[OmegaOm]

Do not blame science.  You can blame corrupt scientists, but do not blame science.  science is a democracy you can challenge Einstein if you can. Just that there are corrupt scientist and there are bad scientists, but science itself is the best tool to get the truth.  And if you educate yourself in the fundamentals of science then you wont be fooled by internet bullshit.

Now I read Conrad's book (The Nature Of Gravitational Collapse)   I tried finding a way to email him to no avail.  I find his insights and theories beautiful and elegant.  This is one of the best books in cosmology I have read even if proved to be false.  HOW light becomes matter is an amazing idea,
I have a few questions for him.

1.  How does the DSSU theory explain population 3 stars with no metals?

2.  WIth LIGO up and running, we should be able in the future detect 2 neutron stars merging.  And if they merge and not orbit, then one of those masses should vanish.  If by chance there is another orbiting body, then we should find evidence of this mass vanishing and there by prove DSSU is more correct at explaining the universe.

[Halc]

Do not blame science.

You've been responding to a user that is no longer registered. Let me know how that works for you.

2.  WIth LIGO up and running, we should be able in the future detect 2 neutron stars merging.

Already did that.  http://www.astronomy.com/news/2019/04/ligo-detects-gravitational-waves-from-another-neutron-star-merger

And if they merge and not orbit,

They orbit until they merge.

then one of those masses should vanish.

Mass cannot be destroyed.  They become one object with mass nearly the same as the combined mass of the two. Some of the mass is sprayed into space as a result of the collision.

[OmegaOm]

Halc

I am talking in regards to evidence of the dynamic steady state cosmology.
according to that theory, there is a limit to how much mass that can be in one given space, and the rest vanishes and comes out somewhere else.  So if you can find another orbiting star when these two neutron stars merge then, the orbit of that star will change due to the vanishing mass.  Thus proving the validation of the theory.

[Halc]

I am talking in regards to evidence of the dynamic steady state cosmology.
according to that theory, there is a limit to how much mass that can be in one given space, and the rest vanishes and comes out somewhere else.

That sounds pretty wrong.  If the mass vanishes to elsewhere, why does the original object retain the gravitation field associated with the original mass.  Neutron stars are nowhere near this limit since there are definitely small and more massive objects.

So if you can find another orbiting star when these two neutron stars merge then, the orbit of that star will change due to the vanishing mass.  Thus proving the validation of the theory.

If they witness that, then I suppose it would validate the theory, but as I said, they've seen far more massive objects, so there seems to be no upper limit.

[OmegaOm]

The original object wont retain the same gravitational field when it vanishes.


The more massive objects, like the black hole at the center of our galaxy, according to this theory is just millions of these critical neutron stars near each other orbiting a common center.  They haven't collided.

[Halc]

The original object wont retain the same gravitational field when it vanishes.

Since this has never been observed, it's a pretty thin proposal.

The more massive objects, like the black hole at the center of our galaxy, according to this theory is just millions of these critical neutron stars near each other orbiting a common center.  They haven't collided.

A typical black hole is smaller than any neutron star, so one, let alone multiple neutron stars would not fit in there.

Objects do not orbit a common center of mass (except in a 2-body system, and even then it is only for special cases, not the general case).  For something like a black hole, nothing can orbit anything closer than thrice the Schwarzschild radius.  Not one object, and not a collection.  At that radius, orbital speed is light speed.  Any closer and any inertial object with proper mass will fall in.

[jeffreyH]

The photon sphere is 3/2 times the Schwarzschild radius. That is 1.5 times the radius.
See:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/blkhol.html

Edit: This assumes a non rotating black hole. The Kerr black hole is much more complex.

[OmegaOm]

I read whole book, but here is pdf that summarizes it.

The big bang model can not account for all the new observations that are being made now, including the web like structure of the universe on the grand scale.

In this model there are no black holes.  only super dense Netron stars that light can not escape from.
Only thing this theory mentions is the flaw in the black hoke theory is that it cant explain what is between the event horizon and the singularity, or what a singularity is.

And as for astronomers not being able to observe this mass loss effect.  That is because we are just starting to be able too, and even then we need to have a third mass in the system and we need to know the mass of the system before the event too.

newbielink:http://www.cellularuniverse.org/Th8-DSSUtheory-Ranzan.pdf [nonactive]

[Halc]

In this model there are no black holes.  only super dense Netron stars that light can not escape from.

If light cannot escape them, they're functionally the same as a black hole, despite what name you decide to give it.

I agree that it has never been demonstrated that anything gets into a black hole, and that possibly they are just material compressed at the surface, but if isn't neutron-star material at that point.  Matter cannot withstand that kind of pressure and the matter will not be neutrons anymore.

Only thing this theory mentions is the flaw in the black hoke theory is that it cant explain what is between the event horizon and the singularity, or what a singularity is.

A singularity is anywhere where the mathematics of standard physics breaks down, such as distance, force, time, whatever going to zero or infinity.  There is a singularity at the event horizon, and there is another mathematical singularity at the center of a black hole, but only if it's a real black hole and not one of these compressed shell objects.

[OmegaOm]

It is essentially a super dense neutron star, it is not a block hole even knowing light can not escape from it. IT is called a superneutron star.
A black hole has nothing but empty space between its event horizon and the singularity.  This can not be.  A SuperNeutronstar  has very high dense matter inside that changes density till it gets to the center.  He explains a relativistic effect I think as the cause of the extra density that is more then a normal neutron star.
You see, in his book he explains what gravity is, what light is and what matter is. 

Basically gravity is caused by the inflow of the space medium. a ray of light causes this space medium (aether) to suck towards it.  A mass particle say an electron for example would be a ray of light that is not traveling straight but is curved in on itself thereby traveling in a circle.  Still this aether is drawing towards this mass and this is gravity.  All the particles are made up of confined light.  This simplifies quantum mechanics too with the giant array of particles in the standard model.

Any ways, a very good read, even if not true, it is elegant, and simple.  Theory even if the superneutron star idea or the steady state idea is false, the mass, light and gravity idea can be true.

[Halc]

And as for astronomers not being able to observe this mass loss effect. 

They should.  The sudden disappearance of a large star's worth of mass would generate a huge single spike in gravity waves that would dwarf the ripples detected by the close orbit.  It would be comparable to somebody pulling down a trampoline and suddenly letting go, vs the small waves you get from twirling two bowling balls around each other on the trampoline.  LIGO would have no trouble detecting it.  It doesn't.

[OmegaOm]

Interesting point.  Maybe they did detect  that.

[puppypower]

It takes 8 minutes and 20 seconds for light from the sun to reach the earth. When we see that light we do not see the sun in real time. What we see is  sun light from 8 minutes and 20 seconds ago. That being said, all  the objects science sees in space is based on objects from previous times. None of this is real time. What we see is what the object did then, and not what it is doing, now. 

If we see an object that we calculate is a billion light years away, we do not see this object in real time.  Rather we see what it was doing a billion years ago. If we calculate it is going 10% the speed of light, that it what it did a billion years ago, but not necessarily now. We will not know what it is doing today for another billion years or so.

That being said, the collective red shift data of the universe actually says the universe expanded fastest near the beginning; oldest and most distant observations from the past have the most red shift. The closer objects where the light take less time to reach us are moving slower.

If we took all the data closest to the BB, this behavior is the oldest. As we get closer and closer data in time, we observer things slowing down. This makes sense since the big bang had the fastest expansion; inflation. We are no where the speed of inflation at this time.  The time delay data says the universe has been slowing down since then.

The explanation around this common sense logic is that space-time expanded. It was not objects moving in space, within a stationary background. The universe was not a big bomb but more like an inflating ballon cause surface points to separate.

The question I have is if universal space-time did and is expanding, why aren't molecules, such as water, larger today than billions of years ago. Shouldn't the distances between hydrogen and oxygen also be larger? If space-time can displace entire galaxies relative to each other, why doesn't it do the same to the space that is occupied by molecules, since atoms and molecules are mostly space?

Does that means that the EM and strong and weak nuclear forces are exempt from space-time changes that can expand the universe a thousand fold? Does this mean that only gravity and energy can be impacted by universal space-time changes?

If universal space-time expanded but molecules did not change in the same way, and if we assume reference is relative, does that means that maybe molecules have gotten smaller; its space-time reference contracted, but the universe has not changed. For example, say we had a room full of balloons that all touch. We let the air out of the balloons, simultaneously. They will now appear to be moving away relative to each other.



 

[Halc]

The question I have is if universal space-time did and is expanding, why aren't molecules, such as water, larger today than billions of years ago. Shouldn't the distances between hydrogen and oxygen also be larger? If space-time can displace entire galaxies relative to each other, why doesn't it do the same to the space that is occupied by molecules, since atoms and molecules are mostly space?

Janus gave a very nice answer to this question here:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=77749.msg583198#msg583198

Essentially, yes, these things would move apart if no forces acted on them, but forces do act on them, and the effect is greater than the expansion effect.

[puppypower]

The question I have is if universal space-time did and is expanding, why aren't molecules, such as water, larger today than billions of years ago. Shouldn't the distances between hydrogen and oxygen also be larger? If space-time can displace entire galaxies relative to each other, why doesn't it do the same to the space that is occupied by molecules, since atoms and molecules are mostly space?

Janus gave a very nice answer to this question here:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=77749.msg583198#msg583198

Essentially, yes, these things would move apart if no forces acted on them, but forces do act on them, and the effect is greater than the expansion effect.

Thanks for the feedback.

This explanation brings up a different question. Are galaxies in a different space-time reference than the space between them, beyond the affects due to GR? If the forces of nature are holding the material of the galaxies together, so they are not expanding with empty space, the galaxies would be stuck in an ancient nearly permanent space-time reference. This, more or less fix old reference, would be forming an ever increasing space-time gradient with all the empty space, that can expand.

If I was to travel to the next galaxy, I would first enter an expanding space-time reference.  As I approach the new galaxy, thanks to matter holding firm, I would then enter an older fixed reference, much closer to my original home.  How does this reference gradient affect impact the energy signals we get from space, since it will make space look like a space-time emulsion with one part of the emulsion changing.



 

[Halc]

If the forces of nature are holding the material of the galaxies together, so they are not expanding with empty space, the galaxies would be stuck in an ancient nearly permanent space-time reference.

No particular force holds the largest structures to each other since they are balanced in every direction.  If the galaxies were distributed evenly (they're not), none of them would have a net force due to gravity and they'd all move away from each other due to expansion, the only effect left.
Expansion by itself isn't a force and requires no energy. Accelerating expansion does require energy, which is why they posit dark energy.

If I was to travel to the next galaxy, I would first enter an expanding space-time reference.  As I approach the new galaxy, thanks to matter holding firm, I would then enter an older fixed reference, much closer to my original home.

Sorry, you're on your own with this idea.  I still move at so many meters per second relative to any object I choose, no matter where in space I am.

From your earlier post:

That being said, the collective red shift data of the universe actually says the universe expanded fastest near the beginning

Not counting the inflation epoch (which cannot be seen), expansion is currently accelerating and thus was slower in the distant past.

[puppypower]

One of the practical problems faced by the sciences of cosmology and astral physics is observation is technically limited to one of our five senses; only the sense of sight. Whether we look through a telescope or read data on computer screens, only the sense of sight is being used. We do not have second, third, fourth or fifth sense verification. The result is, things become relative to observational reference using only one sense verification.

For example, the classic example of the man on the train in relative motion V, with the man at the station. This student exercise works, if we let the exercise be based on one sense verification; sight only. On the other hand, if you were on the train and also used your sense of touch, to feel motion from the train, as well as your sense of hearing, to hear the sounds of the wheels on the track, then this exercise of relative motion becomes a fantasy exercise, since the other senses let you know which is the moving reference.

Below is a picture of a 3-D ball that is hovering. This looks 3-D to the eyes. If sight was the only sense some would be fooled by this. If you touch the computer screen; second sense, everyone  can  feel that it is flat and only 2-D. Second sense verification changes the playing field. The 3-D affect is only valid in a one sense verification reference.



This may be why we can have many competing theories, for the same thing, even though mutually exclusive theory cannot all exist in reality, at the same time. This, however, is possible, when we use one sense verification; relative reference. The ball can look 3-D for somebody.

If we return to the train example and assume we are limited to one sense verification, then nobody can feel or hear any extra sensory cues even of one the train. This way nobody can fully know which reference is which. Now both references appear to create a valid framing even of you spend half the day or each reference.  However, base on size and mass we sort of know that the energy balance will be different in each relative reference, since a train in motion has a different energy balance than a man on a bench in motion. However, both seen to be proper in terms of just sight so this is all relative to the observation reference.

If the consensus chooses the wrong relative reference, we can end up with more or less than the reality energy that could be inferred with three sense verification. The acceptance of this reference will then require we add something extra to the standard theory, that can compete the energy balance. However, this will be something we cannot be see in the lab, since is a one sense illusion needed to adjust a theory. One possible example is dark energy. It is needed to close a one sense energy balance, but it cannot be seen in the lab.

There is work around one sense verification. It requires using a reference, as the ground state,  that is not relative, within the realm of one sense verification. This reference is the reference of the speed of light, which is the same in all references. A picture of a circle on a computer screen, will not change, no matter how many senses we use; 1 to 5. We are upside down.

[Bored chemist]

One of the practical problems faced by the sciences of cosmology and astral physics is observation is technically limited to one of our five senses; only the sense of sight. Whether we look through a telescope or read data on computer screens, only the sense of sight is being used. We do not have second, third, fourth or fifth sense verification.

That's a matter of definition.
I  think I can make a case that the senses of taste and smell are the way in which the body (crudely, but still very usefully) identifies the materials that the world is made from.

I contend that various forms of spectroscopy fulfill that role for astrophysics.

Similarly, touch gives us an indication of the physical properties of an object- things like temperature, mass, and hardness.
Spectroscopic measurements can give us a measure of temperature.
It's hard to define how "hard" a nebula is, so it's not clear what data we are not getting by failing to touch it.

We can get information on things like rigidity and even the speed of sound in extraterrestrial objects by observing collisions.

So, I think we are fairly well placed to "fill in" the role of the other senses.

[puppypower]

One of the practical problems faced by the sciences of cosmology and astral physics is observation is technically limited to one of our five senses; only the sense of sight. Whether we look through a telescope or read data on computer screens, only the sense of sight is being used. We do not have second, third, fourth or fifth sense verification.

That's a matter of definition.
I  think I can make a case that the senses of taste and smell are the way in which the body (crudely, but still very usefully) identifies the materials that the world is made from.

I contend that various forms of spectroscopy fulfill that role for astrophysics.

Similarly, touch gives us an indication of the physical properties of an object- things like temperature, mass, and hardness.

Spectroscopic measurements can give us a measure of temperature.
It's hard to define how "hard" a nebula is, so it's not clear what data we are not getting by failing to touch it.

We can get information on things like rigidity and even the speed of sound in extraterrestrial objects by observing collisions.

So, I think we are fairly well placed to "fill in" the role of the other senses.

I was talking about the concept of relative reference and the observation of many reasonable theories for various phenomena in cosmology, at the same time,, many of which are mutually exclusive. We may form a consensus that favors one over others, but this of itself is not sufficient for each person to independently reach that same conclusion. The political carrot and stick is not the same as independent verification.

The need to add dark energy and dark matter is needed to close the universal energy balance. What we can directly see is not sufficient to explain all the data. The problem is we have never seen dark matter or dark energy in the lab to know if it is real. We infer the need from the energy balance that is not closing properly based on anomalies we can see.

Unsubstantiated in the lab, should not be allowed. It should be called speculation, but it gets a pass. Dark matter and dark energy are both intuitively based. They are based on the the mind's eye or the sixth sense. Sixth sense verification; theory, would work better if we could use a second sense, such as the eyes and have direct sight in the lab.

Another solution is to compare the concepts of relative reference and the conservation of energy. The first is a theory and the second is a law. The law should have the highest priority. It is not easy to conserve energy when all references are treated the same; no universal reference. Allowing theory to supersede law is an artifact of the one sense observational method. What the eye sees appear to make the law an abstraction, that is adapted too vis the sixth sense.

The speed of light is the same in all references. This is not relative to reference and therefore is beyond one sense verification; eyes. This will be the same with 1-6 senses. The 2-D circle on the computer screen is the same whether we see it or touch it.

At the speed of light the universe would  appear contract to a point-instant. This makes it easy to do a universal energy balance; in theory. It will br the same for all, since we all see the same point-instant.

If we slow our this C reference, to an equivalent reference below C, space-time appears to expand and things start to become relative since there will be news distinction in space and time based on location in space and time. However, since all had the same origin, and same energy limitations, some thing could not have changed. The only thing that has changed is relative reference and the limitations of our sight.

[puppypower]

The second law is an interesting law. The entropy of the universe increases with time. While for entropy to increase it needs to absorb energy. The second law implies that the amount of useable energy in the universe decreases with time. In other words, if entropy absorbs energy and entropy has to increase, useable energy is net lost, since the entropy has to increase, therefore it will not net give up its energy for other uses.

If we had a cyclic universe, each cycle would be like a spring where the amplitude is decaying since the second law implies each cycle will have less useable energy; tied up as entropy.

Since entropy absorbs energy, so it can increase; second law, it can cause a red shift affect that will appear more or less permanent. If I opened a canister of comprised gas in space, and you saw this on a telescope, would appear to be an IR red shift, as it got colder.

Entropy is not as easy to see as light. Entropy is usually inferred from energy that is not there after you close an energy balance, using all the directly measurable things that are reversal and not under the second law.