Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Native]

From @ben_d´s link:
Chandra Press Room :: Black Hole Nurtures Baby Stars a Million Light Years Away :: 26 November 19 (si.edu)

"This is the first time we've seen a single black hole boost star birth in more than one galaxy at a time," said Roberto Gilli of the National Institute of Astrophysics (INAF) in Bologna, Italy, lead author of the study describing the discovery. "It's amazing to think one galaxy's black hole can have a say in what happens in other galaxies millions of trillions of miles away."

The obvious connection between galaxies is that they comes in clusters and superclusters with a common rotational center. The scientists in question have apparently discovered such a center, and via the standing astrophysical and cosmological confusion of *dark holes* as a center in ordinary galaxies, they also describe this galactic clusters center with yet another *dark hole*.

The cosmic cracyness of holes goes on and on in this *Swiss Cheese Cosmology*. If *black holes* should be that widely spread out in the Universe, there shouldn´t be anything but darkness to observe at all.

It´s enormeous what *black - and white - holes* can create in this just the telescopic observable part of the Universe. And of course, all this even couldn´t be observed if it wasn´t for the discovery of the Electromagnetic Force by the Danish Hans Christian Ørsted back in 1820.

 

[Polymath257]

I was referring to *curved space-time* as in this hilarious illustration.

Do you really believe in this nonsens? And that, if this illustrated shpere becomes sufficiently heavy, it will plop through the 2D rubber sheet and leave a hollow 3D figure in space?

The rubber sheet is an *analogy*. More specifically, it is a 2D analogy of what happens in a 3D setting.

Here's a better picture of the same thing, showing the 3D aspect of it:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sRoeh--JNXQ/UcKNv_D2ZZI/AAAAAAAAEnI/OLVOLEW5fVY/s1600/bending.png

Here's a better visualization of the region close to a black hole:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/nasa-visualization-shows-a-black-hole-s-warped-world

 

[Native]

The rubber sheet is an *analogy*. More specifically, it is a 2D analogy of what happens in a 3D setting.

Here's a better picture of the same thing, showing the 3D aspect of it:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sRoeh--JNXQ/UcKNv_D2ZZI/AAAAAAAAEnI/OLVOLEW5fVY/s1600/bending.png

Here's a better visualization of the region close to a black hole:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/nasa-visualization-shows-a-black-hole-s-warped-world

It STILL doesn´t explain what´s going on *down in the hole* and further on.

Thanks for your sincere effort but it doesn´t tic any logical boxes for me as my perception of *weight and masses* is connected to the E&M binding forces i atoms - and my perception of *curving motions in space* as well is connected to the magnetic fields and motions everwhere as observed on the Sun and Earth and even i Galaxies.

All which you´ve known by now.

I´ll be out of office for a while now, but in the mean time I´ll offer you as a Polymath to watch a genuine mathematical analysis of the use of equations in the department of *Relativity*

Black Holes & Relativity 1-2

Part 1 -

Part 2 -

Enjoy and see you later.

 

[Polymath257]

It STILL doesn´t explain what´s going on *down in the hole* and further on.

Thanks for your sincere effort but it doesn´t tic any logical boxes for me as my perception of *weight and masses* is connected to the E&M binding forces i atoms - and my perception of *curving motions in space* as well is connected to the magnetic fields and motions everwhere as observed on the Sun and Earth and even i Galaxies.

All which you´ve known by now.

I´ll be out of office for a while now, but in the mean time I´ll offer you as a Polymath to watch a genuine mathematical analysis of the use of equations in the department of *Relativity*

Black Holes & Relativity 1-2

Part 1 -

Part 2 -

Enjoy and see you later.

I watched both of them. He's an idiot who clearly doesn't understand what he is talking about. More specifically, he knows just enough to be dangerous,t not enough to understand what he is criticizing.

 

[Native]

I watched both of them. He's an idiot who clearly doesn't understand what he is talking about. More specifically, he knows just enough to be dangerous,t not enough to understand what he is criticizing.

Of course you have these rejective perceptions as you per definition, and by your own words, rejects logics and analytical skills as gained from natural philosophy and metaphysics.

Again: "More specifically, he knows just enough to be dangerous, . . "

This quote from your profile signature apparently goes for your good self too:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing".

 

[Polymath257]

Of course you have these rejective perceptions as you per definition, and by your own words, rejects logics and analytical skills as gained from natural philosophy and metaphysics.

I have studied the material he is talking about in much more detail than what he discusses. He is badly wrong about both the physics and the math in his lecture.

For example, he talks about the variable r not being a radius, but being the inverse square root of the curvature. But he neglects to point out that the inverse square root of the curvature for a sphere *is* the radius! In this, he is either intentionally lying or is simply an idiot. I'm being charitable in saying it is the latter.

He also talks about the non-linearity of Einstein's equations, which is true. But it doesn't mean what he is telling people it means. So, while you cannot *simply add* two solutions to get another solution, all that means is that you need to *also* take into consideration the interactions between the multiple solutions. So, you cannot simply add two Schwartzchild solutions to get another solution. BUT there is a family of solutions that have two singularities that are similar to those of the Scwartzchild solution.

Again, he is either deliberately lying or he is an idiot.

I can give other examples from this lecture where he is clearly not being correct in what he claims.

Maybe if I knew his speaker fee, I could say, instead, that he is being deliberately dishonest.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course you have these rejective perceptions as you per definition, and by your own words, rejects logics and analytical skills as gained from natural philosophy and metaphysics.

Again: "More specifically, he knows just enough to be dangerous, . . "

This quote from your profile signature apparently goes for your good self too:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing".

Exactly. Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.

 

[Native]

Again, he is either deliberately lying or he is an idiot.

I´m always on my guard when someone states such emotional things about other persons. Judging qualities out of emotions indicates a lack of understanding.

I have studied the material he is talking about in much more detail than what he discusses. He is badly wrong about both the physics and the math in his lecture.

For example, he talks about the variable r not being a radius, but being the inverse square root of the curvature. But he neglects to point out that the inverse square root of the curvature for a sphere *is* the radius! In this, he is either intentionally lying or is simply an idiot. I'm being charitable in saying it is the latter.

He also talks about the non-linearity of Einstein's equations, which is true. But it doesn't mean what he is telling people it means. So, while you cannot *simply add* two solutions to get another solution, all that means is that you need to *also* take into consideration the interactions between the multiple solutions. So, you cannot simply add two Schwartzchild solutions to get another solution. BUT there is a family of solutions that have two singularities that are similar to those of the Scwartzchild solution.

Polymath, I fully acknowledge your mathematical skills - but on the other hand I have some doubts when it comes to logical analysis of a problem and this also goes when criticising the overall use of math, equations and calculations from an alternative cosmological approach.

Stephen Crothers have a different approach to astrophysics and cosmology and he hate when mathematicians inserts artificial *values* in equations just to make their theories fit their hindsight biases.

This is IMO his greatest advantage and if convensus mathematicians don´t like this, I´m just sorry for them.

Maybe if I knew his speaker fee, I could say, instead, that he is being deliberately dishonest.

Waht a dishonest thing to state as an argument! IMO you´re just having emotional things at stake when doing that.

 

[Polymath257]

I´m always on my guard when someone states such emotional things about other persons. Judging qualities out of emotions indicates a lack of understanding.

Not emotional. Simply evaluative. The misunderstandings he shows either mean he is an idiot or is being deliberately dishonest.

Polymath, I fully acknowledge your mathematical skills - but on the other hand I have some doubts when it comes to logical analysis of a problem and this also goes when criticising the overall use of math, equations and calculations from an alternative cosmological approach.

And you have the expertise to judge?

Stephen Crothers have a different approach to astrophysics and cosmology and he hate when mathematicians inserts artificial *values* in equations just to make their theories fit their hindsight biases.

This is IMO his greatest advantage and if convensus mathematicians don´t like this, I´m just sorry for them.

And yet, he shows his lack of understanding almost from the first minute of the talk. He has a couple of correct points (interpretation of variables in GR can be tricky), but he gets the subsequent analysis completely wrong.

Given what he shows he knows, his blatant falsehoods bring into question his honesty.

Waht a dishonest thing to state as an argument! IMO you´re just having emotional things at stake when doing that.

Not dishonest at all. I am trying to understand how he can honestly say what he does and can't find good reason. I give the benefit of the doubt and say he is simply an idiot on these matters. The only other conclusion is that he is being deliberately dishonest.

 

[Native]

I said:
"Polymath, I fully acknowledge your mathematical skills - but on the other hand I have some doubts when it comes to logical analysis of a problem and this also goes when criticising the overall use of math, equations and calculations from an alternative cosmological approach".

And you have the expertise to judge?

I´m not judging anything. I just conclude that we have different approaches, defintions and methods to different cosmological subjects. You know my approaces and I know yours and when you outright reject the skills given from the *metaphysical definitions*, I cannot help concluding that you need some of the mentioned skills in order to discern alternate issues.

Remember? I once asked you in a personal conversation of a cooperation in cosmologial matters? Via the following many threads here on RF, you´ve shown no serious attempts to understand my approach and arguments.

This is also why I conclude your lack of understanding my arguments - hence I also believe you to have the same meeting and meaning of other persons who have alternate apporaches and definitions.

Well that´s all OK too.

 

[Polymath257]

I said:
"Polymath, I fully acknowledge your mathematical skills - but on the other hand I have some doubts when it comes to logical analysis of a problem and this also goes when criticising the overall use of math, equations and calculations from an alternative cosmological approach".

I´m not judging anything. I just conclude that we have different approaches, defintions and methods to different cosmological subjects. You know my approaces and I know yours and when you outright reject the skills given from the *metaphysical definitions*, I cannot help concluding that you need some of the mentioned skills in order to discern alternate issues.

Remember? I once asked you in a personal conversation of a cooperation in cosmologial matters? Via the following many threads here on RF, you´ve shown no serious attempts to understand my approach and arguments.

This is also why I conclude your lack of understanding my arguments - hence I also believe you to have the same meeting and meaning of other persons who have alternate apporaches and definitions.

Well that´s all OK too.

I understand your arguments. I just don't agree with them and find them to be full of misunderstandings and false views of the science.

 

[Native]

I understand your arguments. I just don't agree with them and find them to be full of misunderstandings and false views of the science.

There we have it again. Regarding my perception - and apparently Stephen Crothers too - you could have addressed the same to yourself.

As long as you, I and other persons don´t argument from a factual convensus *Theory of Everything*, at least it shouldn´t be necessary to call your opposite debaters for "idiots".

 

[Polymath257]

There we have it again. Regarding my perception - and apparently Stephen Crothers too - you could have addressed the same to yourself.

As long as you, I and other persons don´t argument from a factual convensus *Theory of Everything*, at least it shouldn´t be necessary to call your opposite debaters for "idiots".

No, the problem with Crothers is that his video is full of misinformation about the theory itself. he doesn't give an 'alternative position', but simply gives bad information about what the standard model says. For that, he is an idiot or a liar.

As for your position, I have yet to see an actual prediction of the results of an observation. Until that happens, there is nothing to even talk about. You simply don't have a scientific theory at all.

 

[Native]

No, the problem with Crothers is that his video is full of misinformation about the theory itself. he doesn't give an 'alternative position', but simply gives bad information about what the standard model says. For that, he is an idiot or a liar.

You just don´t get it, do you!? ANY theory can be questioned and ALL persons can have alternate approahces and perceptions of it all.

Your delusive conviction of having the one and only correct use of math and which constants are imbedded in the equations should be the only one, is simply nothing more than a megalomaniac *besserwissen* approach.

And when you speak of *cosmological misinformations, lies and fake news* you can think of your own *singularity math*, which is nothing but a mathematical invention to *exsplain* what modern cosmological *science* can´t describe in natural terms and sentenses.

Definition of *Singularity*
"The technological singularity—also, simply, the singularity is a hypothetical point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization".

No wonder Stephen Crothers and lots of other indpendent thinkers like to get rid of such invented nonsense.

A *hypothetical point of time connected to *technique*? What a *scientific*
gobbledygook

I would wish the same kind of changes to be the case of cosmological understandig in large. but this obviously don´t happen with you any time soon as you´re obviously and evidently stuck in scientific dogmas.

As for your position, I have yet to see an actual prediction of the results of an observation. Until that happens, there is nothing to even talk about. You simply don't have a scientific theory at all.

And yet again the mental derivation of yours instead of dealing with your own standing problems in cosmology

An IF and WHEN I could present what you call a theory, you wouldn´t even be able to grasp it contents as you wouldn´t even discover it´s logics as you stubbernly reject this noble subject in favor of your consensus *number singularity acrobatics*:

Polymath257, you maybe are of some importance for some other RF debaters, but for now I´m just getting tired of your delusive games.

I`m permanently out of office in this thread now and I´ve cancelled further notifications.

 

[Polymath257]

You just don´t get it, do you!? ANY theory can be questioned and ALL persons can have alternate approahces and perceptions of it all.

Yes, of course. But that isn't what Crothers was doing.

Your delusive conviction of having the one and only correct use of math and which constants are imbedded in the equations should be the only one, is simply nothing more than a megalomaniac *besserwissen* approach.

Not my approach at all. But that isn't what Crothers was doing.

And when you speak of *cosmological misinformations, lies and fake news* you can think of your own *singularity math*, which is nothing but a mathematical invention to *exsplain* what modern cosmological *science* can´t describe in natural terms and sentenses.

Nope. Singularities typically show the limits of the theory or that some other variable is required. For example, there is a 'coordinate singularity' at the north and south poles of the Earth. In a similar way, the event horizon of a black hole is a 'coordinate singularity' and doesn't represent an actual physical singularity.
E]
Definition of *Singularity*
"The technological singularity—also, simply, the singularity is a hypothetical point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization".

No wonder Stephen Crothers and lots of other indpendent thinkers like to get rid of such invented nonsense.[/QUOTE]

NOT the definition of the term in use in this discussion. I don't hold to this position either.

A *hypothetical point of time connected to *technique*? What a *scientific*
gobbledygook

I would wish the same kind of changes to be the case of cosmological understandig in large. but this obviously don´t happen with you any time soon as you´re obviously and evidently stuck in scientific dogmas.

See above. You have given a straw man.

And yet again the mental derivation of yours instead of dealing with your own standing problems in cosmology

Irrelevant if it is still the best explanation available. Alternative can be considered BUT they have to be able to make predictions of observations that agree with actual observations.

At this point, your system doesn't do that, so isn't even something that can be considered.

An IF and WHEN I could present what you call a theory, you wouldn´t even be able to grasp it contents as you wouldn´t even discover it´s logics as you stubbernly reject this noble subject in favor of your consensus *number singularity acrobatics*:

Try me. Make a specific prediction of an observation, say the value of something to 3 decimal points. THEN we can talk.

Polymat257, you maybe are of some importance for some other RF debaters, but for now I´m just getting tired of your delusive games.

I`m permanently out of office in this thread now and I´ve cancelled further notifications.

OK, goodbye

 

[night912]

You just don´t get it, do you!? ANY theory can be questioned and ALL persons can have alternate approahces and perceptions of it all.

Your delusive conviction of having the one and only correct use of math and which constants are imbedded in the equations should be the only one, is simply nothing more than a megalomaniac *besserwissen* approach.

And when you speak of *cosmological misinformations, lies and fake news* you can think of your own *singularity math*, which is nothing but a mathematical invention to *exsplain* what modern cosmological *science* can´t describe in natural terms and sentenses.

Definition of *Singularity*
"The technological singularity—also, simply, the singularity is a hypothetical point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization".

No wonder Stephen Crothers and lots of other indpendent thinkers like to get rid of such invented nonsense.

A *hypothetical point of time connected to *technique*? What a *scientific*
gobbledygook

I would wish the same kind of changes to be the case of cosmological understandig in large. but this obviously don´t happen with you any time soon as you´re obviously and evidently stuck in scientific dogmas.

And yet again the mental derivation of yours instead of dealing with your own standing problems in cosmology

An IF and WHEN I could present what you call a theory, you wouldn´t even be able to grasp it contents as you wouldn´t even discover it´s logics as you stubbernly reject this noble subject in favor of your consensus *number singularity acrobatics*:

Polymat257, you maybe are of some importance for some other RF debaters, but for now I´m just getting tired of your delusive games.

I`m permanently out of office in this thread now.

Just because you couldn't tear down any of Polymat257's points and explanations, while he demolished your points, resigning from your office is understandable. There's just one thing that you should've done instead of making this post. You should've left quietly and saved yourself from another embarrassment. Instead, you decided throw in a strawman thinking you'll get the last win, only to show yet another example of your ignorance of science. If that wasn't enough, you decided to cry and whine about how Polymat257 easily disposed your pseudoscientific theories by presenting scientific explanations. Cry and whine because you couldn't do the same thing is funny and pathetic at the same time.

Since you're leaving office, you should have plenty of free time. Perhaps you should spend this time doing some reading on science before sneaking into a scientist's office and sitting in their chair pretending to be a scientist.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ok I'm back with a couple of questions concerning what the erudite scholars here have explained so far.. Concerning the big bang and the beginning of time and space explanation, it seems to me that there could not be a multiverse for to entertain the possibility would be to suggest that there is other potential for the creation of space in nothingness. So if there were a multiverse, what is the relationship between the space of this universe and that of another in the multiverse? And a part of this same question, given a multiverse and the implication of some sort of potential for space to come into existence from nothing that allows many universes, why would it not be possible for there to be an infinite number of universes in the multiverse?

Second question. If this universe arose from non-existence, can it return to non-existence. Or is reciprocity not possible, iow does this universe just exist in whatever form its evolution takes, eternally? If so, the infinite universes of the multiverse are eternal, yes?

 

[PureX]

Ok I'm back with a couple of questions concerning what the erudite scholars here have explained so far.. Concerning the big bang and the beginning of time and space explanation, it seems to me that there could not be a multiverse for to entertain the possibility would be to suggest that there is other potential for the creation of space in nothingness. So if there were a multiverse, what is the relationship between the space of this universe and that of another in the multiverse? And a part of this same question, given a multiverse and the implication of some sort of potential for space to come into existence from nothing that allows many universes, why would it not be possible for there to be an infinite number of universes in the multiverse?

Second question. If this universe arose from non-existence, can it return to non-existence. Or is reciprocity not possible, iow does this universe just exist in whatever form its evolution takes, eternally? If so, the infinite universes of the multiverse are eternal, yes?

The whole point of the multiverse theory is to eliminate "God" from the picture by eliminating the need for a first cause. So, yes, the implication is on an eternity of multiverse.

None of this actually eliminates "God", or even a first cause, precisely because subjugated time to eternity, rendering it irrelevant on both counts; as causation, and as justification for rejecting causation. Leaving the question of causation intact.

 

[ChristineM]

The whole point of the multiverse theory is to eliminate "God" from the picture by eliminating the need for a first cause

No its not, the whole point of the several Multiverse hypothesis (not theories) is the cosmologists belief that there is evidence or mathematics to back them up.

And of course, causality in this universe did not begin to coalesce until after the bb so the first cause argument is moot anyway

 

[PureX]

No its not, the whole point of the several Multiverse hypothesis (not theories) is the cosmologists belief that there is evidence or mathematics to back them up.

And of course, causality in this universe did not begin to coalesce until after the bb so the first cause argument is moot anyway

I meant the whole point of it being brought up, here, on RF.