Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #557169 > unrolled thread

Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-27 09:33 +0000
    Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 03:40 -0800
      Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-27 12:30 +0000
        Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 04:47 -0800
          Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 05:06 -0800
          Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 08:04 -0600
        Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 05:02 -0800
          Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-27 13:35 +0000
            Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 06:01 -0800
              Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-27 16:37 +0000
                Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 09:17 -0800
                Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 09:30 -0800
              Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 15:16 -0500
                Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 18:56 -0600
                Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 09:00 -0600
                  Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 07:08 -0800
            Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-27 17:15 +0100
              Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-27 16:26 +0000
                Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-27 17:51 +0100
                  Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-27 18:13 +0000
        Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-27 17:13 +0100
          Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-27 16:22 +0000
            Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-27 17:53 +0100
              Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 09:07 -0800
                Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 09:26 -0800
                Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-27 18:47 +0100
                Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 11:56 -0600
              Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-27 18:01 +0000
                Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-27 19:06 +0100
                  Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-27 18:16 +0000
                    Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-27 19:39 +0100
    Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-27 17:09 +0100
      Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-27 16:18 +0000
        Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-27 18:22 +0100
          Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-02-27 10:55 -0800
    Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-02-27 19:52 -0500
      Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-28 10:09 +0000
        Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 10:48 -0500
    Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-28 11:59 +1100
      Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-02-28 10:05 +0000
        Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-28 14:39 +0100
    Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 09:59 -0800
      Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:01 -0600
      Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 20:01 -0600
    Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 11:34 -0800
      Re: Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 14:10 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#557169 — Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger

Massive gamma ray burst detected after black hole merger
--------------------------------------------------------

http://www.gizmag.com/gravitational-waves-black-hole/42028/


The gravitational wave detected by LIGO was follwed
0.4 seconds later by a massive gamma ray burst.

To me this is no surprise at all.

As I was saying before, when black holes try to
merge, the net gravity in the middle between the two
black holes fall off to zero allowing material
trapped in it to escape at a fantastic rate 
(estimated at 1 sun per second for this particular event)
before the black holes merge and close this window.

So all future black hole merger events will also
be followed by the same two signature events.

Other explanations that deny this by first claiming
nothing can escape a black hole, and then trying
to claim that the two black holes merged inside
a star become too fantastic.

Proof that material easily escapes black holes
during a merger is provided by double signal of
gravitational waves and massive gamma ray bursts
happening at the same time.

If these double events occur most of the time
then it is absolute proof that black hole
mergers release vast amount of matter in the
form of gamma rays. This gamma ray would
probably condense to form matter which
linger near the black hole.

---

The most important detail about that story is that
our universe could also have been born in the same
way. As stated before, our universe was born about
14 billion years ago with a merger/collision
of two gigantic black holes. The material that
leaked out during that collision makes this universe.

It didn't come into existence spontaneously
by any quantum fluctuation at the time big bang started.

It came into existence from a giant gamma ray
burst. This gamma ray burst cooled and created all the matter.
But again details are important.
This condensing matter will then have a cold side and warm
side which is what we see in the CMB.
It will be relatively smooth throughout
because it never required expansion, it was a condensation.
Once the gamma ray burst cooled and became matter, it would
then be pulled by the original black hole(s) like a 
proverbial big 'hand of god'.

That signature would be present in the expansion of the
universe. So the universe would expand assisted by the gravity
from the original black hole, but the rate
of expansion would slow down as it got further away
from the original black hole.

In this scenario, there is no way for our universe
to escape its parent black hole because the parent would be
hundreds to millions of times bigger than the mass
of this universe.

So that means some 5 billion years ago, it reached furthest distance
and is now is being pulled back to the original black hole.
This fingerprint is recorded in the expansion measurements
of the universe. 

This is the simplest 'hand of god' explanation for all
the features we see in the expansion measurements.

The universe will have a weak gravitational field
everywhere due to the parent black hole. Its effect
is identical to dark matter effects.
It keeps orbits of stars around galaxies stable
at much greater distances by keeping it in sync
through the extra gravity that permeates all through empty
space from the parent black hole.

We are being pulled to the original parent black hole.
That has been happening for about 5 billion years.
Over that period, our speed has increased.
Its about 0.5c at the moment by rough calculation.

And this part of the universe is destined to be destroyed
within about 4 billion years as we make contact with
our creator black hole.

Any intelligent civilization that gets born and
do these calculations would realize the danger
they are in and flee the other way which may
explain also why the universe in this part of the woods
is devoid of alien civilizations even though the number
of planets average at least 10 times more than stars
and sentient life forms only take about 4 billion years
to create.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#557180

7
The most important detail about that story is that 
our universe could also have been born in the same 
way. As stated before, our universe was born about 
14 billion years ago with a merger/collision 
of two gigantic black holes. The material that 
leaked out during that collision makes this universe. 

It didn't come into existence spontaneously 
by any quantum fluctuation at the time big bang started. 
--------------

All this does is move the bar back. Where did these two black holes come from?  What started THEIR universe?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557188

HVAC wrote:

> 7
> The most important detail about that story is that
> our universe could also have been born in the same
> way. As stated before, our universe was born about
> 14 billion years ago with a merger/collision
> of two gigantic black holes. The material that
> leaked out during that collision makes this universe.
> 
> It didn't come into existence spontaneously
> by any quantum fluctuation at the time big bang started.
> --------------
> 
> All this does is move the bar back. Where did these two black holes come
> from?  What started THEIR universe?


That is a very good question - but at least it is possible
to say the universe may be trillions of years old filled with
immense black holes and then whatever we try to do to analyse it,
it is beyond our tools to go figure out where the original black
holes came from, or how vast the entire universe is.

14 billion light years is only long enough to figure out the
immediate local neighbourhood due to creation. The bigger
picture is exceptionally hard to find out.

May be extremely long / very long wave radio could see
further than the 14 billion light year area
outside our universe, but somehow I doubt it.
If we condense out of a gamma ray burst, there would
be immense amount of gas and rubble to block out all radiation
at the periphery of this universe in all directions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557192

Infinitely old.
And we are in a region where fusion
is taking place- hence the expansion

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557195

7:47 AMjohn
Infinitely old. 
And we are in a region where fusion 
is taking place- hence the expansion 
------------

Infinitely old? No.
13.7 billion years old.

And what in the blue fuck does fusion have to do with the expansion of the universe?

Please John, in English... Not kookspeak

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557204

On 2/27/16 6:47 AM, john wrote:
> Infinitely old.
> And we are in a region where fusion
> is taking place- hence the expansion
>



               ##                                      #
               ##                                      #
               #########################################
               #########################################
               ##                                 ######
               ##                             ##########
                                            ############
                                         ##############
                                       #############
                                    #############
                                ##############
                              #############
                           ##############
                         #############
                      ##############
                  #############                        #
                #############                          #
               #########################################
               #########################################
                                                       #

                       ########
                    ###############
                  ##################
                 #####################
                ####               ####
                ##                   ##
               ##                     ##
               ##                     ##
               ##                    ###
                ##                   ##
                ####               ####
                 #####################
                  ##################
                    ###############
                       ########



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557193

7
That is a very good question - but at least it is possible 
to say the universe may be trillions of years old filled with 
immense black holes and then whatever we try to do to analyse it, 
it is beyond our tools to go figure out where the original black 
holes came from, or how vast the entire universe is. 

14 billion light years is only long enough to figure out the 
immediate local neighbourhood due to creation. The bigger 
picture is exceptionally hard to find out. 

May be extremely long / very long wave radio could see 
further than the 14 billion light year area 
outside our universe, but somehow I doubt it. 
If we condense out of a gamma ray burst, there would 
be immense amount of gas and rubble to block out all radiation 
at the periphery of this universe in all directions. 
--------------

First of all, I only ask good questions. There is no need to point this out. 

Secondly, since your idea had zero evidence, why not just stuck with the model we have?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557197

HVAC wrote:


> That is a very good question - but at least it is possible
> to say the universe may be trillions of years old filled with
> immense black holes and then whatever we try to do to analyse it,
> it is beyond our tools to go figure out where the original black
> holes came from, or how vast the entire universe is.
> 
> 14 billion light years is only long enough to figure out the
> immediate local neighbourhood due to creation. The bigger
> picture is exceptionally hard to find out.
> 
> May be extremely long / very long wave radio could see
> further than the 14 billion light year area
> outside our universe, but somehow I doubt it.
> If we condense out of a gamma ray burst, there would
> be immense amount of gas and rubble to block out all radiation
> at the periphery of this universe in all directions.
> --------------
> 
> First of all, I only ask good questions. There is no need to point this
> out.
> 
> Secondly, since your idea had zero evidence, why not just stuck with the
> model we have?

There is zero evidence for the present model of
1. a quantum fluctuation creating a big bang and then invoking 
2. inflation to smooth out the CMB
3. no theories for slowing and then accelerating universe
4. no theories for dark matter either
5. and hot side/cold side of CMB
6. The axis in the CMB
etc.

Invoking magical theory like quantum fluctuation
and fitting the evidence numbers don't create evidence.
Prediction and testing does.
There are way too many problems out there.
Instead this one scenario captures all problems.
And easy to make predictions such as expansion
rate of the universe from this model.

It is possible to estimate the expansion rate
of the universe using simple Newtonian mechanics
applied to this 'black hole gamma ray burst' creation theory
by working out the acceleration, mass of the universe,
the time since creation, then the deceleration. and the return journey back 
to parent black hole. When I plug in the numbers it comes out some 1 order
of magnitude out - not bad for first approximation
considering how many zeros need to go into all the numbers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557202

7
It is possible to estimate the expansion rate 
of the universe using simple Newtonian mechanics 
applied to this 'black hole gamma ray burst' creation theory 
by working out the acceleration, mass of the universe, 
the time since creation, then the deceleration. and the return journey back 
to parent black hole. When I plug in the numbers it comes out some 1 order 
of magnitude out - not bad for first approximation 
considering how many zeros need to go into all the numbers. 
-------------

First of all you need to get the idea of 'creation' out of your thinking. Our universe began 13.7 billion years ago when for an as yet unknown reason a bubble of what we now call space/time burst upon the scene.

This contained the roots of everything that exists. No creation needed.

As for the expansion of the universe, it is a property of space... It expands. The more it expands, the more space there is to expand. We observe this as the increasing rate of expansion of our universe.

As for the detection of a grb from the same location as ligo saw merging black holes, this has long been theorized. The reason for the slight delay has also been theorized and predicted. Gravitational waves propagate and travel at c. There is almost nothing that can stop them or even slow them down. But gamma rays are high energy photons and as such can be slowed by dust, etc. So this delay was expected. In fact the delay amount can tell us a lot about the structure of our universe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557238

HVAC wrote:

> 7
> It is possible to estimate the expansion rate
> of the universe using simple Newtonian mechanics
> applied to this 'black hole gamma ray burst' creation theory
> by working out the acceleration, mass of the universe,
> the time since creation, then the deceleration. and the return journey
> back to parent black hole. When I plug in the numbers it comes out some 1
> order of magnitude out - not bad for first approximation
> considering how many zeros need to go into all the numbers.
> -------------
> 
> First of all you need to get the idea of 'creation' out of your thinking.
> Our universe began 13.7 billion years ago when for an as yet unknown
> reason a bubble of what we now call space/time burst upon the scene.
> 
> This contained the roots of everything that exists. No creation needed.

Its just a system of present universe centric beliefs requiring many 
miracles to happen to this universe.
All such centric based ideas are doomed to fail as has happened
in the past with Earth centric, Sun centric, galaxy centric ideas.

If the black hole merger detected by LIGO was followed by the
gamma ray burst, and all future detections are going to show similar
paired events, then it is evidence of a simpler system of beliefs
to make this current universe from much larger black holes.
And evidence that the present known universe was created from
black hole merger gamma ray burst in a much larger and as yet
unfathomable larger universe.


> As for the expansion of the universe, it is a property of space... It
> expands. The more it expands, the more space there is to expand. We
> observe this as the increasing rate of expansion of our universe.

Again its a system of beliefs based on observation.
But what causes it?
I'm saying its caused by an external gravitational field that permeats
all of presently known space.


> As for the detection of a grb from the same location as ligo saw merging
> black holes, this has long been theorized. The reason for the slight delay
> has also been theorized and predicted. Gravitational waves propagate and
> travel at c. There is almost nothing that can stop them or even slow them
> down. But gamma rays are high energy photons and as such can be slowed by
> dust, etc. So this delay was expected. In fact the delay amount can tell
> us a lot about the structure of our universe


Not by a million mile the amounts we are talking about.
About 1 sun per second approx mass into energy.
That has to come from somewhere.
It spilled out the black hole(s) when they were merging because the
gravity got neutralized momentarily which was enough to let out
all that energy in an instant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557249

Its just a system of present universe centric beliefs requiring many 
miracles to happen to this universe. 
All such centric based ideas are doomed to fail as has happened 
in the past with Earth centric, Sun centric, galaxy centric ideas. 
---------------

No miracles. Just physics. But physics of such extreme temperatures and pressures that we cannot duplicate them on earth. Yet.


If the black hole merger detected by LIGO was followed by the 
gamma ray burst, and all future detections are going to show similar paired events
-------------

Exactly. In fact we use a variation of this today with our SWIFT platform. It is an alert system that tracks gamma ray bursts and rapidly sends the coordinates to other telescopes around the world.
When they get there quickly, they can see, hopefully, the cause of the grb. 

Instead of gamma rays, LIGO uses gravity waves. See the similarity?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557253

> As for the expansion of the universe, it is a property of space... It 
> expands. The more it expands, the more space there is to expand. We 
> observe this as the increasing rate of expansion of our universe. 

Again its a system of beliefs based on observation. 
----------------

Exactly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557331

On 02/27/2016 09:01 AM, HVAC wrote:
> 7 It is possible to estimate the expansion rate of the universe using
> simple Newtonian mechanics applied to this 'black hole gamma ray
> burst' creation theory by working out the acceleration, mass of the
> universe, the time since creation, then the deceleration. and the
> return journey back to parent black hole. When I plug in the numbers
> it comes out some 1 order of magnitude out - not bad for first
> approximation considering how many zeros need to go into all the
> numbers. -------------
>
> First of all you need to get the idea of 'creation' out of your
> thinking. Our universe began 13.7 billion years ago when for an as
> yet unknown reason a bubble of what we now call space/time burst upon
> the scene.
>
> This contained the roots of everything that exists. No creation
> needed.

Babbling ignorant Glazier-like theory of "spin is in"! If something 
"began" then it was created. Duh. If it was't created then it always 
existed and only "evolved". Sorry if this logic is beyond what you can 
handle.

> As for the expansion of the universe, it is a property of space... It
> expands. The more it expands, the more space there is to expand. We
> observe this as the increasing rate of expansion of our universe.

If space "warps" and "expands" then that means there MUST be more 
dimensions than three! And that means ghosts are real. No wonder you 
believe in ghosts! So why won't you admit of more dimensions than three. 
Totally illogical.

> As for the detection of a grb from the same location as ligo saw
> merging black holes, this has long been theorized. The reason for the
> slight delay has also been theorized and predicted. Gravitational
> waves propagate and travel at c. There is almost nothing that can
> stop them or even slow them down. But gamma rays are high energy
> photons and as such can be slowed by dust, etc. So this delay was
> expected. In fact the delay amount can tell us a lot about the
> structure of our universe

Not slowed. Tired light theory is wrong. The whole schmear is wrong from 
the BB onward. To bad you'll be dead before everyone starts arguing that 
they ALWAYS said the BB was bullshit!



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557436

On 2/27/16 2:16 PM, benj wrote:
> Tired light theory is wrong.


   That's correct!


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557841

On 2/27/2016 2:16 PM, benj wrote:
> If space "warps" and "expands" then that means there MUST be more
> dimensions than three! And that means ghosts are real.

You'll have to explain that chain of logic.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557846

10:00 AM Odd Bodkin
On 2/27/2016 2:16 PM, BJ wrote: 
> If space "warps" and "expands" then that means there MUST be more 
> dimensions than three! And that means ghosts are real. 

You'll have to explain that chain of logic. 
--------------

Oh Crust! I can't wait for this!

BJ is going to lay out his evidence for the reality of ghosts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557233

7 wrote:

> There is zero evidence for the present model of
> 1. a quantum fluctuation creating a big bang and then invoking
> 2. inflation to smooth out the CMB
> 3. no theories for slowing and then accelerating universe
> 4. no theories for dark matter either
> 5. and hot side/cold side of CMB
> 6. The axis in the CMB
> etc.

That is not even wrong.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Observational_status>


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?  
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557237

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> 7 wrote:
> 
>> There is zero evidence for the present model of
>> 1. a quantum fluctuation creating a big bang and then invoking
>> 2. inflation to smooth out the CMB
>> 3. no theories for slowing and then accelerating universe
>> 4. no theories for dark matter either
>> 5. and hot side/cold side of CMB
>> 6. The axis in the CMB
>> etc.
> 
> That is not even wrong.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Observational_status>

Just reading the first paragraph its a fail:

"In addition, inflation predicts that the structures visible in the Universe 
today formed through the gravitational collapse of perturbations that were 
formed as quantum mechanical fluctuations in the inflationary epoch."

So - no evidence for no.2 other than it exists therefore it must be true.

A condensation model from a gamma ray burst would not demand inflation
in order to smooth out CMB.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557241

7 wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> 7 wrote:
>>> There is zero evidence for the present model of
>>> 1. a quantum fluctuation creating a big bang and then invoking
>>> 2. inflation to smooth out the CMB
>>> 3. no theories for slowing and then accelerating universe
>>> 4. no theories for dark matter either
>>> 5. and hot side/cold side of CMB
>>> 6. The axis in the CMB
>>> etc.
>> 
>> That is not even wrong.
>> 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Observational_status>
> 
> Just reading the first paragraph its a fail:
> 
> "In addition, inflation predicts that the structures visible in the
> Universe today formed through the gravitational collapse of perturbations
> that were formed as quantum mechanical fluctuations in the inflationary
> epoch."
> 
> So - no evidence for no.2 other than it exists therefore it must be true.

Incorrect.  First of all, that is _not_ “its first paragraph”.  You have 
conveniently omitted from the first paragraph:

| […] Since Guth's early work, each of these observations has received 
| further confirmation, most impressively by the detailed observations
| of the cosmic microwave background made by the Wilkinson Microwave
| Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) spacecraft.[11]

The second paragraph of that section, which you partially quoted, goes on:

| […] Inflation predicts that the observed perturbations should be in 
| thermal equilibrium with each other (these are called adiabatic or 
| isentropic perturbations).  This structure for the perturbations has
| been confirmed by the WMAP spacecraft and other cosmic microwave
| background (CMB) experiments,[11] and galaxy surveys, especially the
| ongoing Sloan Digital Sky Survey.[62] These experiments have shown
| that the one part in 100,000 inhomogeneities observed have exactly
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| the form predicted by theory. Moreover, there is evidence for a slight
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| deviation from scale invariance. The spectral index[ ] nₛ is equal to one 
| for a scale-invariant spectrum. The simplest inflation models predict
                                                                ^^^^^^^
| that this quantity is between 0.92 and 0.98.[63][64][65][66] From WMAP 
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| data it can be inferred that nₛ = 0.963 ± 0.012,[67] implying that it 
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| differs from one at the level of two standard deviations (2σ). This is   
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| considered an important confirmation of the theory of inflation.[11]
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> A condensation model from a gamma ray burst would not demand inflation
> in order to smooth out CMB.

Your gamma-ray burst idea of the beginnings of our universe is not based
on science.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?  
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#557272

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> 7 wrote:
> 
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> 7 wrote:
>>>> There is zero evidence for the present model of
>>>> 1. a quantum fluctuation creating a big bang and then invoking
>>>> 2. inflation to smooth out the CMB
>>>> 3. no theories for slowing and then accelerating universe
>>>> 4. no theories for dark matter either
>>>> 5. and hot side/cold side of CMB
>>>> 6. The axis in the CMB
>>>> etc.
>>> 
>>> That is not even wrong.
>>> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Observational_status>
>> 
>> Just reading the first paragraph its a fail:
>> 
>> "In addition, inflation predicts that the structures visible in the
>> Universe today formed through the gravitational collapse of perturbations
>> that were formed as quantum mechanical fluctuations in the inflationary
>> epoch."
>> 
>> So - no evidence for no.2 other than it exists therefore it must be true.
> 
> Incorrect.

No No and No.

Its an absolute and graphic illustration of your small minded thinking.



There is no evidence for inflation other than it exists therefore it must be 
true.

There are no particles, fields, quantum mechanisms etc for its existence.

Its there as a device to prevent the young universe shrinking back to a 
point at the time of its birth.

So if we are now saying the universe was born from a gamma ray burst
during a black hole merger because gravity going briefly to zero 
along a 'Lagrange point' coincident on the surface of a black
hole allows black hole(s) to rip open and allow gamma rays to escape, then 
we are also saying the gamma ray condensed and formed the universe 
and it was smooth, and we didn't need inflation.



> First of all, that is _not_ “its first paragraph”.  You have
> conveniently omitted from the first paragraph:
> 
> | […] Since Guth's early work, each of these observations has received
> | further confirmation, most impressively by the detailed observations
> | of the cosmic microwave background made by the Wilkinson Microwave
> | Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) spacecraft.[11]
> 
> The second paragraph of that section, which you partially quoted, goes on:
> 
> | […] Inflation predicts that the observed perturbations should be in
> | thermal equilibrium with each other (these are called adiabatic or
> | isentropic perturbations).  This structure for the perturbations has
> | been confirmed by the WMAP spacecraft and other cosmic microwave
> | background (CMB) experiments,[11] and galaxy surveys, especially the
> | ongoing Sloan Digital Sky Survey.[62] These experiments have shown
> | that the one part in 100,000 inhomogeneities observed have exactly
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | the form predicted by theory. Moreover, there is evidence for a slight
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | deviation from scale invariance. The spectral index[ ] nₛ is equal to
> | one for a scale-invariant spectrum. The simplest inflation models
> | predict
>                                                                 ^^^^^^^
> | that this quantity is between 0.92 and 0.98.[63][64][65][66] From WMAP
>                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | data it can be inferred that nₛ = 0.963 ± 0.012,[67] implying that it
>                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | differs from one at the level of two standard deviations (2σ). This is
>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | considered an important confirmation of the theory of inflation.[11]
>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>> A condensation model from a gamma ray burst would not demand inflation
>> in order to smooth out CMB.
> 
> Your gamma-ray burst idea of the beginnings of our universe is not based
> on science.

You don't know that. You don't understand the science projections behind it.

The science is based on projections of the very precise signals detected at 
LIGO and by the gamma ray burst detection observatories.

No new science has been invented. So it is fully based on science and
existing observations and science.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web