Big Bang Busted (Again)

[siriusmre]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"Black holes and polar jets: Gamma rays come from the poles of BH's, because that is one of the only regions matter that almost enters the black hole can escape before it's fate is sealed. It congregates at the poles due to conservation of momentum (which helps get that extra speed to pull free just outside the event horizon) and the magnetic field which funnels matter there. The gamma rays are generated at the pole. The reason they tend to go in the same direction, is due to how the light is created. Most of the particles are all going the same direction, all scattering in the same direction. Look up compton scattering."<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I would challenge the ENTIRE base assuption that "black holes" actually exist. Also, what's the EASIEST way to create a mag field?<br /><br />I know that there have been MULTIPLE <i>ad hoc</i> add-ons to conventional theory to make it comport with what we are actually seeing, which becomes more and more confusing to the convenional theorists as we see more and more energetic activity out there. They have cut so many keys to fit so many locks that they are dragging around a veritable janitor's key ring of cosmological explanations, like the Key Master in the Matrix movie. Perhaps the solution is not a set of a thousand keys at all, but a magnetic pass card that opens all doors. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[siriusmre]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"It's like this - how is the relationship between increasing recessional velocity versus distance somehow an indicator that the entire concept is wrong? This is the part of the document that utterly mystifies me. They're stating that because we see that elongated relationship, therefore Hubble is dead wrong."<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Having Faith in Edwin Hubble: "A common belief today is that Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the universe was expanding and that the Big Bang theory is the unavoidable conclusion from that fact. But what did Hubble actually say?" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jatslo]

I think, I said that, "Gravity is harmonic", but lots of things are harmonic, yes.

 

[jatslo]

I accept parts of almost all theories, but none of them are totally correct, and that is why they are theories. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[mcbethcg]

Wrong.<br /><br />In science, every idea, no matter how correct is a theory. <br /><br />Even if you say something like "Gravity causes mass to fall to the ground", which is absolutely correct, its a theory.

 

[yevaud]

Also wrong. Until experimentally proven and rigorously reviewed and then accepted, it's a "hypothesis." Once a Theory, it may well be imperfect, but it works.<br /><br />Just FYI. It's a distinction, but an important one... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[mcbethcg]

I should have said "even the best, most proven idea" or some such. You are correct.<br /><br />Theory is the best there can be in the scientific realm of ideas.<br /><br />Jatslo is pretty much wrong in about everything he says, of course.

 

[yevaud]

Yes, but I occasionally have high hopes for him. He's retrievable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Sorry fact and theory are two completely different animals. When theory is total fact, theory is no longer a theory, and that is a fact. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> Factor that. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[Saiph]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I would challenge the ENTIRE base assuption that "black holes" actually exist. Also, what's the EASIEST way to create a mag field?<br /><br />I know that there have been MULTIPLE ad hoc add-ons to conventional theory to make it comport with what we are actually seeing, which becomes more and more confusing to the convenional theorists as we see more and more energetic activity out there. They have cut so many keys to fit so many locks that they are dragging around a veritable janitor's key ring of cosmological explanations, like the Key Master in the Matrix movie. Perhaps the solution is not a set of a thousand keys at all, but a magnetic pass card that opens all doors.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, you'd challenge it. Okay, provide decent reasons (probably in a new thread, this one's getting cluttered).<br /><br />Easiest way to create a magnetic field? Simple, the only way: Moving/spinning electric charges.<br /><br />Now, I don't know what Ad-Hoc add ons you're refering to (or what theory, or what observations)...cause, you don't tell me. <br /><br />Also, it's rather naive to think that magnetic fields will fix everything and make it simpler. What observations we have is described incredibly well using gravity (almost entirely over large distances), and conservation of angular momentum. Sure, magnetic fields have places to fit to explain what we see. But a lot of that is to explain discrepancies.<br /><br />For instance: Gravity can easily explain how stars form out of a cloud of gas. The problem: What we see isn't <i>exactly</i> what we expect. We notice slightly different formation time scales, and a handful of minor differences from our predictions. Does this mean the base prediction is wrong? NO. only incomplete.<br /><br />Physics begins most of it's work from assumptions, primarily because without them, it'd be nearly impossible to solve many of the problems. So they start at say, <i>if</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

jatslo - I agree that fact and theory are completely different - unless, of course, the theory turns out to be accurate in which case it becomes fact!<br /><br />The most obvious example are the various theories for the origin and properties of our universe.<br /><br />The consensus among astronomers, and scientists in general, is to reject the steady state theory and the oscillating theory which were contenders for fact status when I was in high school.<br /><br />Sadly, consensus among scientists, which is tantamount to popularity, often governs tenability more than actual observational proof. <br /><br />And one must also remember that interpretation of observations can be wrong even though the actual observations are detected and reported accurately.<br /><br />E.g. the above posters comments about red shift interpretations into speed.<br /><br />I do not tend to go along with the crowd, btw - but I do, in this case, consider red shift is mostly caused by speed. <br /><br />Note I said MOSTLY.<br /><br />There are many other factors that influence light spectrums and orientation besides speed, notably the medium through which it flows and gravitational lensing respectively.

 

[jatslo]

I like the word "Oscillating", because that best describes my perspective, which is one of dissipation, and accretion. Yes, observations could be wrong; for instance, (F = ma) breaks down in quantum. Finally, I believe that chromatics are indicators of speed, velocity, temperature, gravity, density, composition, viscosity, and anything else I left out. There is much work to do in the chromatic regard, yes. The universe is a harmonic open system, in which time dilation prevents closure, and the magnitude of this besieges us.<br /><br />The ratio of life and death is evidence.

 

[gammarayburst]

At any time when an electron decays it turns into a spectrum of frequencies. <-- observed -- See http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/7/4/16 Starting from sound and ending in radiation. The strength of these frequencies are determined by the rate of decay. Light is a frequency located between sound and gamma rays and is also created when a particle decays. The Universe is full of all the frequencies that originate from decay. So, the light we see from a light bulb is produced from electrons decaying. The faster the decay the more intense the light becomes. As for the electron beam in TV tubes one would wonder if the electron decays at the moment of being released or after hitting the screen. Either way the electron in a sense is light and is affected by magnetic fields. Potãtoes, potõtoes, the same thing in my book. Why is it so hard to believe that light is affected by magnetic fields? Light is affected by reflection, absorption, water, heat, etc. Radio waves are affected by magnetic fields and so is radiation otherwise we would receive all the radiation from space, but rumor has it the Earths magnetic field blocks out radiation. I would have to say that since light is a frequency and radiation is a frequency then why is radiation affected by the Earth’s magnetic field? Besides, if it is gravity that you are saying that affects light (in black holes) and a magnetic field is a portion of gravity then wouldn’t it be relative? For instance, gravity is noted at the surface and invisibly stretches out into space and seemingly never ends. The outermost recorded stretches of the gravity is called the magnetic field. The word magnetic suggests it is related to gravity. A physicist friend of mine told me that gravity and magnetic fields are one in the same. Like I said, if light is not affected by magnetic fields then why is radiation? See this site too which talks about using w

 

[jatslo]

It is electromagnetism that generates gravity, in which gravity warps the fabric in space-time, otherwise, light would be invisible, if space-time was absent of electron producing masses of matter: Ether. However, electromagnetism can deflect charged particles, provided the circumstances favor this phenomena; not all particles are deflected. Also, these deflected particles can bunch up momentarily, and add strength to the shielding too, but of course, spin is required. <br /><br />The northern lights are evidence. <br /><br />Light takes the path of least resistance: Point "A" to Point "B"; however, reflection and refraction diverts light, which is relative to the velocity or speed at which light strikes the medium or conduit. Space-time is a medium/conduit.

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"As for the electron beam in TV tubes one would wonder if the electron decays at the moment of being released or after hitting the screen."</font><br /><br />You can wonder all you want, or you can read up on the facts. Stubbornly holding onto misconceptions when the facts are well known is willfull ignorance. IMO, that's worse than being unintelligent. I'll let the real scientists on here deal with the rest of that gobbledygook...if they should choose to bother.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Either way the electron in a sense is light and is affected by magnetic fields."</font><br /><br />In what sense? <b><i>Non</i></b>sense? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I only had one year of college physics, but IIRC you're wrong again. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />This thread is a real hoot. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Hey gammarayburst, listen: The electron passes through the vacuum tube, and decays or dissapates on the way, but electrons have a life span, which allows them to traverse points "A" and "B" and smash into your television screen upsidedownbackwards, I think.<br /><br />That vacuum, when it leaks, kind of messes up the picture from your perspect, because a good portion of electrons are disapating and decaying well before impacting the intended target.<br /><br />Have you ever tried turning the yoke, crt, velocity, etc? Are you familar with degrass, or magnet(s) near monitors, etc.

 

[kmarinas86]

Apparently, the energy of light can be caught by an electrically negative particle called the electron. What is it about the electron that captures the energy of light so that it stays contained within a small volume? What makes the electron so suspectible to emitting photons whereas the heavier and positively charged proton is not?<br /><br />That however, does not mean that magnets bend light - they don't. They can bend electron's path. Gravity is the guildeline which tells light how to curve.

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

well observed... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

well observed... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

gammarayburst - A few questions:<br /><br />1. Why do you compare light with sound? LIght is wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, sound is not electromagnetic radiation.<br /><br />2. In what sense do you believe an electron is light?<br /><br />I agree that an electron is not heavy, therefore it is light.<br /><br />Remember, when discussing these subjects:<br /><br />It is sometimes good to make light of the matter.

 

[newtonian]

jatslo - you posted:<br /><br />"I believe that chromatics are indicators of speed, velocity, temperature, gravity, density, composition, viscosity, and anything else I left out. There is much work to do in the chromatic regard,"<br /><br />I wasn't sure about the Chromatics, so I did a search - it is a sound idea and likely involves electronic generation of sound.<br /><br />Although I am not sure of the band width.<br /><br />Note this link:<br /><br />http://www.thechromatics.com/<br /><br />An excerpt:<br /><br />“The Chromatics are a unique high-energy vocal band that delights audiences with a combination of outrageous originals, crazy covers, melodic insights into modern life, and a smattering of science songs.”<br /><br />Now I never heard of electromagnetism generating gravity - but I guess the chromatics are an attraction!<br /><br />I hope you don't mind my sense of humor, btw!

 

[jatslo]

Whoops! I meant chromodynamics; sorry.<br /><br />chromatic adj.<br />chromatics n.<br />chromatic aberration n.<br />chromatic scale n.<br />chromaticity n.<br />

 

[newtonian]

jatslo - no problem - just having fun - hope you didn't mind!

 

[jatslo]

http://tinyurl.com/arfrq <--- GRAVITY

 

[newtonian]

kmarinas86 - Is an electron lighter when it emits light?<br /><br />Er, i.e.: does an electron become lighter because it emitted light?<br /><br />Let me clarify: does an electron have less weight because it emitted a photon, or less mass?<br /><br />As in E=mc^2?