Physics General Subjects Thread

Modern science is diseased. We think we live in some enlightened era. But it's the same sh*t as during the time of Galileo.
Groupthink and dogma.

BTW, peer review ain't all its cracked up to be. It creates an entry barrier for new ideas and preserves bad old ideas. It
really is a type of censorship. The reviewers do not have to prove you are wrong or do experiments to debunk you. They
can just write some BS arguments and nitpicks and recommend rejection of your paper (e.g. the excuse that your paper is
"too speculative" if you try go against the grain in cosmology, even though the whole field is a pile of speculation). Given
groupthink dynamics the majority of reviewers are going to be on the plantation and will fight anything that threatens the
plantation. A perverse form of Stockholm syndrome.

I think Peterson's analysis of sociopath/psychopath parasites is relevant here. Science is controlled by some "big names" that
are invested in the dogma. They are very nasty in their treatment of heretics. It's not just some criticism for the non-believers,
but pure cancel culture abuse (from long before cancel culture was thing). These are not true scientists but power tripping
POS. I bet they are narcissists as well considering the level of ego investment in something that does not matter all that much
to daily life. They are "exceptional" and get to decide the truth for everyone. They get off seeing the lemmings conform to their
BS.

Of course travelling at the speed of light is impossible because the numbers become absurd, but above and below the speed of light seems to be possible... so apart from more exotic ideas like folding space or compressing space or tearing holes in spacetime, you could accelerate to near the speed of light and then accelerate past the speed...

But of course that ignores obvious problems like empty space is not actually empty... a puff of gas or grain of sand sized particle would rip through a spaceship front to back...

Some sort of magnetic ramjet with a hollow cylinder shape with a large magnetic mouth at the front capturing all the material in the path of the ship out to thousands of kms drawing it into a narrow column and then blowing it out the rear to generate thrust would be an interesting way to deal with fuel and propulsion... as you move faster things get heavier so in comparison the stuff you pick up on the way will be comparatively light compared with the things on your ship and that your ship is made of, but accelerating them out the back to propel the ship forward increases the mass of the material as you get close to the speed of light... which brings up another problem... as you get closer to the speed of light the material you throw out the back might be going faster that light because of its external propulsion will it disappear from your perspective as it accelerates through the ship and out the rear... if you are heading through a gas cloud your ramjet funnel extending in front of your ship will be rather short because you are reducing your length in the direction of travel... does that apply to the magnetic field in front of your ship scooping up propellant?

If it doesn't then you should be OK but think of the consequences of roaring through our solar system at near the speed of light where asteriods and dust you scoop up and use to push yourself forward could create black holes all the way through our solar systems as you pass... items with infinite mass where time stops and it becomes 2 dimensional... time stops onboard the item or material but does that mean it pops out of existence or does it mean everything on the matter or ship cannot escape because with time stopped there is nothing they can do... they will continue at the speed of light till they hit something and their infinite mass... makes them a singularity... does that mean they destroy everything they hit?

Another thing... the big bang was the entire universe compressed into a point less than the size of an atomic particle... so obviously a black hole is about more than mass and distance. Gravity is an incredibly weak force... suns are big balls of gas because the energy of fusion is enough to hold them up like a balloon... when fusion in their cores stop the outer surface collapses onto the inside and compresses it to a material beyond a solid... a red dwarf or neutron star or a singularity... the latter being a point of infinite mass.

It takes the mass of the entire planet beneath you to hold you and our atmosphere on the surface of the planet, and this is where density matters because of the relatively low density of earth you only really notice the gravity of the mass that is close to you. The mass on the other side of the planet is too far away to really effect you, but if it wasn't all there... like say on the moon you would notice how much less it holds you down.

If you were to compress the mass of the earth down to an object the size of a small coin then all that gravity is concentrated in a very small space which would create a black hole... according to black hole theory as I understand it.

So why didn't the whole universe compressed into the size of an atomic particle (which is much much smaller than an atom because an atom is mostly empty space) just pop into a black hole immediately.

We talk about spacetime as being like a fabric... maybe when spacetime is compressed to such a small space even infinite gravity can't break it or rip it, which is another description of a singularity.

The theory is that early stars were enormous and burned fast but wouldn't that also mean they would create black holes rather than release their heavier elements to seed the galaxy.

Always liked the comment by Carl Sagan... the heavier elements in the universe and in us were created in the cores of stars... isn't it amazing to think that we, as the slag created by the universes greatest furnaces have managed to become self aware and are in the process of learning and understanding the universe around us...

GarryB wrote:
The theory is that early stars were enormous and burned fast but wouldn't that also mean they would create black holes rather than release their heavier elements to seed the galaxy.

If the total mass of a star isn't sufficient to create a black hole, I don't think its residual heavy elements would be either. Anyway, a nova/supernova would blow them outward not inward.

Always liked the comment by Carl Sagan... the heavier elements in the universe and in us were created in the cores of stars... isn't it amazing to think that we, as the slag created by the universes greatest furnaces have managed to become self aware and are in the process of learning and understanding the universe around us...

Sure. It's a shame the real scientific story of our origins is not, to my knowledge, taught in schools so many kids are uninformed, hence cling to religious bull.

If the total mass of a star isn't sufficient to create a black hole, I don't think its residual heavy elements would be either. Anyway, a nova/supernova would blow them outward not inward.

My understanding is that early stars i the early universe were mostly bigger stars, which should have led to bigger bangs and it is the bigger bangs that create the neutron stars and the black holes... clearly it has to be the opposite with smaller stars creating red dwarfs... which seem to be rather common in our solar system that will burn for a very very very long time.

Sure. It's a shame the real scientific story of our origins is not, to my knowledge, taught in schools so many kids are uninformed, hence cling to religious bull.

When I first heard about scientology I thought... good a religion base on science... but it is a pyramid scheme based on money and bullshit.

GarryB wrote:
My understanding is that early stars i the early universe were mostly bigger stars, which should have led to bigger bangs and it is the bigger bangs that create the neutron stars and the black holes…

Black holes form when so much matter comes together in one place the result is a kind of implosion. Galactic centers have them presumably because the closer to the center stars are the more densely packed they get so the innermost area sees large numbers of them coming together. I don't think novae have anything to do with it.

clearly it has to be the opposite with smaller stars creating red dwarfs…

White dwarfs IIRC.

The origins of the central black holes in most galaxies is not that clear. They may be primordial and seeded the galaxies. Sufficient homogeneity of
the Big Bang transition is not self-evident or established to exclude primordial black holes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_black_hole

There is another absurdity in modern physics that shows the corruption.    Anything traveling at the speed of light cannot have any
dimensional extent along the axis of travel.    So if we ignore the detail that mass cannot travel at the speed of light, a rod of any
length aligned parallel to its axis of travel will appear to have zero length if its speed is that of light.   So how can a photon have a
spatially extended wavelength?   Even if it actually is a localized wave to us it would appear to have no spatial extent along its axis
of motion.   Just apply the Lorentz transform to any wave packet to see this.

Well that is not really fair... you can't ignore other details to make things simpler without changing them.

You are asking how a photon can have length when travelling at the speed of light because it should be a 2 dimensional thing at that stage with no length, but the better question is why do you think a photon has mass?

Maybe the problem is not our understanding of the speed of light, but our understanding of waves and photons...

That is like asking why Germany declared war on the US when the Japanese attacked the US at Pearl Habour.... if you ignore that the industrial production machine of the US was supporting the countries Germany was fighting at the time it made no sense to declare war and make them an enemy... except Americas actions could not be ignored because they were part of the reasons why decisions were made at the time.

A sane explanation would be that photon "waves" are intrinsic and do not transform like objects composed of atoms via the Lorentz
equations.   These quantized waves are a demonstration of the existence of a space medium.   Much like water waves exist because
there is a body of water to sustain them.   Of course, the EM waves are not subject to the same equations as the water waves.

Well expecting water waves... which is matter with mass, to act like electromagnetic waves which appear to create a force but is that mass or does it have a different interaction with space time that is not related to actual mass but has a similar effect... when  we know mass and EM waves are different.

Black holes form when so much matter comes together in one place the result is a kind of implosion. Galactic centers have them presumably because the closer to the center stars are the more densely packed they get so the interiormost area sees large numbers of them coming together. I don't think novae have anything to do with it.

Well think of it in terms of our understanding of how stars operate... most of the star... the outer material that we see is like foam boiling up from a pot of water that is boiling over... except instead of air pockets, it is basically the liquid is separating into a plasma... a mix of gas and nothing... this is kept continuously boiling by the furnace in the centre of the star where hydrogen fuses into helium and then two helium atoms fuse into Beryllium, or a hydrogen atom and a helium atom fuse into Lithium and then a lithium atom fuses with a helium atom and creates Boron, and the process continues till it gets to 26 protons because that is iron, and iron has certain properties that help stop the process... it conducts heat very well and cools and stops the process of fusion... but hang on... there are lots of elements in this universe now that are made of heavier atoms than Iron... well when you turn the element off on a range what happens to the boiling pot... all that froth collapses because the bubbles stop being generated at the bottom of the pot where the element is heating it turning the water into steam... for a pot the reactions slow down... the water is still boiling but the surface collapses and settles.  With an object the size of a star the outer surface that has been pushed up by the energy and heat of the fusion process is suddenly no longer supported and that weak force of gravity takes over and the entire outer surface collapses in on the core crushing it... generating enormous amounts of energy which causes various types of explosion, from a small explosion called a nova, through to the biggest we call a super nova... depending on the size of the star and how much mass it has. The force of the smallest explosions leaves a tiny core that continues to burn for most of the expected life of the universe and that is when  a red dwarf burns through all its fuel and sheds its outer surface and becomes a white dwarf... so far we believe white dwarfs burn their fuel so slowly they might last a trillion years and never get to the burning iron stage... most of their existence is hydrogen and then helium. There is speculation that when they are mostly helium that they turn blue, but AFAIK none have been found... they will probably be the last lights in the universe. ... of course they are so small and weak and with the expansion continuing they might be too far away to give much light... the biggest explosions associated with white or red dwarf stars is when it is in a binary system with a larger star.

Ironically because of the way gravity works the smaller denser red dwarf will strip material from a bigger star because the smaller denser star has a steeper gravity curve and the bigger star like I said is a boiling pot of hydrogen and helium with a small core being turned into something else, so the nearby dwarf star will strip away what is essentially the atmosphere of hydrogen and helium of the bigger nearby star... but that forms a thin atmosphere on the red dwarf and of course as that heats up eventually it reaches fusion temperatures and you get a nova explosion...

With a bigger star there is more energy and it burns through its hydrogen and helium much much faster and starts to create other elements, but as I said the process stops at iron because it takes too much energy to continue the fusion process and it stops and when the outer layers of the star collapse the core is compressed, with the outer layers super crushing the core and itself and creating an enormous explosion that sends most of the outer material outwards to create a gas cloud... now to start with this gas cloud is of course super hot so for it to create a new star it needs to cool down to ridiculously cold temperatures so that gravity can take effect and start small parts of it to clump together and form lumps big enough to attract even more material.

The enormous compression creates new heavier elements... though most of the heaviest elements are fully man made, but what happens to the core depends on the mass and the size of the explosion, but it seems that there are really four options for a star... a stellar remnant ... ie too small to smolder, white dwarf... which is an object the mass of our sun that is the size of the earth which just glows like an ember for a very very very long time, a proton star, where the core has been compressed to the point where gravity is so powerful that the electrons have been crushed into the protons so the remaining material is just neutrons... and therefore with no magnetic force to hold the neutrons apart so instead of being 99.9% empty space, a neutron star is almost all matter which would make it very very weird indeed, and the last option we know of is where the mass is high enough that... well we don't know... perhaps instead of the protons and electrons fusing together to form neutrons, the energy is do intense that the neutrons collapse and gravity tears a hole in space time and they disappear from our universe.

The point is that with such immense levels of gravity it is difficult to understand and appreciate.

On earth the gravity is shallow and you don't really notice the small difference in the level of force on your feet when you are standing up and the force on your head.

If you were in a spaceship above a neutron star the gravity on your feet could be thousands or tens of thousands of time greater than the gravity pulling on your head, so as the atoms of your feet stream along with the lower half of the spaceship your upper body might feel a small pull dragging it down.

The point is that to collect enough matter together to start to build a black hole naturally a star is going to be a consequence first because the vast majority of matter in the universe is hydrogen.... followed by helium, so most of the matter in any place will be material that makes stars when you gather it in sufficient quantities... when that gets big enough to support fusion at its core it will stop gathering matter and start blowing out a solar wind and stop growing.

We don't really know everything about black holes... maybe they are formed by multiple neutron stars colliding where their intense gravity stops material being blown out into the surrounding space like a normal stellar explosion and that causes the level of gravity needed to collapse into a singularity.

Wish I had a supercomputer and could have a play but really you need to know rather more about subatomic particles and their limits to be able to understand it properly.

The origins of the central black holes in most galaxies is not that clear.

We think we understand how stars work but we are learning new things all the time, like with the formation of planets we thought we understood but are finding star systems that don't fit our models... like planets bigger than Jupiter orbiting their star closer than Mercury is to our Sun.

Will probably move this stuff to a physics thread... so I will leave a link so you can find where it has gone.

My point about the spatial extent of photons and any EM wave along the axis of propagation has no link to mass.   It is a simple contradiction of the Lorentz transform.   The Lorentz transform is about the behaviour of space-time events under motion.   There are no exclusion rules for its application.   Any wave is a collection of space-time events.    The photon frame is collapsed in the axis of travel dimension for any observer.   It is essentially 2D to all slower than light (and co-moving) observers.  

It is obvious that EM waves (quantized or not) travel at the speed of light and are not subject to frame of reference of the observer effects.   They remain 3D entities to all observers.   This is clear evidence that they are indeed real waves.  Unlike buoyancy waves the restoring "force" is not gravity but the EM nature of space itself.     Attempts to make these waves into "points" via the hand-waving about photons are absurd.   Photons are supposed to have actual wave-lengths (that are subject to red-shifting) and are not point "particles".    Making them into points removes any chance to have effects such as the red-shift which are predicated on their wavelengths expanding as they travel through post Big Bang expanding space-time.    

The problem is the moronic ether debate of the late 1800s and early 1900s.   The relativists won because the etherists were claiming nonsensical properties of the medium.   It was supposed to be a fluid and flowing.   When this feature was not confirmed by experiment (Michelson-Morley) then we had the subjectivist relativity triumph.   But relativity is BS as well.   Moving observers all exist in the same universe.   Motion does not partition reality into a continuum infinity of sub-realities.   One way to put this is that perspectives of all observers seeing an event have to be logically consistent.   Even if an observer approaching another one coming towards him at near the speed of light never sees the approach speed exceed the speed of light, a third observer watching from a 90 degree angle to the axis of travel of the collision-course observers sees their combined speed exceed the speed of light.  

EM waves exist in this medium which is not a fluid.   We have no idea what it is.   A quantum foam of some sort that behaves like a solid since the Planck scale "bubbles" are locked into their local vicinity and do not migrate?   We cannot measure this foam.    Particles are like solitons in this medium.   So we get the strange appearance of new particles from collider experiments.    Take a positron and electron and collide them at very high speeds and you see a zoo of particles appearing.   The only source for them is the energy of the collision.   Why would this formless energy give rise to very specific particles as "debris"?   These particles are not part of the electron and positron.  Why don't we just see a spew of photons?  So particles look very much like soliton modes of the space medium.   The energy excites these modes and they do not appear from nothing.   If space has a Planck scale granularity, then there may well be a vast realm of structures below the the sizes of the particles we observe.    Physics we can only guess about for now since no method to measure this realm is apparent.

One of the most obnoxious examples of the clown show that is modern astrophysics is the claim that the universe has no boundary.
This is intellectually insulting excrement. These clowns claim that there was a Big Bang. OK, let's accept this as God given fact,
and proceed. So you have the topology of a point mapped into a volume. The Big Bang involves cosmic densities according to the
astrophysics cult, so they cannot claim that there was a fully developed volume inside this "point" at the moment of the Big Bang.

In order for the expanding volume to have no boundary, there must be an infinite expansion rate in the "far field". This implies that
there is no isotropy (flatness, etc.). Thus we have the mass-energy expanding infinitely more slowly than the space-time. What
we also have is an actual center of the universe which is well highlighted by the mass-energy distribution. Again, for this to not
be the case, there must be absence of isotropy: when the mass-energy is not expanding symmetrically and neither is the space-time.
Mass-energy is not teleporting to the "far field". If it was doing this, then there would be no stars in the sky.

One could think that non-isotropy is not such a radical idea. But what is the physical basis for it when you have a Big Bang from
a point? The astrophysics cult is the one that claims the universe is isotropic. If you could magically travel at near infinite speed
you would not return to a region near where you started. Such a looped space-time topology is not present. But it is what you
would need if the expansion of space-time was not infinitely fast, giving us an infinite volume universe without a boundary.

The existence of a boundary, with the shape of a spherical surface with a radius reflecting the age of the universe is a given from
any point-origin Big Bang. Astrophysics cult members have a fetish for BSing lay people. They drop all sorts of "baffling facts"
like rodents on counter-tops. These "facts" have similar value to rodent droppings.

Then we have the obnoxious assumption that any current expansion is uniquely explained by a Big Bang from a point. And that
there is only a single such point. No observations exclude the current mass-energy distribution being a local feature of some
vast universe that can consist of any number of such local features. This also includes the likely cyclical nature of these
features. So we can have Big Bang with Big Crunch local domains of different duration, different sizes and with varying proximity.
There is a systematic pattern of bias in the field of astronomy. We had the Earth being at the center of "creation" with the Sun orbiting
us, then we had our solar system at the center, etc. The singular Big Bang is more of the same infantile "we are special" BS. In fact,
we even had a priest, Georges Lemaitre, as the father of this singular Big Bang.

Since Cox , Penrose or Kaku will not reply here , I will , using a Cooking example , of an Omlette . Since God made the world by a singular big bang , ( He ) knew in advance the perfect size for it  ( the Omlette ) . Like an expert cook , he knew the perfect number of eggs ( mass in th universe ) for an Omlette and the perfect size of the frying pan ( the ultimate size of the universe ) needed . Of course even God needs to get the pan ready ( create the space needed for the mass ) before putting the Eggs in ! His pan would accommodate all the ingredients from the start , without there being a need to pick a bigger pan , or more pans , as the Eggs cooked and changed shape . Once all the kids ( Black holes ) ate all the Omlette , then there would be an empty pan , and contain nothing . Then God would put the pan away .


 

God or Non-God "has given" the universe a logic basis. There is no magic in physics and something does not come out of nothing.
This applies to the vacuum energy also, which the current loopy dogma claims is being continually created as the universe expands.
Yet another obnoxious, pretentious nonsense claim based on nothing. Astrophysics attracts god complex clowns. They think that
they are defining all of "creation" with their flatulence. They are not scientists with such a mental pathology.

Anyone who thinks that these people are real scientists should consider the science-by-press BS of General Relativity. We
had the "famous" three tests over a century ago "proving" GR's validity. No, those three tests only proved that gravity was non-Newtonian.
They did not any way establish the validity of GR. But they made for press headlines and lubricated the establishment of a dogma.

Agree with not allowing dogmas . Yet the idea of a created universe by a singular God , took all of humanity's experience and history . It was not a sudden discovery or invention , and existed within many cultures . I think that if we allow a " God , " into the equation , it does answer some of the questions , but it also gives rise to more ! Such as : Where did " God , " come from ? If " God, " is an eternal being , not created , then why can't the universe be the same ? Are the two not the same ? Or similar ? We end up with the same circular arguments , be it " God, " or the "universe . "

About the recent observation by JWT of very young galaxies in the early universe , that should not exist . Well they do ! Here we see the established scientific model failing too . It is not easy either way . I think that under certain conditions , processes are speeded up , both physical , evolutionary and social and that these are all related and can be described by some fundamental properties of mass to energy conversions .

Going by my analogy of God cooking an omelette , the discovery of early omelettes may mean that " God, " or the " conscious universe , " turned up the heat at first , so the kids did not have to wait long before eating . He wasted no time . This also is in line with the theory that life existed in the early universe , where conditions were right almost everywhere with liquid water and moderate temperatures !

As proven by the US documentary Stargate, in its ten series examination and explaination for everything we see that any civilisation based on the US system is the best in the universe, and while there are civilisations throughout the universe that have better technology, they still have a lot to learn regarding morals and ethics and bravery from the US of A...

If there was any way of explaining to bacteria what we can do and what we currently understand they would see us as gods, but we are as ignorant as any other species when it comes to a lot of things and our faults may end up destroying everything on this planet.

The problem with our human viewpoint is just that ! It is human , and biased . We see everything from our very subjective viewpoint : For one , we dislike our mortality and for another we think of pain and suffering as " unjust . " However if we can see past these biases , then we start to see that without pain there can be no pleasure and without death , there can be no birth ! Movement and change would be impossible . We end up in a static universe . There would be no diversity of forms . We can not destroy " everything , " even if humans become extinct , then this will give rise to other forms . It looks like these will be AI , who will replace us ( our bodies ) . But the human soul , will find it's way , surviving the Nuclear and climatic apocalypse and travel to the Stars , in journeys lasting a million years in artificial bodies .

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/20/climate/nuclear-fusion-energy-breakthrough-replicate-climate/index.html


An efficient reaction ? I don't think so . Imagine in any energetic system , biological ( human ) , the work and heat energy measured in Joules or Calories in obtaining food or food equivalent ( living in a house , saves burning Calories to keep warm , therefore it has food equivalent Calorific value ) Calories , must be net positive . Otherwise the Organism becomes inefficient and dies . In working out the efficiency of this reaction , it is not enough to measure immediate energy in / energy out method . They must factor in the total energetic input ( Joules or Calories used in building this structure versus Joules out ) for calculation . It is like saying : The energy used by lighting a Match to set fire to a bundle of wood that you collect is less than energy output of the fire itself !

All this climate BS is obnoxious. Fission energy is an excellent solution for low CO2 power generation. But these wankers have a hate hard on for it
and fantasize about fusion as a panacea. While these wankers wait for their magical fix, there are over 30 billion tons of CO2 emitted by humans every
year. BTW, volcanoes emit an average of 600 million tons every year and solar out variability is miniscule and can be shown to be irrelevant compared
to the persistent CO2 emissions of humans which are not being absorbed by the oceans and weathering of rocks fast enough.

The laser confinement fusion results are good news but lets see this commercialized. We have an enormous facility processing small gas bearing glass
balls one at a time. The heat production has to be limited to prevent the laser focusing elements into the chamber from vapourizing. The question is
what power level a commercial plant could produce with such a set up. With a net heat output of less than 2 times the input we are dealing with massive
recycling of energy to maintain the process. All existing power plants do not have to cycle most of their output back into the generation. For now
laser confinement is a large lab test device and not a practical power plant concept.

The problem of the god hypothesis is that god would be perfect and therefore why would he create an imperfect universe... except for entertainment?

If this universe really was created by a higher power who loves us why doesn't every star have an earth like planet with life forms on it all worshipping god?

If you are all powerful and everywhere why did it take 9 billion years to create our solar system and 13 billion to create us?

What is the value in a mostly empty (0f life) universe?

Equally we don't really know of any other universes... for ever atom in everything in this universe there might be a billion times more universes... many of which have already bloomed and collapsed and failed or expanded forever... it is unusual talking about a new infinite universe that is only 13 billion years old because in terms of distances and mass 13 billion isn't actually that big.

Interesting that time and temperature are not huge like other numbers to measure this universe.

When you realise that the universe is a factory that makes mistakes but follows very strict rules, you quickly realise that a billion different little happenstances all happened in the correct order for us to exist as we are and so instead of worrying about climate change we need to deal with the gap between the super rich and everyone else because wars are going to kill rather more people than sea water rising a few metres.

Religions need a massive review and should become charity organisations instead of what they are which is something else.

The biggest problem with deities is that they become a tool for scammers running cults and religions. Both Christianity and Islam imposed themselves
through the sword leading to millions of deaths. So "pagans" were "saved" by killing and coercion. Smells the same as "we had to destroy the
village to save it". The Catholic church declared New World aboriginals to have no souls in order to lubricate their enslavement. I do not see much
evidence of goodness and God in this. God would have sent lightning bolts to turn the criminals doing evil in his name into ash. Since no such
divine intervention ever occurs, then one has to conclude that this reality is a grotesque petri dish "test" or "experiment". Since God supposedly
created our souls, then what is the point of testing them to determine if they go to Heaven or Hell?

The alleged 13 billion year age of the "universe" is trotted out like a fact when it is nothing more than a speculation. The key detail is that the clocks do not
have to run at the same rate for all time. The existing cosmology has it that there was an epoch of hyper-inflation shortly after the Big Bang. This is an
obvious deus ex machina to force reality to conform to the theory. Cosmologies that do not have this cringe-worthy hack have a variable speed of light.
The speed is faster during the initial dense stages and slows down with time in an asymptotic manner. This is a physically plausible thing and it would
automatically imply that the clocks have changed their rates between the moment of the Big Bang and now. Consider the simplest conceptual clock:
a photon bouncing between ideal mirrors without being absorbed or scattered. The faster it moves over the same separation distance, the faster the flow
of time. So the early "universe" burned through many more years than assumed within the current dogma.

A variable speed of light also makes more sense in gravitational wells giving us the time dilation effect. Einstein initially was going in this direction but
made a mistake that then sent him on a different path.

"......The Catholic church declared New World aboriginals to have no souls in order to lubricate their enslavement. I do not see much
evidence of goodness and God in this. God would have sent lightning bolts to turn the criminals doing evil in his name into ash. ....."







We do not fix , what we break ! We become what we break ! They killed the Aboriginals ! They become the Aboriginals ! The Sun takes care of it . Either they die of skin cancer , or they become black ! Sure , God works in mysterious ways !

"Gravity is not a force". This is an example of the inanity that is modern "established" physics.

1) The General Relativity framework is geometric. It is a tensor equation for the metric. The metric is supposed to tell you about how much
space-time curvature is produced by a matter-energy distribution. If you take this formalism at face value, then gravity is trivially not a force since
there is some other process deforming "geodesics" or "world lines". All inertial entities sit on world lines so we can have orbital motion which is
inertial. Or so the story goes.

2) The GR geometric formalism is just that, a formalism. You can apply a geometric formalism to electrodynamics as well. That does not imply
that EM has no forces. The GR cult claims that time is a dimension. In other words, the past and future coexist with the present. If you follow
this "logic" you get a 5th degree of freedom since everything is moving along the time dimension with a dimensionless speed of 1. If there was
no motion on the time dimension then the past would never become the future. This is a formalistic tail chase. Contriving a 4th time dimension has
implied the existence of a 5th "impulse" dimension. It does not make any physical sense, all the personality cult adulation of the alleged deep
physical insight of the one true genius notwithstanding, for the past and future to coexist. They do not exist at all. Only the instantaneous present
exists. Confounding motion and change with a dimension is absurd. You can traverse spatial dimensions in any direction. But for some reason
you can only move in one direction on the time dimension. And you get sci-fi time-travel nonsense where you can go to the past and kill yourself
but manage to keep the universe coherent. These are called "paradoxes" which is a BS term for logical contradictions. This universe has
complexity but it also has logical consistency. Humans, especially modern astrophysicists and cosmologists, love to engage in magical thinking.

3) The curvature of the time dimension in GR is what encodes acceleration. Spatial curvature is secondary and there is no theory of gravitation without
time curvature in this formalism. So we have the curving of a point. This is outright nonsense and what we see is how a geometric formalism
has been pumped up into a substitute for real physics. Any dynamical system has a time variable. It looks like a spatial dimension when you graph
but it is not a real dimension. It is a parametric trace of the evolution of your system in the three spatial dimensions. The physics is the change in
spatial coordinates. Encoding acceleration through curvature of this parametric curve is merely a hack. The acceleration is the physically real thing.

4) Since acceleration is essential for gravity the relevant question is what causes the acceleration. In EM it is due to forces. Nobody has demonstrated
that there is no force of gravity. They have invoked a geometric formalism and claimed that forces do not exist. That is cute and retarded. What
process tells space-time to curve? A tensor equation or any equation is not enough. LHS = RHS is vapid. "How is space-time curved" has to have
a real answer and not hand waving, con artist BSing. Not a single GR cult member has such answers, instead we have time-travel sci-fi.

5) Attempts to reconcile GR with quantum mechanics have been an epic fail. One such attempt was string theory and it is now dying away.
Loop-quantum gravity is not going anywhere. There is a reason for this. You cannot force the geometric formalism to be valid. There has
to be a real gravitational field and forces involved.

6) A question arises is whether gravity is a distinct force from EM. It is plausible that gravity is a residual "apparent" force from EM matter-energy
coupling to space itself. In other words, matter-energy is not linearly super-imposed on space but produces a nonlinear distortion. This makes
sense for the extremely large ratio between EM forces and gravitational forces. Matter is composed of particles and the rest is photons. This would
apply to dark matter as well. The electron, quarks and gluons are unlikely to have extreme space distortions associated with them. Such distortions
have a single sign and thus they tend to clump. They are also non-local which gives us gravitational interaction. To get extreme gravity you need
to pack a lot of these distortions into a small volume. This then opens questions about how much distortion space can tolerate. Arbitrary singular
distortions such as alleged black holes are yet more formalistic wanking without any empirical constraint.

Groupthink and careerist opportunism give us garbage science.

It is a rather interesting question what is the internal temperature of the Sun.    Cold fusion is not such a crank idea.   Having a condensed matter
matrix of high density can act as the perfect "cold" fusion environment.   We cannot achieve the gravitational pressure of the interior of the Sun
in a test apparatus used for any fusion experiment.    Current fusion devices are all high temperature designs which overcome Coulomb repulsion
by kinetic energy of protons.   But a high density matrix of hydrogen nuclei (protons) can use the negative charge of the electrons to reduce
Coulomb repulsion.    The potential well edge barrier for fusion can be overcome by quantum tunneling.   The electrons allow the hydrogen to
be crushed to vastly higher densities than any collection of pure protons.

At the end of the day, the surface temperature of the Sun and associated radiation flux must reflect internal production of energy from fusion.
If this was not the case, then the Sun would either collapse or explode.   So any model of fusion in the solar interior must be such that the
energy release equals the surface integrated energy flux from the Sun.   This is a known quantity and it is not all that large given the 5800 K surface
temperature.   Claiming that the interior is ionized already violates this constraint.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.00841

Kerr, as in the Kerr metric, demonstrates that BH singularity "theorems" from Penrose and Hawking are total BS.

Anyone with scientific integrity would never push the dogma.

Note that this is all within the accepted framework. I have posted before on show-stopper issues with the framework itself. The
routine use of non-diffeomorphic coordinate transforms to "map away" "coordinate singularities" is outright fraud. All coordinate
transforms have to conserve information. Since the spherical coordinates used for the original BH solution are manifestly non-singular,
any diffeomorphic transform to another coordinate system will fail to map away the event horizon singularity.

Can we use the double slit experiment , as a time travelling machine ? I read that , the observer does not have to be actually observing the experiment , to cause a higher count of particles . The observer , by merely intending to go to the lab , say in the future , at particular time , will cause a higher count of particles ! This effect must have been observed by a third party or machine in advance of event ? Is this true ? If so then , I have devised a thought experiment : I will bet on Horse "A," and if it wins , then I will go observe the slit experiment ! Otherwise I will not go to observe ! If the device produces more count of particles , then I know that the Horse " A, " is a winner , and I will then bet even more money on Horse " A. "  Otherwise I will try Horse " B , " so on and on , until I become rich ! Do I  become a time traveller too ?



@ KVS

Sometimes I wish you could use simple English to explain your ideas , to lay people like me . I think you may find some of the answers as helpful or interesting . At least you would make the subject more interesting to the public , they have to pay scientists to carry on with their work ! Regarding Black Holes , and light not escaping it , and light carries information . But it is not the only medium that does ! Quantum entangled particles communicate , instantly , not obeying the speed of light . Therefore information escapes Black Holes . Me thinks !

I was thinking the other day that the gravity of a black hole exits the event horizon so gravity is "faster" than light, but is it a wave or a field or is it a distortion of spacetime?

As we get closer to a black hole its gravity intensifies to the point where we get to the event horizon where the escape velocity is the speed of light, but as you continue to move towards the centre of the black hole you wont notice that because light will still be coming in... it just wont be able to get out... so you keep heading towards the singularity which should be a point of infinite gravity... which from what I understand crushes all normal matter and energy out of existence in this universe.

Say you have a 10 billion year old black hole... it started out small but over time it swallowed a few stars and quite a bit of gas and dust, physically it doesn't get bigger at the rate it consumes matter, so when a trillion billion tons or matter falls in there it might only get slightly bigger... like it wont get 10 times bigger or anything... which tells me that beyond the event horizon there is another event horizon... not for light but for gravity... and that might be the edge of this universe because anything passing that event horizon is crushed out of this universe into who knows where.

We can't see into a black hole, but if you got into a spaceship and flew in there... as long as it was enormous you should be OK even if you are doomed.

There is something called tidal forces, which essentially refers to the rate at which gravity increases over distance. The closer you are to a mass the more gravity it exerts on you as an object. We need a mass the size of earth to keep us and the atmosphere on the ground but because matter on the earth is so spread out the tidal forces are low. There might be a million tons of matter below your feet holding you down, but the million tons on the other side of the planet is not really pulling you down very much at all, but it would be holding the million tons below your feet where it is.

Essentially if you too the entire mass of the earth and crushed it down to about 1cm across it would develop a black hole because all of the mass of the earth concentrated in such a small area all pulling on you would rip you to pieces... and I don't mean pull your arms off, I mean strip you away and atomise you like a mist... the difference in gravity on your face and front when facing this thing would be under 10,000 times more gravity than the back of your head and the back of your body so your front would spaghettify and literally rain on the black hole, dragging the rest of your body in too.

Conversely a huge black hole like the ones in the centre of galaxies the gravity at the event horizon might not might not be too bad and as you continue to fall to the centre as I said their might be another event horizon where gravity can't escape.

Why do I say this?

Well the size of a black hole does not increase in proportion to its mass so as more and more mass enters the black hole even if all that mass is sitting in the centre in the form of a Neutron star with no air pockets, no electrons, no protons, just electrons compressed into protons forming a solid block of neutrons... the densest material that is probably possible in this universe then over time the surface of that neutron block should stick out beyond the event horizon and be visible.

What may happen is that there is another event horizon inside the light event horizon, which would be a time and space event horizon where time and space cannot escape and anything that passes that event horizon is crushed out of existence in this universe... but its destruction cannot cross the spacetime event horizon just like light cannot cross the light event horizon, so as you approach a black hole of any size first there is a light event horizon and then a spacetime event horizon and then there is nothing because it is crushed out of this universe with zero time and zero dimensions.

Past the light horizon and everything turns dark... past the spacetime horizon and you cease to be, but you can't see through the light horizon and the gravity you exert in this universe does not realise you no longer exist when you pass the space time horizon.

This is my view BTW I have never read this being mentioned anywhere else but I think it is logical.

It is painful and short life . And we exit this world in various degrees of ignorance ! If scientists are saying that they don't know what or where 80% of universe is , or is made of , then we can not say that we know what is going on at all ! Whatever model we adopt , is found to be incomplete . Quantum is the cherry on the magician's birthday Cake . I understand your explanation better , since there is no esoteric terms , and can reply . Regarding " mapping , " that was talked about , first for any kind of map , there needs to be information that is transferred from one place to another . You made a good point about gravity escaping a black hole . Therefore this infatuation with the event horizon , being an impermeable boundary is false . There is also Hawking radiation , therefore stuff gets out ! And outside a black hole , order exists and not chaos . And we can assume order existing within black holes too , even more so . Therefore " mapping , " takes place .




https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation