Starship Asterisk*

harry wrote:Halton Arp
Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, 85740 Garching, Germany
Received 2000 July 18; accepted 2000 October 24

Chris Peterson wrote:

harry wrote:This paper is quite important in understanding dark matter and dark energy in so doing to have a better understanding of the universe and its make up.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3610
Axionic dark energy and a composite QCD axion

In what way is this paper important? Do you remotely understand it? I'm unfamilar with heterotic orbifold compactification as described in this paper. Could you explain it, please?

Feynman wrote:I am not getting anything out of the meeting. I am learning nothing. Because there are no experiments this field is not an active one, so few of the best men are doing work in it. The result is that there are hosts of dopes here (126) and it is not good for my blood pressure: such inane things are said and seriously discussed here that I get into arguments outside the formal sessions (say, at lunch) whenever anyone asks me a question or starts to tell me about his "work". The "work" is always: (1) completely un-understandable, (2) vague and indefinite, (3) something correct that is obvious and self evident, but a worked out by a long and difficult analysis, and presented as an important discovery, or, a (4) claim based on the stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct fact, accepted and checked for years, is, in fact, false (these are the worst: no argument will convince the idiot), (5) an attempt to do something probably impossible, but certainly of no utility, which it is finally revealed at the end, fails (dessert arrives and is eaten), or (6) just plain wrong. There is great deal of "activity in the field" these days, but this "activity" is mainly in showing that the previous "activity" of somebody else resulted in an error or in nothing useful or in nothing promising. It is like a lot of worms trying to get out of a bottle by crawling all over each other. It is not that the subject is hard; it is that the good men are occupied elsewhere. Remind me not to come to any more gravity conferences!

JimJast wrote:My wilde guess is that harry meant the same thing that Feynman meant while writing from a conference on gravitation a letter to his wife (published in his book, What Do You Care What Other People Think, page 91)

Feynman wrote:I am not getting anything out of the meeting. I am learning nothing. Because there are no experiments this field is not an active one, so few of the best men are doing work in it. The result is that there are hosts of dopes here (126) and it is not good for my blood pressure: such inane things are said and seriously discussed here that I get into arguments outside the formal sessions (say, at lunch) whenever anyone asks me a question or starts to tell me about his "work". The "work" is always: (1) completely un-understandable, (2) vague and indefinite, (3) something correct that is obvious and self evident, but a worked out by a long and difficult analysis, and presented as an important discovery, or, a (4) claim based on the stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct fact, accepted and checked for years, is, in fact, false (these are the worst: no argument will convince the idiot), (5) an attempt to do something probably impossible, but certainly of no utility, which it is finally revealed at the end, fails (dessert arrives and is eaten), or (6) just plain wrong. There is great deal of "activity in the field" these days, but this "activity" is mainly in showing that the previous "activity" of somebody else resulted in an error or in nothing useful or in nothing promising. It is like a lot of worms trying to get out of a bottle by crawling all over each other. It is not that the subject is hard; it is that the good men are occupied elsewhere. Remind me not to come to any more gravity conferences!

Turning its penetrating vision toward southern skies, NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has peered down a 12 billion light-year long corridor loaded with a dazzling assortment of thousands of never-before seen galaxies. The observation called the Hubble Deep Field South (HDF-S) doubles the number of far-flung galaxies available to astronomers for deciphering the history of the universe.

This new far-look complements the original Hubble "deep field" taken in late 1995, when Hubble was aimed at a small patch of space near the Big Dipper. The new region is in the constellation Tucana, near the south celestial pole.

The 10-day-long observation was carried out in October 1998 by a team of astronomers at the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI), Baltimore, MD, and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD. It is being made available today to the worldwide astronomy community for further research, and to the general public interested in the most distant reaches of the cosmos.

"The southern field promises to be the most studied area of the sky over the next five years," says STScI astronomer Robert Williams, when as STScI Director, he used his discretionary time to undertake the first deep field campaign, and has overseen the latest observation.

"We have eagerly awaited this new set of images ever since the first HDF, which had a dramatic impact on the entire science of astronomy. Hubble's deep field views revealed a large, heretofore unseen fraction of the universe and opened it up to interpretation and understanding."

makc wrote:

JimJast wrote: My wild guess is that harry meant the same thing that Feynman meant while writing from a conference on gravitation a letter to his wife (published in his book, What Do You Care What Other People Think, page 91)

Feynman wrote:a (4) claim based on the stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct fact, accepted and checked for years, is, in fact, false (these are the worst: no argument will convince the idiot)

Abstract: We investigate whether black holes can be defined without using event horizons. In particular we focus on the thermodynamic properties of event horizons and the alternative, locally defined horizons. We discuss the assumptions and limitations of the proofs of the zeroth, first and second laws of black hole mechanics for both event horizons and trapping horizons. This leads to the possibility that black holes may be more usefully defined in terms of trapping horizons. We also show how Hawking radiation can also be seen to arise from trapping horizons and discuss which horizon area should be associated with the gravitational entropy.

harry wrote:If we can understand the workings of black holes maybe we can work out whether the universe went Bang or many bangs at various times in an eternal evolution of changes. This could explain all the observations without any ad hoc theories.

harry wrote:G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Black Holes have many definitions and are very complicated.

This link is interesting


http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3850
Black holes and black hole thermodynamics without event horizons

Authors: Alex B. Nielsen
(Submitted on 23 Sep 2008)

Abstract: We investigate whether black holes can be defined without using event horizons. In particular we focus on the thermodynamic properties of event horizons and the alternative, locally defined horizons. We discuss the assumptions and limitations of the proofs of the zeroth, first and second laws of black hole mechanics for both event horizons and trapping horizons. This leads to the possibility that black holes may be more usefully defined in terms of trapping horizons. We also show how Hawking radiation can also be seen to arise from trapping horizons and discuss which horizon area should be associated with the gravitational entropy.

If we can understand the workings of black holes maybe we can work out whether the universe went Bang or many bangs at various times in an eternal evolution of changes. This could explain all the observations without any ad hoc theories.

makc wrote: JimJast, you know perfectly what I mean

Abstract: Gamma-Ray Bursts have been observed out to very high redshifts and provide time measures that are directly related to intrinsic time scales of the burst. Einstein's theory of relativity is quite definite that if the universe is expanding then the observed duration of these measures will increase with redshift. Thus gamma-ray burst measures should show a time dilation proportional to redshift. An analysis of gamma-ray burst data shows that the hypothesis of time dilation is rejected with a probability of 4.4$\times10^{-6}$ for redshifts out to z=6.6. Traditionally the lack of an apparent time dilation has been explained by an inverse correlation between luminosity and time measures together with strong luminosity selection as a function of redshift. It is shown that the inverse correlation between luminosity and some time measures is confirmed, but using concordance cosmology strong luminosity selection cannot be achieved. It may be possible to explain the apparent lack of time dilation with a combination of gamma-ray burst selection, some luminosity evolution and some time measure evolution. But this requires a remarkable coincidence in order to produce the apparent lack of time dilation. However the data are consistent with a static cosmology in a non-expanding universe.

Abstract: Gravitation is the common underlying texture between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. We take gravitation as the link that can make possible the marriage between these two sciences. We use here the duality of Nature for gravitation: A continuous warped space, wave-like, and a discrete quantum gas, particle-like, both coexistent and producing an equilibrium state in the Universe. The result is a static, non expanding, spherical, unlimited and finite Universe, with no cosmological constant and no dark energy. The Principle of Mach is reproduced here by the convergence of the two cosmological equations of Einstein. From this a Mass Boom concept is born given by M = t, M the mass of the Universe and t its age. Also a decreasing speed of light is the consequence of the Mass Boom, c = 1/t, which explains the Supernovae Type Ia observations without the need of expansion (nor, of course, accelerated expansion). Our Mass Boom model completely wipes out the problems and paradoxes built in the Big Bang model, like the horizon, monopole, entropy, flatness, fine tuning, etc. It also eliminates the need for inflation. Finally the relation proposed by Weinberg in 1972 is here explained in terms of a gravitational cross section for all gravitational masses.

Abstract: The rather wide-spread belief that cosmological expansion of a flat 3D--space (with spatial curvature k=0) cannot be observationally distinguished from a kinematics of galaxies moving in a flat and non-expanding space is erroneous. We suggest that the error may have its source in a non relativistic intuition that imagines the Universe not as a spacetime but separates space from time and pictures the cosmological expansion as space evolving in time. The physical reality, however, is fundamentally different -- the expanding Universe is necessarily a curved spacetime. We show here that the fact that the spacetime is curved implies that the interpretation of the observed cosmological redshift as being due to the expansion of the cosmological 3D--space is observationally verifiable. Thus it is impossible to mimic the true cosmological redshift by a Doppler effect caused by motion of galaxies in a non-expanding 3D-space, flat or curved. We summarize our points in simple spacetime diagrams that illustrate a gedanken experiment distinguishing between expansion of space and pure kinematics. We also provide all relevant mathematics. None of the previously published discussions of the issue, including a recent popular Scientific American article, offered a similarly clear way out of the confusion.

harry wrote:The BB model keeps on shifting the goal posts every time it has to explain and supoort the theory.

This creates variations in the model. Such as the change from on single BB to an infinite number of Big Bangs.

The BB people will use ad hoc ideas to produce the end result, by saying the conditions of evolution were diffferent than and the speed of light was exceeded to produce the young universe.

Ok jail my be too far but people have lost their jobs and their projects stopped because they talked and provided evidence against the BBT.

Chris Peterson wrote:There seem to be quite a few scientists proposing alternate cosmologies, and they aren't losing their jobs or their funding. Arguing against the BB doesn't get you in trouble,

JimJast wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:There seem to be quite a few scientists proposing alternate cosmologies, and they aren't losing their jobs or their funding. Arguing against the BB doesn't get you in trouble,

It got me in trouble for discovering only that Einstein's cosmology (Einstein's universe) fits better the observations than BB and I got banned for life from two moderated fora, one astronomy and one physics. "Scientists" don't like to be reminded that Einstein's universe fits the observations (e.g. "accelerating expansion") better than BB.

Chris Peterson wrote:Any professional scientist who operates that way should quite rightly find it difficult to get grants, or get much respect from his peers.

Chris Peterson wrote:...because of your apparent inability to make a case for them, and for playing the same tune no matter what response you get.

Abstract: We set up and analyse a model for the non-equilibrium evolution of a network of cosmic strings initially containing only loops and no infinite strings. Due to this particular initial condition, our analytical approach differs significantly from existing ones. We describe the average properties of the network in terms of the distribution function n(l,t) dl, the average number of loops per unit volume with physical length between l and l + dl at time t. The dynamical processes which change the length of loops are then estimated and an equation, which we call the `rate equation', is derived for (dn/dt). In a non-expanding universe, the loops should reach the equilibrium distribution predicted by string statistical mechanics. Analysis of the rate equation gives results consistent with this. We then study the rate equation in an expanding universe and suggest that three different final states are possible for the evolving loop network, each of which may well be realised for some initial conditions. If the initial energy density in loops in the radiation era is low, then the loops rapidly disappear. For large initial energy densities, we expect that either infinite strings are formed or that the loops tend towards a scaling solution in the radiation era and then rapidly disappear in the matter era. Such a scenario may be relevant given recent work highlighting the problems with structure formation from the standard cosmic string scenario.

makc wrote:then the forum would only have to ban spammers. they would still pop up in quotes on occasion, but much less noise any way...