possible)

Variable speed of light - Wikipedia


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 16, 2021)

qubit said:


> It's the opposite. Curvature around masses like the sun, planets etc, but on the biggest scales it looks flat as far as they can tell. Astronomers continue to refine their measurements to try and detect any curvature, though.


That's just not true, this isn't about local measurements, we're talking about stuff such as WMAP which is still measuring non zero curvature consistent with previous attempts so it can't yet be ruled out as an error.


----------



## Shrek (Aug 16, 2021)

Most interesting, do you have any references to this?


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 16, 2021)

Like I said, it's data from WMAP, section 4.5.


----------



## Shrek (Aug 16, 2021)

Much appreciated; section 4.5 seems to say Omega_k is zero within errors


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 16, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> We have now defined the speed of light in a vacuum to be a constant
> 
> One wonders what consequences this will have if it turns out to have some variance (unlikely, but still possible)
> 
> Variable speed of light - Wikipedia


I've heard the universe has different mass constants in different places. Since it is so big, being a constant might not be such a consistent unit...


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 16, 2021)

ExcuseMeWtf said:


> Hawking radiation is emanating from black holes specifically


Hawking radiation is only a theory and not a great one. It is very unlikely to be correct.


----------



## Mescalamba (Aug 16, 2021)

Latest theory was that universe is donut? I think, read it somewhere.


----------



## Shrek (Aug 16, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Hawking radiation is only a theory and not a great one. It is very unlikely to be correct.



I'd say the opposite, if the black-hole is to have entropy, it must have temperature (Beckenstein)


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 16, 2021)

Steevo said:


> The speed of light is the speed of electromagnetic field propagation through space time. The field appears to act like a superfluid when space time is the only medium it interacts with, which itself seems to act like a superfluid to normal matter except for the existence of gravity, and a Nobel prize and fame to be had for the mathematical relationship that works at quantum and classical levels for this interaction is the prize. It’s the new ultraviolet catastrophe so to speak.





Andy Shiekh said:


> I'd say the opposite, if the black-hole is to have entropy, it must have temperature (Beckenstein)


These points assume General & Special Relativity is correct either in part or in full. As G&SR fails to predict or explain a whole host of observations about the Universe, including the Big Bang and how a Black Hole works, it is doubtful that is it correct.


----------



## Shrek (Aug 16, 2021)

Which part does it get wrong about black-holes? just asking, not trying to make trouble.


----------



## ExcuseMeWtf (Aug 16, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> These points assume General & Special Relativity is correct either in part or in full. As G&SR fails to predict or explain a whole host of observations about the Universe, including the Big Bang and how a Black Hole works, it is doubtful that is it correct.



GR predicts existence of black holes and behavior around them just fine. It doesn't predict what's going on past event horizon, except... nothing whatsoever does currently.


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 16, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> These points assume General & Special Relativity is correct either in part or in full. As G&SR fails to predict or explain a whole host of observations about the Universe, including the Big Bang and how a Black Hole works, it is doubtful that is it correct.


If it were correct, the blackhole would have a reverse impact on the rest of the universe - everything increases entropy, it would reduce it if it shrunk the universe. Nothing suggests anything of its kind imo.


----------



## Shrek (Aug 16, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> If it were correct it would have a reverse impact on the rest of the universe - everything increases entropy, it would reduce it if it shrunk the universe.



A shrinking Universe does not imply reduced entropy.



ExcuseMeWtf said:


> GR predicts existence of black holes and behavior around them just fine. It doesn't predict what's going on past event horizon, except... nothing whatsoever does currently.



That's where Hawking radiation comes in; one does not make it past the horizon as one Hawking radiates with the black hole.


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 16, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> A shrinking Universe des not imply reduced entropy.


No, a shrinking entropy would defy the second thermodynamic law.


----------



## Shrek (Aug 16, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> No, a shrinking entropy would defy the second thermodynamic law.



Exactly


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 16, 2021)

We think hydrogen has a physical form, but from the book by Bohr that I read it has quantum field inducing properties - whereever it goes, the universe goes... I bet space, as we know it, is what we make of hydrogen that isn't interacting with surrounding matter(don't mind my stupid theories).


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 16, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Which part does it get wrong about black-holes? just asking, not trying to make trouble.


G&SR fails to predict what happens inside a black hole object. The math completely breaks down regardless of how the computations are structured. It fails to explain both how the Big Bang happened and why as well as why the Universe continues to expand and accelerate while expanding. We know the Big Bang theory is correct because when we model everything running in reverse, everything in the Universe contracts back into a single point.

Conclusion: G&SR is partly flawed or completely incorrect.



ExcuseMeWtf said:


> GR predicts existence of black holes and behavior around them just fine.


No, it does not...


ExcuseMeWtf said:


> It doesn't predict what's going on past event horizon


..as you just stated.

IF G&SR were able to predict what a Black Hole object is, we would already understand what happens inside one. But we can not. Therefore G&SR is flawed or wrong.


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 16, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> why the Universe continues to expand


That part is easy. It is quite the same reason as why you generate "protons" when your heart muscle pumps blood. Hydrogen is ubiquitous with life and spacetime itself.


----------



## Tardian (Aug 16, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> The Universe is measured to be flat


Like the Earth? 

Andy

I intend to provide a detailed answer to your question when I get time (hopefully today).  But in the meantime, I will provide a few sources and you may have to wait.



> The exact shape is still a matter of debate in physical cosmology, but experimental data from various independent sources (WMAP, BOOMERanG, and Planck for example) confirm that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error.[4][5][6] On the other hand, any non-zero curvature is possible for a sufficiently large curved universe (analogously to how a small portion of a sphere can look flat). Theorists have been trying to construct a formal mathematical model of the shape of the universe. In formal terms, this is a 3-manifold model corresponding to the spatial section (in comoving coordinates) of the four-dimensional spacetime of the universe. The model most theorists currently use is the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) model. Arguments have been put forward that the observational data best fit with the conclusion that the shape of the global universe is infinite and flat,[7] but the data are also consistent with other possible shapes, such as the so-called Poincaré dodecahedral space[8][9] and the Sokolov–Starobinskii space (quotient of the upper half-space model of hyperbolic space by a 2-dimensional lattice).[10]
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> In 2003, lack of structure on the largest scales (above 60 degrees) in the cosmic microwave background as observed for one year by the WMAP spacecraft led to the suggestion, by Jean-Pierre Luminet of the Observatoire de Paris and colleagues, that the shape of the universe is a Poincaré sphere.[1][2] In 2008, astronomers found the best orientation on the sky for the model and confirmed some of the predictions of the model, using three years of observations by the WMAP spacecraft.[3] As of 2016, the publication of data analysis from the Planck spacecraft suggests that there is no observable non-trivial topology to the universe.[4]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Needless to say, I believe that a non-flat universe does not fit with the current model.  Ipso Facto it has to be flat. Groupthink and self-interest drive these outcomes. 

I will make a proper case for the alternate view but it takes time.

Tardian



xtreemchaos said:


> The hardest thing in the world to understand is .. .income tax, Einstein. but id say knowing what not to understand because some things are best left quite.


Einstein was a poor student who worked in a Swiss patent office.  He is to many the greatest theoretical physicist of all time. Newton, Maxwell et al all have a claim to that title.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 16, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> That part is easy. It is quite the same reason as why you generate "protons" when your heart muscle pumps blood. Hydrogen is ubiquitous with life and spacetime itself.


That is not the reason.



Tardian said:


> Needless to say, I believe that a non-flat universe does not fit with the current model.


Agreed. It also does not meet with observations made.


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 16, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> That is not the reason.


Well try running a clock without a battery, it won't. Everything takes energy and quite succintly 'time'. Both served by hydrogen. I bet we don't know what the heck it does, apart from keeping the mechanism running, quite like a clock.


----------



## Shrek (Aug 16, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> That part is easy. It is quite the same reason as why you generate "protons" when your heart muscle pumps blood. Hydrogen is ubiquitous with life and spacetime itself.



It is quite possible for a Universe to reach maximum size and then re-collapse.


----------



## Tardian (Aug 16, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> We have now defined the speed of light in a vacuum to be a constant
> 
> One wonders what consequences this will have if it turns out to have some variance (unlikely, but still possible)
> 
> Variable speed of light - Wikipedia


Andy

I am happy to discuss this further.  But for now and for the other forum members:






Tardian


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 16, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> It is quite possible for a Universe to reach maximum size and then re-collapse.


No, it isn't. The acceleration is too great and is increasing not decreasing. For the Universe to contract it would need to start slowing down. That would take a lot of force to slow down all of the mass that is rushing out in all directions from the blast-point of the Big Bang.


----------



## Shrek (Aug 16, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> No, it isn't. The acceleration is too great and is increasing not decreasing. For the Universe to contract it would need to start slowing down. That would take a lot of force to slow down all of the mass that is rushing out in all directions for the point of the blast-point of the Big Bang.



I was careful to write 'It is quite possible for _a_ Universe to reach maximum size and then re-collapse.', I did not write '_the_'


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 16, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> It is quite possible for a Universe to reach maximum size and then re-collapse.


Yes, I said hydrogen generates spacetime, but the end of "spacetime" is when there is no more entropy in a hydrogen pool.



lexluthermiester said:


> No, it isn't. The acceleration is too great and is increasing not decreasing. For the Universe to contract it would need to start slowing down. That would take a lot of force to slow down all of the mass that is rushing out in all directions from the blast-point of the Big Bang.


You are taking this too literally. There is still entropy to go around that is why the universe is ever expanding.


----------



## authorized (Aug 16, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> IF G&SR were able to predict what a Black Hole object is, we would already understand what happens inside one. But we can not. Therefore G&SR is flawed or wrong.


There might not be an inside at all... since apparently all the information that falls into the event horizon remains encoded on its surface. Intuitively we expect the black hole to be a 3d object since it seems to occupy a volume in space and has a mass appropriate for that volume, but who knows... does time even "flow" at the event horizon, or is the information radiated out instantaneously (in the frame reference of the event horizon)?



lexluthermiester said:


> No, it isn't. The acceleration is too great and is increasing not decreasing. For the Universe to contract it would need to start slowing down. That would take a lot of force to slow down all of the mass that is rushing out in all directions from the blast-point of the Big Bang.


We don't know what dark energy is, so it isn't possible to predict whether the expansion will continue to accelerate or not. We only presume it will based on the fact that's how it's been so far according to observations.


----------



## Tardian (Aug 16, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> No, it isn't. The acceleration is too great and is increasing not decreasing. For the Universe to contract it would need to start slowing down. That would take a lot of force to slow down all of the mass that is rushing out in all directions from the blast-point of the Big Bang.


Lex I disagree with the evidence for expansion but I am having to deal with multiple issues.  I will get back with a full explanation. Once again for the other forum members:



> As an effect of general relativity, the expansion of the universe is different from the expansions and explosions seen in daily life. It is a property of the universe as a whole rather than a phenomenon that applies just to one part of the universe and, unlike other expansions and explosions, cannot be observed from "outside" of it.
> Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology, is modeled mathematically with the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric and is a generic property of the universe we inhabit. However, the model is valid only on large scales (roughly the scale of galaxy clusters and above), because gravity binds matter together strongly enough that metric expansion cannot be observed on a smaller scale at this time. As such, the only galaxies receding from one another as a result of metric expansion are those separated by cosmologically relevant scales larger than the length scales associated with the gravitational collapse that are possible in the age of the universe given the matter density and average expansion rate. To paraphrase, the metric is forecasted to eventually begin to outpace the gravity that bodies require to remain bound together, meaning all but the most local bound groups will recede.
> According to inflation theory, during the inflationary epoch about 10−32 of a second after the Big Bang, the universe suddenly expanded, and its volume increased by a factor of at least 1078 (an expansion of distance by a factor of at least 1026 in each of the three dimensions), equivalent to expanding an object 1 nanometer (10−9 m, about half the width of a molecule of DNA) in length to one approximately 10.6 light years (about 1017 m or 62 trillion miles) long. A much slower and gradual expansion of space continued after this, until at around 9.8 billion years after the Big Bang (4 billion years ago) it began to gradually expand more quickly, and is still doing so. Physicists have postulated the existence of dark energy, appearing as a cosmological constant in the simplest gravitational models, as a way to explain this late-time acceleration. According to the simplest extrapolation of the currently favored cosmological model, the Lambda-CDM model, this acceleration becomes more dominant into the future. In June 2016, NASA and ESA scientists reported that the universe was found to be expanding 5% to 9% faster than thought earlier, based on studies using the Hubble Space Telescope.[2]
> 
> ...



Tardian



Andy Shiekh said:


> Freeman Dyson believed that gravity may not need quantizing


I agree and in my second series of dot points, I will argue that gravity is not a force but the result of the curvature of spacetime.  As such it needs no messaging particles.


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 16, 2021)

authorized said:


> There might not be an inside at all... since apparently all the information that falls into the event horizon remains encoded on its surface. Intuitively we expect the black hole to be a 3d object since it seems to occupy a volume in space and has a mass appropriate for that volume, but who knows... does time even "flow" at the event horizon, or is the information radiated out instantaneously (in the frame reference of the event horizon)?
> 
> 
> We don't know what dark energy is, so it isn't possible to predict whether the expansion will continue to accelerate or not. We only presume it will based on the fact that's how it's been so far according to observations.


Dark matter is just like gravity, but not the physical kind, only the buffer, that does not interact with matter itself, only mass. It helps by generating more gravity in order to compact matter in the universe like crystals forming around a seed. Technically since hydrogen can defy gravity, dark matter is basically its stopping force from ripping up the universe.


----------



## Tardian (Aug 16, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> Like I said, it's data from WMAP, section 4.5.


Vya

I once again don't agree.

See attached images for WMAP, section 4.5.  Dark energy has yet to be a proven feature of the cosmos. I remain deeply sceptical and suggest it is all part of a deperate attempt to protect the crumbling current model.  More on this matter later.

Tardian



mtcn77 said:


> Dark matter is just like gravity, but not the physical kind, only the buffer, that does not interact with matter itself, only mass. It helps with generating more gravity in order to compact matter in the universe like a crystal forming around a seed. Technically since hydrogen can defy gravity, dark matter is basically its stopping force from ripping up the universe.


Once again I don't agree.



> *Dark matter** is a **hypothetical form* of matter thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe and about 27% of its total mass–energy density[1]  or about 2.241×10−27 kg/m3.  Its presence is implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including gravitational effects that cannot be explained by accepted theories of gravity unless more matter is present than can be seen. For this reason, most experts think that dark matter is abundant in the universe and that it has had a strong influence on its structure and evolution. Dark matter is called dark because it does not appear to interact with the electromagnetic field, which means it does not absorb, reflect or emit electromagnetic radiation, and is therefore difficult to detect.[2]
> Primary evidence for dark matter comes from calculations showing that many galaxies would fly apart, or that they would not have formed or would not move as they do, if they did not contain a large amount of unseen matter.[3] Other lines of evidence include observations in gravitational lensing[4] and in the cosmic microwave background, along with astronomical observations of the observable universe's current structure, the formation and evolution of galaxies, mass location during galactic collisions,[5] and the motion of galaxies within galaxy clusters. In the standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the universe contains 5% ordinary matter and energy, 27% dark matter and 68% of a form of energy known as dark energy.[6][7][8][9] Thus, dark matter constitutes 85%[a] of total mass, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95% of total mass–energy content.[10][11][12][13]
> Because dark matter has not yet been observed directly, if it exists, it must barely interact with ordinary baryonic matter and radiation, except through gravity. Most dark matter is thought to be non-baryonic in nature; it may be composed of some as-yet undiscovered subatomic particles.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#cite_note-15* The primary candidate for dark matter is some new kind of elementary particle that has not yet been discovered, in particular, weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs).[14] Many experiments to directly detect and study dark matter particles are being actively undertaken, but none have yet succeeded.[15] Dark matter is classified as "cold", "warm", or "hot" according to its velocity (more precisely, its free streaming length). Current models favor a cold dark matter scenario, in which structures emerge by gradual accumulation of particles.
> Although the existence of dark matter is generally accepted by the scientific community,[16] some astrophysicists, intrigued by certain observations which are not well-explained by standard dark matter, argue for various modifications of the standard laws of general relativity, such as modified Newtonian dynamics, tensor–vector–scalar gravity, or entropic gravity. These models attempt to account for all observations without invoking supplemental non-baryonic matter.
> ...


*

Invoke Occam's razor. Reject what can't be observed. Beautiful mathematics based on wrong assumptions: Garbage in garbage out.

Tardian*


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 17, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> I was careful to write 'It is quite possible for _a_ Universe to reach maximum size and then re-collapse.', I did not write '_the_'


I saw that. I was directly addressing it. It is extremely unlikely for a Big Bang event to ever reverse itself.



Tardian said:


> Lex I disagree with the evidence for expansion but I am having to deal with multiple issues.


IF you are going to posit the same theoretical explanation as the UC-Riverside folks about an infinite Universe, such a theory is interesting, but ultimately incorrect as it does not meet with known observations.



authorized said:


> There might not be an inside at all... since apparently all the information that falls into the event horizon remains encoded on its surface.


This is why G&SR is flawed. Such a mathematical construct would assume the laws of physics change dramatically upon contact with the event horizon. This is not observed anywhere else in the Universe so it is very unlikely to be correct. What is much more likely is that a Black Hole object is an extremely compressed form of matter where in the subatomic particle themselves are physically touching with no empty space between them. The effect of such a state would exhibit all of the predicted outward effects we now know to exist(gravitational lensing, etc).


authorized said:


> We don't know what dark energy is, so it isn't possible to predict whether the expansion will continue to accelerate or not.


There are no indications to show it might change either. Until such an indication presents itself, the Universe will continue to expand until the outward blast shell of the Big Bang meet up with it's in falling(contraction) event horizon. Once this happens, the inhabitants of the Universe will know what exists outside our Universe.


----------



## Totally (Aug 17, 2021)

qubit said:


> There's no clickbait. It's exactly a problem, because it's not possible to do away with the assumption of the speed of light, regardless of how you try to measure it and that's what makes the video interesting. This video isn't intended to teach all about SR & GR, just how it relates to measuring the speed of light. And yes, the presentation makes a big difference to user engagement.   This channel is pretty good at that.


It is clickbaity because there are methods and setups to measure to rule out the unknowns but they aren't even addressed. Variance is constantly claimed but no one ever actually tries to measure that variance or actually see if light travels at different speeds based on direction.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 17, 2021)

Totally said:


> light travels at different speeds based on direction.


That is because concepts of up, down, left, right, forward and backward are human concepts. The only thing that changes the speed and trajectory of a particle at luminal speeds is matter and energy fields. Direction of travel relative to one point in space or another is not relevant.


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 17, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> No, it isn't. The acceleration is too great and is increasing not decreasing. For the Universe to contract it would need to start slowing down. That would take a lot of force to slow down all of the mass that is rushing out in all directions from the blast-point of the Big Bang.


All it would require is a loss of inertia, and then the draw of the central black hole to initiate the return of matter to a central point.


----------



## Tardian (Aug 17, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> I'd say the opposite, if the black-hole is to have entropy, it must have temperature (Beckenstein)


Andy

Once again this requires a long answer but I'll leave you with this thought:



> Entropy is the only quantity in the physical sciences that seems to imply a particular direction of progress, sometimes called an arrow of time. As time progresses, the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases in large systems over significant periods of time. Hence, from this perspective, entropy measurement is thought of as a clock in these conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

Matter, as it reaches the event horizon, has one (or more) of its dimension (Cartesian Coordinates) reduced to zero. The increase in the EH to accommodate the introduced former matter as well as the change in spacetime encapsulating the black hole partly deals with the information problem.  I am going to fall into the trap of commenting without properly thinking.  But given that EMR can't escape a black hole the temperature issue seems obtuse.  I get back to this.

Tardian


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 17, 2021)

Caring1 said:


> All it would require is a loss of inertia


That's an incredible inertia to reverse. Extremely unlikely.


Caring1 said:


> and then the draw of the central black hole to initiate the return of matter to a central point.


That is not how a Big Bang event works. The ultra massive Black Hole object that once contained all the mass of the Universe no longer exists. When the Big Bang event took place all of the mass in the Universe was ejected in all directions more or less in a uniform manner. There is nothing left in the central region of the Universe to counter-act all of momentum of the mass of the Universe expanding outward from that point. The only thing that will continue to happen is what we have already observed, the mass of the Universe expanding and accelerating as it does so.

Try to remember, most of academia refer to the Big Bang as an event that happened in the past, is over and what we see is the result. This incorrect. While the Big Bang took place in the past, it never ended and is still an ongoing event. We are along for the ride. This process will not end until the outgoing blast of the Big Bang meets with the collapsing event horizon of the Black Hole object our Universe once was. We have no way of knowing when that will happen, yet.



Tardian said:


> Matter, as it reaches the event horizon, has one (or more) of its dimension (Cartesian Coordinates) reduced to zero.


Again, that is flawed theory and contradicts known physics. The Event Horizon of a Black Hole doesn't magically transform matter, it simply compresses it to a point where subatomic particles are in physical contact with no empty space between them. It is part of the reason why both Einstein and Hawking could never complete their mutual theories.

Ask yourself: How big would a hydrogen atom be if you remove all of the empty space between it's constituent parts?


----------



## qubit (Aug 17, 2021)

Vya Domus said:


> That's just not true, this isn't about local measurements, we're talking about stuff such as WMAP which is still measuring non zero curvature consistent with previous attempts so it can't yet be ruled out as an error.


Then link to an article from a reputable source that shows that the universe is curved, because I haven't seen any.




Totally said:


> It is clickbaity because there are methods and setups to measure to rule out the unknowns but they aren't even addressed. Variance is constantly claimed but no one ever actually tries to measure that variance or actually see if light travels at different speeds based on direction.


Then link to an article from a reputable source that debunks this video. It doesn’t have to be directly either, it just has to show how the speed of light can be proved to be the same in any direction. I'll make a prediction: you won't be able to and will come up with some excuse instead.

Again, the video isn’t “clickbaity” like you try to belittle it and by extension me for posting it here. The burden of proof is on you.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 17, 2021)

qubit said:


> It doesn’t have to be directly either, it just has to *show how the speed of light can be proved to be the same in any direction*.


He doesn't need to prove that. It is an understood part of physics. What needs to be proven is the idea that luminal speeds vary based on direction of travel(which BTW is utter nonsense).


----------



## John Naylor (Aug 17, 2021)

Shoulda been at my house with a radar gun the night wife threw a lamp at my head


----------



## qubit (Aug 17, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> He doesn't need to prove that. It is an understood part of physics. What needs to be proven is the idea that luminal speeds vary based on direction of travel(which BTW is utter nonsense).


No, you're falling into the same trap. It's not possible to prove that light speed doesn't vary by direction as the video explains in several ways. While it's _extremely_ likely that it's the same, to the point that there's no real doubt, that's still not rigorous proof.

The situation is similar to one of those mathematical conjectures, such as the Riemann hypothesis. While it's extremely likely that it's true from all the testing that's been done on it, it still hasn't been proved and that makes all the difference.

There's loads of these, too. Here's a Wikipedia article on them, out of interest:





__





						List of unsolved problems in mathematics - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Tardian (Aug 17, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> I'd say the opposite, if the black-hole is to have entropy, it must have temperature (Beckenstein)


Andy

Once again this requires a long answer but I'll leave you with this thought:



> Entropy is the only quantity in the physical sciences that seems to imply a particular direction of progress, sometimes called an arrow of time. As time progresses, the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases in large systems over significant periods of time. Hence, from this perspective, entropy measurement is thought of as a clock in these conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

Matter, as it reaches the event horizon, has one (or more) of its dimension (Cartesian Coordinates) reduced to zero. The increase in the EH to accommodate the introduced former matter as well as the change in spacetime encapsulating the black hole partly deals with the information problem.  I am going to fall into the trap of commenting without properly thinking.  But given that EMR can't escape a black hole the temperature issue seems obtuse.  I get back to this.

Tardian


Totally said:


> It is clickbaity because there are methods and setups to measure to rule out the unknowns but they aren't even addressed. Variance is constantly claimed but no one ever actually tries to measure that variance or actually see if light travels at different speeds based on direction.





> > Experiments that attempt to directly probe the one-way speed of light independent of synchronization have been proposed, but none have succeeded in doing so.[3] Those experiments directly establish that synchronization with slow clock-transport is equivalent to Einstein synchronization, which is an important feature of special relativity. However, those experiments cannot directly establish the isotropy of the one-way speed of light since it has been shown that slow clock-transport, the laws of motion, and the way inertial reference frames are defined already involve the assumption of isotropic one-way speeds and thus, are equally conventional.[4] In general, it was shown that these experiments are consistent with anisotropic one-way light speed as long as the two-way light speed is isotropic.[1][5]
> >
> >
> >
> > ...


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 17, 2021)

qubit said:


> It's not possible to prove that light speed doesn't vary by direction as the video explains in several ways.


It's also not possible to prove that it does. However trying to prove luminal speeds vary based on direction of travel is not the same as proving the actual speed of luminal particles. Additionally, known laws of physics can not explain any reason why particles would travel at differing speeds based on direction of travel. It is total nonsense.


----------



## Shrek (Aug 17, 2021)

Tardian said:


> But given that EMR can't escape a black hole the temperature issue seems obtuse.  I get back to this.



Of the virtual quantum vacuum pair, one is slightly above the horizon, so can indeed escape; it is important that the other is below, so they cannot recombine as would usually happen in the vacuum.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 17, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Of the virtual quantum vacuum pair, one is slightly above the horizon, so can indeed escape; it is important that the other is below, so they cannot recombine as would usually happen in the vacuum.


Let's assume that principle is sound(which is very doubtful): The process would be the same in reverse, IE any divided particle on the outside would have an equal chance to recombine on the inside of the event horizon. The principle works equally in both directions. However it should be noted that a Black Hole absorbs much more than it could ever be expected to theoretically lose through the Hawking principle.


----------



## Tardian (Aug 17, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> That's an incredible inertia to reverse. Extremely unlikely.
> 
> That is not how a Big Bang event works. The ultra massive Black Hole object that once contained all the mass of the Universe no longer exists. When the Big Bang event took place all of the mass in the Universe was ejected in all directions more or less in a uniform manner. There is nothing left in the central region of the Universe to counter-act all of momentum of the mass of the Universe expanding outward from that point. The only thing that will continue to happen is what we have already observed, the mass of the Universe expanding and accelerating as it does so.
> 
> ...





> The *Big Bang* theory is the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[1][2][3] The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature,[4] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and large-scale structure.
> The Big Bang theory offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundances of the light elements, the CMB, large-scale structure, and Hubble's law.[10] The theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws and the cosmological principle. The universality of physical laws is one of the underlying principles of the theory of relativity. The cosmological principle states that on large scales the universe is homogeneous and isotropic—appearing the same in all directions regardless of location.[11]
> These ideas were initially taken as postulates, but later efforts were made to test each of them. For example, the first assumption has been tested by observations showing that largest possible deviation of the fine-structure constant over much of the age of the universe is of order 10−5.[12] Also, general relativity has passed stringent tests on the scale of the Solar System and binary stars.[13][14][notes 1]
> The large-scale universe appears isotropic as viewed from Earth. If it is indeed isotropic, the cosmological principle can be derived from the simpler Copernican principle, which states that there is no preferred (or special) observer or vantage point. To this end, the cosmological principle has been confirmed to a level of 10−5 via observations of the temperature of the CMB. At the scale of the CMB horizon, the universe has been measured to be homogeneous with an upper bound on the order of 10% inhomogeneity, as of 1995.[15]
> ...





> *Length contraction* is the phenomenon that a moving object's length is measured to be shorter than its proper length, which is the length as measured in the object's own rest frame.[1] It is also known as *Lorentz contraction* or *Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction* (after Hendrik Lorentz and George Francis FitzGerald) and is usually only noticeable at a substantial fraction of the speed of light. Length contraction is only in the direction in which the body is travelling. For standard objects, this effect is negligible at everyday speeds, and can be ignored for all regular purposes, only becoming significant as the object approaches the speed of light relative to the observer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> A neutron star has a mass of at least 1.1 solar masses (M☉). The upper limit of mass for a neutron star is called the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit and is generally held to be around 2.1 M☉,[22][23] but a recent estimate puts the upper limit at 2.16 M☉.[24] The maximum observed mass of neutron stars is about 2.14 M☉ for PSR J0740+6620 discovered in September, 2019.[25] Compact stars below the Chandrasekhar limit of 1.39 M☉ are generally white dwarfs whereas compact stars with a mass between 1.4 M☉ and 2.16 M☉ are expected to be neutron stars, but there is an interval of a few tenths of a solar mass where the masses of low-mass neutron stars and high-mass white dwarfs can overlap. *It is thought that beyond 2.16 M☉ the stellar remnant will overcome the strong force repulsion and neutron degeneracy pressure so that gravitational collapse will occur to produce a black hole, but the smallest observed mass of a stellar black hole is about 5 M☉*.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star#cite_note-Black_Hole-28* Between 2.16 M☉ and 5 M☉, hypothetical intermediate-mass stars such as quark stars and electroweak stars have been proposed, but none have been shown to exist.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star#cite_note-Black_Hole-28
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lex

I have the utmost respect for you but can't agree with your post.  I would have replied earlier but I was helping someone apply for university.

*Tardian*


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 17, 2021)

Tardian said:


> I have the utmost respect for you but can't agree with your post.


I appreciate that. We can agree to disagree.

EDIT;
I think I understand the school of thought you're coming from. I likewise have respect for you.


----------



## Tardian (Aug 17, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Of the virtual quantum vacuum pair, one is slightly above the horizon, so can indeed escape; it is important that the other is below, so they cannot recombine as would usually happen in the vacuum.


How does the one is slightly above the horizon indeed escape? It would need to be traveling at c. Explain this using quantum physics.



mtcn77 said:


> We think hydrogen has a physical form, but from the book by Bohr that I read it has quantum field inducing properties - whereever it goes, the universe goes... I bet space, as we know it, is what we make of hydrogen that isn't interacting with surrounding matter(don't mind my stupid theories).


Chicken and egg argument.  One can't have matter without timespace.



> Although protons were originally considered fundamental or elementary particles, in the modern Standard Model of particle physics, protons are classified as hadrons, like neutrons, the other nucleon. Protons are composite particles composed of three valence quarks: two up quarks of charge +2/3_e_ and one down quark of charge −1/3_e_. The rest masses of quarks contribute only about 1% of a proton's mass.[5] The remainder of a proton's mass is due to quantum chromodynamics binding energy, which includes the kinetic energy of the quarks and the energy of the gluon fields that bind the quarks together.  Because protons are not fundamental particles, they possess a measurable size; the root mean square charge radius of a proton is about 0.84–0.87 fm (or 0.84×10−15 to 0.87×10−15 m).[6][7] In 2019, two different studies, using different techniques, have found the radius of the proton to be 0.833 fm, with an uncertainty of ±0.010 fm.[8][9]
> The spontaneous decay of free protons *has never been observed, *and protons are therefore considered stable particles according to the Standard Model.
> In quantum chromodynamics, the modern theory of the nuclear force, most of the mass of protons and neutrons is explained by special relativity. The mass of a proton is about 80–100 times greater than the sum of the rest masses of its three valence quarks, while the gluons have zero rest mass. *The extra energy of the quarks and gluons in a proton, as compared to the rest energy of the quarks alone in the QCD vacuum, accounts for almost 99% of the proton's mass. *The rest mass of a proton is, thus, the invariant mass of the system of moving quarks and gluons that make up the particle, and, in such systems, even the energy of massless particles is still measured as part of the rest mass of the system.
> Protons are spin-1/2 fermions and are composed of three valence quarks,[12] making them baryons (a sub-type of hadrons). The two up quarks and one down quark of a proton are held together by the strong force, mediated by gluons.[13]:21–22 A modern perspective has a proton composed of the valence quarks (up, up, down), the gluons, and transitory pairs of sea quarks. Protons have a positive charge distribution which decays approximately exponentially, with a mean square radius of about 0.8 fm.[14]
> ...





> *Degenerate matter*[1] is a highly dense state of fermionic matter in which the Pauli exclusion principle exerts significant pressure in addition to, or in lieu of thermal pressure. The description applies to matter composed of electrons, protons, neutrons or other fermions. The term is mainly used in astrophysics to refer to dense stellar objects where gravitational pressure is so extreme that quantum mechanical effects are significant. This type of matter is naturally found in stars in their final evolutionary states, such as white dwarfs and neutron stars, where thermal pressure alone is not enough to avoid gravitational collapse.
> Sufficiently dense matter containing protons experiences proton degeneracy pressure, in a manner similar to the electron degeneracy pressure in electron-degenerate matter: protons confined to a sufficiently small volume have a large uncertainty in their momentum due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. However, because protons are much more massive than electrons, the same momentum represents a much smaller velocity for protons than for electrons. As a result, in matter with approximately equal numbers of protons and electrons, proton degeneracy pressure is much smaller than electron degeneracy pressure, and proton degeneracy is usually modeled as a correction to the equations of state of electron-degenerate matter.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 17, 2021)

Tardian said:


> How does the one is slightly above the horizon indeed escape? It would need to be traveling at c. Explain this using quantum physics.


Actually I can explain that, but to do so I must reference an unpublished theory. A Black Hole has multiple event horizon levels. The outer boundary, baryonic matter can not escape regardless of velocity but energy, sub-atomic particles and exotic particles like neutrinos can. The next boundary, energy can not escape regardless of velocity(this is the event horizon stage we can "observe" the presence of directly) but sub-atomic and exotic particles can. The next boundary is the point were even sub-atomic particles can not escape even at luminal velocities. The final boundary is the primary event horizon. Nothing can escape this boundary, not even neutrinos. This level of the event horizon is unobservable to us because it is inside the level from which we can observe electromagnetic energy failing to escape.

The characteristics of how those boundaries interact depends on a number of factors including the mass of the Black Hole in question, it's rotational speed and axial vector and how compact the compressed matter inside has become. As matter continues to be compressed into the center, the characteristics change. This process takes a very long time relative to our observational position. Remember that time slows down the further you descend into a gravity well(any gravity well, even that of the Earth), so even though from the outside the even horizon we see a collapsed mass, inside the collapse is still ongoing and matter is still being progressively compressed. For example, in the center of said object 1 minute might be equal to millions or even 10s of millions of years here on Earth, depending on the mass of said Black Hole. This is why the event horizon exists. At that distance from the Black Hole object core the effect of gravity in combination with the deceleration of time prevents escape because the energy needed for escape velocity is greater than any one particle, or group of particles, can generate. This is the primary reason the Hawking Radiation Theory is false. All mass and matter, regardless of energy state, is subject to the effects of time and gravity.



Tardian said:


> timespace.


Key phrase.


----------



## Tardian (Aug 17, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> It is quite possible for a Universe to reach maximum size and then re-collapse.


I used to believe that and Hawking covers it in A Brief History of Time in Chapter 8.  I now remain unconvinced that the Current Model explains the expansion of the Universe. Too much emphasis is put on the perceived Doppler shift of cosmic light.



lexluthermiester said:


> Actually I can explain that, but to do so I must reference an unpublished theory. A Black Hole has multiple event horizon levels. The outer boundary, baryonic matter can not escape regardless of velocity but energy, sub-atomic particles and exotic particles like neutrinos can. The next boundary, energy can not escape regardless of velocity(this is the event horizon stage we can "observe" the presence of directly) but sub-atomic and exotic particles can. The next boundary is the point were even sub-atomic particles can not escape even at luminal velocities. The final boundary is the primary event horizon. Nothing can escape this boundary, not even neutrinos. This level of the event horizon is unobservable to us because it is inside the level from which we can observe electromagnetic energy failing to escape.
> 
> The characteristics of how those boundaries interact depends on a number of factors including the mass of the Black Hole in question, it's rotational speed and axial vector and how compact the compressed matter inside has become. As matter continues to be compressed into the center, the characteristics change. This process take a very long time relative to our observational position. Remember that time slows down the further you descend into a gravity well(any gravity well, even that of the Earth), so even though from the outside the even horizon we see a collapsed mass, inside the collapse is still ongoing and matter is still be progressively compressed. For example, in the center of said object 1 minute might be equal to millions or even 10s of millions of years here on Earth, depending on the mass of said Black Hole. This is why the event horizon exists. At that distance from the Black Hole object core the effect of gravity in combination with the deceleration of time prevents escape because the energy needed for escape velocity is greater than any one particle, or group of particles, can generate. This is the primary reason the Hawking Radiation Theory is false. All mass and matter, regardless of energy state, is subject to the effects of time and gravity.
> 
> ...





> Neutrinos are created by various *radioactive decays*; *the following list is not exhaustiv*e, but includes some of those processes:
> 
> beta decay of atomic nuclei or hadrons,
> natural nuclear reactions such as those that take place in the core of a star
> ...


Lex

Excuse my ignorance. Please provide a source for the spontaneous creation in timespace of neutrinos and antineutrinos.



> The question of how neutrino masses arise has not been answered conclusively.  In the Standard Model of particle physics, fermions only have mass because of interactions with the Higgs field (see _Higgs boson_).  These interactions involve both left- and right-handed versions of the fermion (see _chirality_).  However, only left-handed neutrinos have been observed so far.
> Neutrinos may have another source of mass through the Majorana mass term. This type of mass applies for electrically neutral particles since otherwise it would allow particles to turn into anti-particles, which would violate conservation of electric charge.
> The smallest modification to the Standard Model, which only has left-handed neutrinos, is to allow these left-handed neutrinos to have Majorana masses. *The problem with this is that the neutrino masses are surprisingly smaller than the rest of the known particles (at least 500,000 times smaller than the mass of an electron), which, while it does not invalidate the theory, is widely regarded as unsatisfactory as this construction offers no insight into the origin of the neutrino mass scale.*
> 
> ...


----------



## ExcuseMeWtf (Aug 17, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> G&SR fails to predict what happens inside a black hole object. The math completely breaks down regardless of how the computations are structured. It fails to explain both how the Big Bang happened and why as well as why the Universe continues to expand and accelerate while expanding. We know the Big Bang theory is correct because when we model everything running in reverse, everything in the Universe contracts back into a single point.
> 
> Conclusion: G&SR is partly flawed or completely incorrect.
> 
> ...



And quantum physics break down at larger scales. They are flawed or wrong too?

And every single theory that provides some guess of what is past event horizon fails at explaining certain phenomena that are consistent with GR framework. So they are all flawed or wrong, correct?


----------



## Tardian (Aug 17, 2021)

ExcuseMeWtf said:


> And quantum physics break down at larger scales. They are flawed or wrong too?
> 
> And every single theory that provides some guess of what is past event horizon fails at explaining certain phenomena that are consistent with GR framework. So they are all flawed or wrong, correct?


I one was to take a wild guess at what happens inside a black hole, one might find symmetry,  conservation of mass, and energy  ... in fact exactly like our universe (which I already suggested was a black hole).

I think Lex has fairly accurately explained the boundary conditions of an Event Horizon above. Small black holes contain degenerate matter until the Schwarzschild radius increases to the point where elementary particles (eg fermions) can form and with it timespace. A creation event. As more matter enters the black hole from the accretion disc the timespace and mass of the internal universe expands. At some point, intelligent life evolves, develops technology, and starts postulating theories on the internet about parallel universes whilst looking at Matryoshka dolls.


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 17, 2021)

Tardian said:


> I one was to take a wild guess at what happens inside a black hole, one might find symmetry,  conservation of mass, and energy  ... in fact exactly like our universe (which I already suggested was a black hole).
> 
> I think Lex has fairly accurately explained the boundary conditions of an Event Horizon above. Small black holes contain degenerate matter until the Schwarzschild radius increases to the point where elementary particles (eg fermions) can form and with it timespace. A creation event. As more matter enters the black hole from the accretion disc the timespace and mass of the internal universe expands. At some point, intelligent life evolves, develops technology, and starts postulating theories on the internet about parallel universes whilst looking at Matryoshka dolls.


So, you are saying - by virtue of acknowledging lex here - that time stops at the event horizon, hence object relations between the outside and inside break and a new universe is formed inside the blackhole.

I couldn't figure how new matter populates the inside space, if the volume is filled with past matter excluded of time relations with the outside, how could new matter on the inside be integral with time? Seems like a glaring hole in your theory. Is time, integral to mass conservation? I didn't see the explanation.


----------



## Tardian (Aug 17, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> So, you are saying - by virtue of acknowledging lex here - that time stops at the event horizon, hence object relations between the outside and inside break and a new universe is formed inside the blackhole.
> 
> I couldn't figure how new matter populates the inside space, if the volume is filled with past matter excluded of time relations with the outside, how could new matter on the inside be integral with time? Seems like a glaring hole in your theory. Is time, integral to mass conservation? I didn't see the explanation.


Matter is merely an expression of energy. E=mc^2 Matter consumed by a black hole causes the external curvature of timespace and the consequential gravitational effects are realized in the external reference point.

Energy and mass must be conserved. EMR ought also to be considered since light can't escape a black hole.

Once the increase of Schwarzschild radius allows the internal density of a black hole to allow the formation of timespace and elementary particles from degenerative matter then further matter absorbed by the black hole would appear as new matter in the internal universe.  These are merely my unpublished (till now) views based on 42 years of research.

Like Sir Patrick Moore I do not hold a degree in cosmology although did study science at a respected university.

*Tardian*


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 17, 2021)

Tardian said:


> Matter is merely an expression of energy. E=mc^2 Matter consumed by a black hole causes the external curvature of timespace and the consequential gravitational effects are realized in the external reference point.
> 
> Energy and mass must be conserved. EMR ought also to be considered since light can't escape a black hole.
> 
> ...


Just saying there is an incontinuum in your idea. You are implying bigger blackholes have internal universes which generate timespace. Kind of contradict why regular matter in a blackhole stops compressing because it no longer has a time direction.


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 17, 2021)

qubit said:


> Then link to an article from a reputable source that shows that the universe is curved, because I haven't seen any.


I've already posted it. 
WMAP


----------



## Tardian (Aug 17, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> Just saying there is an incontinuum in your idea. You are implying bigger blackholes have internal universes which generate timespace. Kind of contradict why regular matter in a blackhole stops compressing because it no longer has a time direction.


Already had this conversation with Andy Shiekh. Which Arrow of Time are you referencing? The external or internal to the black hole. Which type:

Arrows of Time list:

Thermodynamic
Cosmological
Radiative
Causal
Particle physics (weak)
Quantum
Psychological/perceptual
What I am saying is the energy stored in matter once past the event horizon initially is expressed as degenerate matter until the "increase of Schwarzschild radius allows the internal density of a black hole to allow the formation of timespace and elementary particles". Externally, additional matter is conserved by an increase in the Schwarzschild radius, further curvature of timespace, and consequential gravitational effects. I see no reason why symmetry does not apply or why the interior of a black hole should have different laws to those of our black hole universe.  I will not be discussing wormholes today.

*Tardian*


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 17, 2021)

Tardian said:


> why the interior of a black hole should have different laws to those of our black hole universe.


Yes, this is what I'm asking, too. I still am not in touch with your 'our blackhole universe' idea. What makes us think  there can be matter that demonstrate different laws to those of past matter in the said blackhole. You are applying a time vector if you are discussion the past and present are different in a blackhole when it enlarges.
PS: we both reiterated our posts once. Let us not do it again. I'm stupid and you're an ivory tower theoretician.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 17, 2021)

Tardian said:


> Please provide a source for the spontaneous creation in timespace of neutrinos and antineutrinos.


I am not getting into that line of discussion.


ExcuseMeWtf said:


> So they are all flawed or wrong, correct?


Put simply? Yes.

A Black Hole is not some mysterious object that defies explanation. An event horizon is not a mechanical construct that changes the laws of physics. A Black Hole is an object of extremely compressed normal matter and the event horizon of same is simply a boundary passed which nothing can escape. It is as simple as that. All of the crazy theories that are based on G&SR and simultaneously fail to explain what they attempt to describe are flawed and because they are flawed, they are incorrect and worthless.


Tardian said:


> Matter is merely an expression of energy.


Almost. If you apply G&SR, yes but then the Universe defies explanation. 



mtcn77 said:


> I still am not in touch with your 'our blackhole universe' idea.


What don't you understand? Our Universe started out as an ultra massive Black Hole. Then something started a process that resulted in the Big Bang.



mtcn77 said:


> So, you are saying - by virtue of acknowledging lex here - that time stops at the event horizon


No. Time NEVER stops. It is a force that can never be halted, canceled or destroyed. It can only be slowed by the presence of mass, which generates gravity.

BTW, for the Universe to work properly, the idea that space is "curved" has to be discarded. Matter does not create a curve in space. Gravity is a force.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 17, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> Well try running a clock without a battery, it won't.


Me and my potato disagree.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 17, 2021)

R-T-B said:


> Me and my potato disagree.


Me and my citrus fruit join you..


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 17, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> What don't you understand? Our Universe started out as an ultra massive Black Hole. Then something started a process that resulted in the Big Bang.


That, oh. I thought it was one of the projected inside a blackhole faith leaps.
PS: sorry.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 17, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> That, oh. I thought it was one of the projected inside a blackhole faith leaps.


Oh, I see what you mean. Don't think that's what he meant.


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 17, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Time NEVER stops.


Kinda disagree. Time can be stopped for the internal observer which has been the point put forth previously. Of course time flies by when hydrogen interactions continue in the rest of space.



lexluthermiester said:


> Oh, I see what you mean. Don't think that's what he meant.


I don't want to box a physicist into a finite construct.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 17, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> Kinda disagree. Time can be stopped for the internal observer which has been the point put forth previously. Of course time flies by when hydrogen interactions continue in the rest of space.


Matter has no connection to the force of time except to slow it down when there are large amounts of mass. The perceptions of the observer have no effect on the actual function of time.



mtcn77 said:


> I don't want to box a physicist into a finite construct.


Nice!


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 17, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> The perceptions of the observer have no effect on the actual function of time.


Yet it correlates with its interactivity with time. When hydrogen timespace interactivity with the said object stops a.k.a no light coming in or out, that is quite the same as not experiencing time, as if light, or as I put it hydrogen has a part to play in it. If it has no contact, it stops experiencing time.
I still don't agree with the force explanation involved. Force is something that interacts with a specific way in the universe. That does not mean to say it is not stoppable, it either acts or doesn't act with you.(meaning to say, it might not generate its own reaction, but create inertia in other interactions and slow things down). TL;DR time isn't a force, but the speed of things affecting each other, just like light being the limit of propagating interactivity speed in space.


----------



## ExcuseMeWtf (Aug 17, 2021)

> An event horizon is not a mechanical construct that changes the laws of physics.



Nobody said that.



> A Black Hole is an object of extremely compressed normal matter and the event horizon of same is simply a boundary passed which nothing can escape



Since nothing can escape event horizon, how do you get observational data validating any theory of what kind of matter lies beneath? Specifically, how do you know it's _normal _matter? Especially when slightly less "crazy" objects like neutron stars (or even white dwarves!) are already made of degenerate one.

Also black hole having sufficiently compact mass is perfectly consistent with GR, and that part does not require knowing what lies beneath, as it can be observed by interactions with other objects. Except that says nothing about kind of matter that makes a black hole.


> It is as simple as that. All of the crazy theories that are based on G&SR and simultaneously fail to explain what they attempt to describe are flawed and because they are flawed, they are incorrect and worthless.


Since relativity assumes nothing with mass can even reach the speed of light,  there cannot be any theories explaining what lies beneath horizon which are consistent with GR/SR to begin with.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 17, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> Yet it correlates with its interactivity with time. When hydrogen timespace interactivity with the said object stops a.k.a no light coming in or out, that is quite the same as not experiencing time, as if light, or as I put it hydrogen has a part to play in it. If it has no contact, it stops experiencing time.


You seem to be talking about a quantum principle of observer interaction. Time carries on regardless of observations. Mass interaction is not required for time to function.


mtcn77 said:


> time isn't a force


Yes, it is.


ExcuseMeWtf said:


> Nobody said that.


One moment...


Tardian said:


> Matter, as it reaches the event horizon, has one (or more) of its dimension (Cartesian Coordinates) reduced to zero.


...this. That's some exotic thinking and requires many of the laws of physics to be drastically altered or changed. This does not happen.


ExcuseMeWtf said:


> Specifically, how do you know it's _normal _matter?


How do you know it's not?


ExcuseMeWtf said:


> Especially when slightly less "crazy" objects like neutron stars (or even white dwarfs!) are already made of degenerate one.


Neutron stars & Black holes are not "crazy" objects. They are completely natural objects that simply have an aspect of gravity/time function that seems bizarre.


----------



## ExcuseMeWtf (Aug 17, 2021)

Okay. Define normal matter then.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 17, 2021)

I presume you want a short answer?


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 17, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Time carries on regardless of observations.


Light for instance doesn't experience time. You seem to conflict its relativity with its own property of time and constants with forces. Nothing about time is constant, it is experienced through relativity with lightspeed and coupled with the limit of the speed, things slower than light have faster relativity. If light is faster than you, you experience time - that leaves 2 exceptions: one blackholes, the other light itself.


----------



## Steevo (Aug 17, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> No, it isn't. The acceleration is too great and is increasing not decreasing. For the Universe to contract it would need to start slowing down. That would take a lot of force to slow down all of the mass that is rushing out in all directions from the blast-point of the Big Bang.


If it doesn’t start slowing down it will eventually violate the speed of light and ripping black holes apart into their atomic and eventually quantum components.

Our observations are limited by how long we have been able to make them, we may be watching everything accelerate away from us as if it were on a spring released under tension that eventually snaps back to a size where balance or the lowest state of energy exists, that may be absolute 0 in a few trillion years, or perhaps we start seeing the fabric so to speak of space time rip apart revealing the underlying fundamental forces we don’t yet know or understand









Imagine we are on some part of that spring being let go and we are observing the universe accelerating away from us


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 17, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> Light for instance doesn't experience time. You seem to conflict its relativity with its own property of time and constants with forces. Nothing about time is constant, it is experienced through relativity with lightspeed and coupled with the limit of the speed, things slower than light have faster relativity. If light is faster than you, you experience time - that leaves 2 exceptions: one blackholes, the other light itself.





Steevo said:


> If it doesn’t start slowing down it will eventually violate the speed of light and ripping black holes apart into their atomic and eventually quantum components.


You both are still looking through the lens of General & Special Relativity. To understand the way the Universe works you have to leave that thinking behind. Relativity is incorrect on many levels. Stop thinking in the Einstein way and the Universe will begin to make more sense. Make no mistake though, I revere Einstein, he is one of my heros and was brilliant person. But he was wrong about a lot of things..



Steevo said:


> Imagine we are on some part of that spring being let go and we are observing the universe accelerating away from us


Interesting analogy, but not a good one. The Universe doesn't work that way.


----------



## Tardian (Aug 17, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Matter has no connection to the force of time except to slow it down when there are large amounts of mass. The perceptions of the observer have no effect on the actual function of time.
> 
> 
> Nice!


I don't agree.  Timespace and matter are irretrievably linked.


mtcn77 said:


> Yet it correlates with its interactivity with time. When hydrogen timespace interactivity with the said object stops a.k.a no light coming in or out, that is quite the same as not experiencing time, as if light, or as I put it hydrogen has a part to play in it. If it has no contact, it stops experiencing time.
> I still don't agree with the force explanation involved. Force is something that interacts with a specific way in the universe. That does not mean to say it is not stoppable, it either acts or doesn't act with you.(meaning to say, it might not generate its own reaction, but create inertia in other interactions and slow things down). TL;DR time isn't a force, but the speed of things affecting each other, just like light being the limit of propagating interactivity speed in space.


Please stop referring to hydrogen timespace. You are a really smart guy.  Spend some time on Wikipedia or Google Scholar and read about timespace.

On a personal note, my dear departed father used to say (ironically): In the beginning ... Hydrogen.  He was a Methodist Christian. So PLEASE everyone don't take offense!

Time is a dimension just like x, y, & z axes. Gravity may not be a force but merely a consequence of curved timespace.


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 17, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> I revere Einstein, he is one of my heros


Nice try virtue signalling.


Tardian said:


> You are a really smart guy.


Same.


Tardian said:


> Gravity may not be a force but merely a consequence of curved timespace.


As is with time, imo. Gravity is spacetime relativity, time is lightspeed relativity.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 17, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> Nice try virtue signalling.


Oh please, keep the ego driven pettiness out of this discussion.


----------



## Tardian (Aug 17, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> You both are still looking through the lens of General & Special Relativity. To understand the way the Universe works you have to leave that thinking behind. Relativity is incorrect on many levels. *Stop thinking in the Einstein way* and the Universe will begin to make more sense. Make no mistake though, I revere Einstein, he is one of my heros and was brilliant person. But he was wrong about a lot of things..
> 
> 
> Interesting analogy, but not a good one. The Universe doesn't work that way.


I keep saying the smartest people make the dumbest decisions. Never ever detract from the works of the immortal greats: Einstein, Newton, Maxwell, etc.  We all stand on those geniuses ' shoulders.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 17, 2021)

Tardian said:


> Gravity may not be a force but merely a consequence of curved timespace.


This is another aspect of G&SR that is incorrect. Gravity is a force. It also has an energy state and it's own form of mass.(Don't ask me to explain that, I'm not writing out a dissertation in this thread)


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 17, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Oh please, keep the ego driven pettiness out of this discussion.


Still making emotional appeals?


----------



## Tardian (Aug 17, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> This is another aspect of G&SR that is incorrect. Gravity is a force. It also has an energy state and it's own form of mass.


That is up for debate.  I am writing my paper.  We shall see who is right in the peer-review process.


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 17, 2021)

Tardian said:


> Never ever detract from the works of the immortal greats


That is virtue signalling sjw logic. Next you are going to develop victimhood and political correctness reparations to einstein's positive discrimination from sceptics.


----------



## Tardian (Aug 17, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> You seem to be talking about a quantum principle of observer interaction. Time carries on regardless of observations. Mass interaction is not required for time to function.
> 
> Yes, it is.
> 
> ...


For those who _weren't _paying attention to my earlier posts:



> *Length contraction* is the phenomenon that a moving object's length is measured to be shorter than its proper length, which is the length as measured in the object's own rest frame.[1] It is also known as *Lorentz contraction* or *Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction* (after Hendrik Lorentz and George Francis FitzGerald) and is usually only noticeable at a substantial fraction of the speed of light. Length contraction is only in the direction in which the body is travelling. For standard objects, this effect is negligible at everyday speeds, and can be ignored for all regular purposes, only becoming significant as the object approaches the speed of light relative to the observer.
> Then, at a speed of 13,400,000 m/s (30 million mph, 0.0447_c_) contracted length is 99.9% of the length at rest; at a speed of 42,300,000 m/s (95 million mph, 0.141_c_), the length is still 99%. *As the magnitude of the velocity approaches the speed of light, the effect becomes prominent. *
> 
> 
> ...





mtcn77 said:


> That is virtue signalling sjw logic. Next you are going to develop victimhood and political correctness reperations to einstein's positive discrimination from scepticism.


Both of you stay on topic.  Play the issue, not the man (manus).


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 17, 2021)

Tardian said:


> We shall see who is right in the peer-review process.


The Universe doesn't care about peer-review. It carries on regardless of what we little humans think. The key for us is to focus on what is actually correct in relation to what we observe. Many peer-reviewed documents have turned out to be incorrect so peer-review is not the end-all be-all of science..


----------



## Tardian (Aug 17, 2021)

My kids doubt that I am human ... more a dinosaur. ;-)


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 18, 2021)

Tardian said:


> Both of you stay on topic. Play the issue, not the man (manus).


Good to see the sudden snowflake sentimentality is gone.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 18, 2021)

Tardian said:


> My kids doubt that I am human ... more a dinosaur. ;-)


And there's some relativity for you!


----------



## Tardian (Aug 18, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> This is another aspect of G&SR that is incorrect. Gravity is a force. It also has an energy state and it's own form of mass.(Don't ask me to explain that, I'm not writing out a dissertation in this thread)


I won't be happy if you use my thoughts.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 18, 2021)

Tardian said:


> I won't be happy if you use my thoughts.


? Not sure I follow that one.


----------



## Ahhzz (Aug 18, 2021)

I'm not sure where some of you think you are, but this is the TPU forums, in a science thread discussing measurement of the Speed of Light. Contribute politely, right or wrong, provide supporting evidence, or be prepared to be called out on fallacies. But above all, quit taking subtle and not so subtle jabs at each other.


----------



## bogmali (Aug 18, 2021)

Shutting it down, nothing but an ego-fest lately, and it's a pity that such a good topic could go down the drain because some of you cannot adhere to the word "discussion" 

EDIT: Thread conditionally re-opened, trolls with be thread-banned and assessed points, and the minute the argument spirals out of context I will delete it permanently.


----------



## Tardian (Aug 19, 2021)

bogmali said:


> Shutting it down, nothing but an ego-fest lately, and it's a pity that such a good topic could go down the drain because some of you cannot adhere to the word "discussion"
> 
> EDIT: Thread conditionally re-opened, trolls with be thread-banned and assessed points, and the minute the argument spirals out of context I will delete it permanently.


Bogmali & TPU

Thank you for reopening this thread.

To the above forum members, I wish to formally apologize if my comments were perceived as "aloof, pedantic, and at times, condescending". I will be less so in future posts.

Now if we could all stay on the topic that would also help.

I really value everyone's comments regardless of whether they accord with my own personal view of the universe.

Humbly yours,

Tardian (ranked lower than the dog or cat in my household)


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 19, 2021)

Good timing! And Thank You mods for reopening the thread!

Paul Sutter just talked about the Kilonova of 2017 and much of what he was talking about applies here.








Starting at 11:28 he explains what what I tried to do earlier in the thread.


----------



## Tardian (Aug 19, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Good timing! And Thank You mods for reopening the thread!
> 
> Paul Sutter just talked about the Kilonova of 2017 and much of what he was talking about applies here.
> 
> ...


Absolutely Gold Star video. 



lexluthermiester said:


> Good timing! And Thank You mods for reopening the thread!
> 
> Paul Sutter just talked about the Kilonova of 2017 and much of what he was talking about applies here.
> 
> ...


Lex

I would rate your post as the best post I have ever seen on TPU and possibly the internet.  

The video absolutely confirms my view about dark energy and now points me in the correct direction for my paper.

Wow

Tardian

_This is why the thread needed to be reopened!_


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 19, 2021)

Tardian said:


> Lex
> 
> I would rate your post as the best post I have ever seen on TPU and possibly the internet.
> 
> ...


You're welcome? Glad I could help.  Dr. Sutter deserves most of that though.


----------



## Tardian (Aug 19, 2021)

More detail about Kilonova October 16, 2017^:



> The event also provides a limit on the difference between the speed of light and that of gravity. Assuming the first photons were emitted between zero and ten seconds after peak gravitational wave emission, the difference between the speeds of gravitational and electromagnetic waves, _vGW − vEM_, is constrained to between −3×10−15 and +7×10−16 times the speed of light, which improves on the previous estimate by about 14 orders of magnitude.[44][51]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817#cite_note-53 In addition, it allowed investigation of the equivalence principle (through Shapiro delay measurement) and Lorentz invariance.[2] The limits of possible violations of Lorentz invariance (values of 'gravity sector coefficients') are reduced by the new observations, by up to ten orders of magnitude.[44] GW 170817 also excluded some alternatives to general relativity,[52] including variants of scalar–tensor theory,[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60] Hořava–Lifshitz gravity,[61][62][63] Dark Matter Emulators[64] and bimetric gravity.[65]
> Gravitational wave signals such as GW 170817 may be used as a standard siren to provide an independent measurement of the Hubble constant.[66][67] An initial estimate of the constant derived from the observation is 70.0+12.0−8.0 (km/s)/Mpc, broadly consistent with current best estimates.[66] Further studies improved the measurement to 70.3+5.3−5.0 (km/s)/Mpc.[68][69][70] Together with the observation of future events of this kind the uncertainty is expected to reach two percent within five years and one percent within ten years.[71][72]
> Electromagnetic observations helped to support the theory that the mergers of neutron stars contribute to rapid neutron capture r-process nucleosynthesis[33] and are significant sources of r-process elements heavier than iron,[1] including gold and platinum, which was previously attributed exclusively to supernova explosions.[45]
> In October 2017, Stephen Hawking, in his last broadcast interview, presented the overall scientific importance of GW 170817.[73]
> ...


^ The cosmology/astronomy/physics community needs to adopt a naming convention for Kilonovae. What if we start to detect multiple Kilanovae per year?  I suggest Kilonova 2021/1 as a convention, but maybe this already exists?

I will allow other forum members to comment on the quoted material.



> Hawking's final broadcast interview, about the detection of gravitational waves resulting from the collision of two neutron stars, occurred in October 2017.[341] His final words to the world appeared posthumously, in April 2018, in the form of a Smithsonian TV Channel documentary entitled, _Leaving Earth: Or How to Colonize a Planet_.[342][343] One of his final research studies, entitled _A smooth exit from eternal inflation?_, about the origin of the universe, was published in the _Journal of High Energy Physics_ in May 2018.[344][345][346][347] Later, in October 2018, another of his final research studies, entitled _Black Hole Entropy and Soft Hair_,[348] was published, and dealt with the "mystery of what happens to the information held by objects once they disappear into a black hole".[349][350]
> Following the cremation, a service of thanksgiving was held at Westminster Abbey on 15 June 2018, after which his ashes were interred in the Abbey's nave, between the graves of Sir Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin.[1][326][331][332]
> Inscribed on his memorial stone are the words "Here lies what was mortal of Stephen Hawking 1942–2018" and his most famed equation.[333] He directed, at least fifteen years before his death, that the Bekenstein–Hawking entropy equation be his epitaph.[334][335][note 1] In June 2018, it was announced that Hawking's words, set to music by Greek composer Vangelis, would be beamed into space from a European space agency satellite dish in Spain with the aim of reaching the nearest black hole, 1A 0620-00.[340]
> 
> ...


On 1 November 2018, I visited his resting place in Westminster Abbey to pay tribute.  Photographs are no longer allowed in the Abbey.  I attach an external one from the day.

Tardian

*


*


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 19, 2021)

Tardian said:


> More detail about Kilonova October 16, 2017^:


Oh yeah. Been following that event since it happened! That was a seminal moment in Astrophysics that taught us a lot about how the Universe works. Wonderful observation science moment!


----------



## Tardian (Aug 19, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Dark energy may be the Cosmological constant in classical General Relativity, so I don't necessarily agree.


I respectfully, do agree for the following reasons:


> In 1917 Einstein adds the parameter Λ to his equations when he realizes that his theory implies a dynamic universe for which space is function of time. He then gives this constant a very particular value to force his Universe model to remain static and eternal (Einstein static universe), which he will later call *"the greatest stupidity of his life"*
> If the universe is described by an effective local quantum field theory down to the Planck scale, then we would expect a cosmological constant of the order of:
> 
> 
> ...


I do however note the following article that supports your views:









						Merger of Two Neutron Stars Challenges Dark Energy Theories
					

The collision of two neutron stars ruled out a class of dark energy theories that modify gravity, and challenged a large class of theories.



					scitechdaily.com
				




Tardian


----------



## Steevo (Aug 19, 2021)

Just a thought experiment but if we move two quarks apart the “strings” that hold them together eventually snap and new quarks are formed, perhaps the energy of the expanding space time is what gives quarks their fundamental mass/energy, and the expansion is a function of the strong force pushing matter apart, but at large enough masses the force of spacetime is overcome and gravity is the expressed force as a right hand rule to the warp of spacetime.
We know electromagnetic fields follow the right hand rule, what if gravity is the deflection value of the warp much like light through a diffraction gradient, instead of following spacetime curvature the curve is the opposite direction and light is reflected/refracted on a much smaller dimension than the wavelength.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 20, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Dark energy may be the Cosmological constant in classical General Relativity, so I don't necessarily agree with all he is saying.


That might be possible.



Andy Shiekh said:


> We are way off topic (speed of light) although hopefully they will let us keep exploring.


Not really. The speed of light is directly dependent on general physics. However, If the mods would prefer we carry this discussion over to a different thread. I would be happy to create one. Input?


----------



## Tardian (Aug 26, 2021)

xtreemchaos said:


> Oooo theres a lot of Source here but some nice thinking as well, i like thinking out the box. i carnt remember who said this but "what we know about the universe is = to putting a small box over ones head and looking through a pin hole" i think it was Pat Moore but could be wrong.


As discussed above and elsewhere I wasn't paying attention in November 2018. I was on holiday in London staying almost across from Harrods recovering from cancer. I _do_ like the wine section.

So forgive me for not getting the _South Park_ reference:


> "*Buddha Box*" is the eighth episode of the twenty-second season of the American animated television series _South Park_. The 295th overall episode of the series, it premiered on Comedy Central in the United States on November 28, 2018.  The episode centers upon the titular Buddha Box, *a cardboard box *that the people of South Park, in particular Eric Cartman, PC Principal and Strong Woman, *begin wearing over their heads *to combat stress and anxiety.[1]








						Buddha Box - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Sir Patrick Moore is unlikely to have coauthored that episode.

_True arrogance is accepting more than one Noble Prize by proxy because the other attendees are just so so. My daughter is *woke*, and she would be on board with this notion. The rest, just think you are all misfits and losers. You can have too much Royal blood!_


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 26, 2021)

Ok, back on topic...








Dr Becky has some interesting insights.


----------



## Tardian (Aug 26, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Ok, back on topic...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'll watch Dr Becky tonight.  

_Andrew_ "ET" _Ettingshausen_, a famous Australian former professional rugby league footballer, was reputed to be so fast that he could turn off the light (wall switch) and be in bed before the light went out.
Any _clever Dicks_ who try to ruin this famous old joke will attract Tardian Bad Khama (TBK).


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 26, 2021)

Bait posts (and some others) deleted.

This thread has only recently been ressurected, I can see it being shut down for good. Or reply bans for people that feel they have to derail the thread to gripe about social politics.


----------



## Tardian (Aug 26, 2021)

*Dr Becky *is a star  ...  my Demigod enquired who and what am I looking at  ...  I answered Astrophysics porn.  Demigod went back to watching _Australian Survivor _wishing I didn't.

*Spoiler Alert! *I have given you all a chance to watch the video.  To remind those who did and for the time-poor and lazy here are the salient points:



> The first quantitative estimate of the speed of light was made in 1676 by *Rømer*.[89][90] From the observation that the periods of Jupiter's innermost moon Io appeared to be shorter when the Earth was approaching Jupiter than when receding from it, he concluded that light travels at a finite speed, and estimated that it takes light 22 minutes to cross the diameter of Earth's orbit. *Christiaan Huygens* combined this estimate with an estimate for the diameter of the Earth's orbit to obtain an estimate of speed of light of 220000 km/s, 26% lower than the actual value.[119]
> In his 1704 book _Opticks_,* Isaac Newton *reported Rømer's calculations of the finite speed of light and gave a value of "seven or eight minutes" for the time taken for light to travel from the Sun to the Earth (the modern value is 8 minutes 19 seconds).[136] Newton queried whether Rømer's eclipse shadows were coloured; hearing that they were not, he concluded the different colours travelled at the same speed. In 1729, *James Bradley *discovered stellar aberration.[91] From this effect he determined that light must travel 10210 times faster than the Earth in its orbit (the modern figure is 10066 times faster) or, equivalently, that it would take light 8 minutes 12 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth.[91]
> In the 19th century *Hippolyte Fizeau *developed a method to determine the speed of light based on time-of-flight measurements on Earth and reported a value of 315000 km/s.[137] His method was improved upon by* Léon Foucault *who obtained a value of 298000 km/s in 1862.[100] In the year 1856, *Wilhelm Eduard Weber** and Rudolf Kohlrausch *measured the ratio of the electromagnetic and electrostatic units of charge, 1/√_ε_0_μ_0, by discharging a Leyden jar, and found that its numerical value was very close to the speed of light as measured directly by Fizeau. The following year *Gustav Kirchhoff *calculated that an electric signal in a resistanceless wire travels along the wire at this speed.[138] In the early 1860s, *Maxwell *showed that, according to the theory of electromagnetism he was working on, electromagnetic waves propagate in empty space[139][140][141] at a speed equal to the above Weber/Kohlrausch ratio, and drawing attention to the numerical proximity of this value to the speed of light as measured by Fizeau, he proposed that light is in fact an electromagnetic wave.[142]
> It was thought at the time that empty space was filled with a background medium called the luminiferous aether in which the electromagnetic field existed. Some physicists thought that this aether acted as a preferred frame of reference for the propagation of light and therefore it should be possible to measure the motion of the Earth with respect to this medium, by measuring the isotropy of the speed of light. Beginning in the 1880s several experiments were performed to try to detect this motion, the most famous of which is the experiment performed by *Albert A. Michelson** and Edward W. Morley *in 1887.[143][144] The detected motion was always less than the observational error. Modern experiments indicate that the two-way speed of light is isotropic (the same in every direction) to within 6 nanometres per second.[145] Because of this experiment *Hendrik Lorentz *proposed that the motion of the apparatus through the aether may cause the apparatus to contract along its length in the direction of motion, and he further assumed that the time variable for moving systems must also be changed accordingly ("local time"), which led to the formulation of the Lorentz transformation. Based on Lorentz's aether theory, *Henri Poincaré *(1900) showed that this local time (to first order in _v_/_c_) is indicated by clocks moving in the aether, which are synchronized under the assumption of constant light speed. In 1904, he speculated that the speed of light could be a limiting velocity in dynamics, provided that the assumptions of Lorentz's theory are all confirmed. In 1905, Poincaré brought Lorentz's aether theory into full observational agreement with the principle of relativity.[146][147]
> ...





*Essen*tial viewing  ...  Supermen&women (&nonbinary) beware It is *Krypton*ite!

I let you in on a secret the title to this thread is a *misnomer*! You *can't measure* the speed of light. *It is defined*. The title should Be:

_Is a metre the same in both directions? Has it been accurately measured? _



> The metre was originally defined in 1793 as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole along a great circle, so the Earth's circumference is approximately 40000 km. In 1799, the metre was redefined in terms of a prototype metre bar (the actual bar used was changed in 1889). In 1960, the metre was redefined in terms of a certain number of wavelengths of a certain emission line of krypton-86. The current definition was adopted in 1983 and modified slightly in 2002 to clarify that the metre is a measure of proper length.
> The metre is currently defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## xrobwx71 (Aug 26, 2021)

dorsetknob said:


> Speed of light from A to B is the same as from B to A


(I know, old post) Without passing close to any object with substantial mass? When light curves, does it also slow? Is there a slingshot effect on light as it comes out of a curve hence speeding it up? (I'm asking, I don't know)


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 26, 2021)

xrobwx71 said:


> When light curves, does it also slow?


Yes and no. The velocity of light does not change relative to it's own proximity. But as a gravity well slows time, light passing near a gravity well, will be slowed slightly as it passes that gravity well. When light leaves the area of effect, light exits the effect and resumes it's normal velocity. So for an observer outside the gravity well it would appear to slow down and then speed back up. This effect is in addition to the alterations to it's trajectory.

To be clear, light doesn't "curve". The trajectory of light is changed by the effect a gravity well has on it. The stronger the gravity field effect, the greater the change of trajectory.

Does this make sense?


----------



## xrobwx71 (Aug 26, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Yes and no. The velocity of light does not change relative to it's own proximity. But as a gravity well slows time, light passing near a gravity well, will be slowed slightly as it passes that gravity well. When light leaves the are of effect, light exits the effect and resumes it normal velocity. So for an observer outside the gravity well it would appear to slow down and then speed back up. This effect is in addition to the alterations to it's trajectory.
> 
> To be clear, light doesn't "curve". The trajectory of light is changed by the effect a gravity well has on it. The stronger the gravity field effect, the greater the change of trajectory.
> 
> Does this make sense?


Absolute sense, thanks Lex.
I've been perusing the gravitational lensing phenomena. It boggles my mind in a way that feels good, imparting awe and wonderment.

I also came across something regarding velocity and speed. They seem to be differentiated as separate actions. In other words, they are commonly and incorrectly thought of as the same. I think I read where velocity has to do with direction and speed does not? Ahh---- Here


----------

