1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Understanding Cosmology (Post 4)

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by Meow Mix, Jun 24, 2021.

  1. Meow Mix

    Meow Mix Curious Kitty

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    8,398
    Ratings:
    +2,360
    Religion:
    Nontheist
    In Post 3, we recalled that we should be able to add up the density parameter for everything in the universe and get 1 (because we set it up this way: everything is in relation to the critical density at which the universe appears spatially flat, which we confirm observationally).

    Then we asked ourselves, "okay, so what is the density parameter for stars, gas, and everything baryonic: "normal" matter?" We found that the density parameter for baryonic matter is only 0.048, or ~4.8% of the energy density necessary to have a flat universe! That's not a lot, there has to be something else in the universe to make it flat!

    What about radiation? Nope: the density parameter for all radiation (and, while it is not technically correct, we are including neutrinos here) is on the order of 10^-5, completely negligible!

    There's something "else" out there, there has to be, otherwise we wouldn't observe a spatially flat universe like we do.

    This is a good place to have an aside on galactic rotation curves. Gravity is very well understood, and probably an undergraduate could write up a simple gravitation simulation of a low body number system if they really wanted to. We should be able to take Newtonian physics (and in some cases, like Mercury, some relativistic corrections) and predict the way orbiting bodies "should" be orbiting.

    However, there was a problem when we started doing this for galaxies: at certain points further away from the center, galaxies weren't rotating the way they were supposed to:


    When plotted, the "curve" differed from what would be expected if we count up all the baryonic/visible mass in the galaxy. Why?

    A good explanation is that there's something else there that we're not counting! (This is how Neptune was discovered as well, by the way: the orbits of the known planets were "off" from what they should be, which could be explained by a massive object orbiting at a certain location. When astronomers turned their telescopes to that location, there it was: Neptune).

    Here is our first indication that the "missing" matter of the universe is "dark," meaning it either weakly interacts or doesn't interact with light: if there was something massive causing the rotation curves to look the way that they look, we couldn't see it. But more than that, if whatever it is doesn't interact with light, it would also explain its location and shape (so, the key point here is not just that scientists said, "well I don't see anything, so there must just be something invisible there." That is not the reasoning.)

    Consider this: when hot, orbiting baryonic matter cools, it emits radiation (think back to basic science classes and remember blackbody-like radiation). Due to conservation laws, that means the orbiting baryonic matter loses a little bit of energy with that radiation: the radius of its orbit shrinks a little bit. So we would expect a glob of hot, spinning baryonic matter to condense into a tighter spinning radius as it cools. This is just basic Newtonian physics so far.

    What happens if you have matter that, because of its properties, doesn't interact with light? Matter that can't emit radiation? Its orbit will never condense, it remains puffy and diffuse.

    Consider: if a galaxy were to form with both baryonic matter and a hypothetical dark matter (matter that doesn't radiate), the baryonic matter would condense into a central spinning disk while the dark matter would remain diffuse: towards the edge of the baryonic matter's disk (where its mass starts falling off), the dark matter's mass is not falling off because it never became centrally concentrated. This scenario would look an awful lot like the rotation curves that we observe!

    Now, let's consider the motion of galactic clusters. The dispersion of radial velocity in galactic clusters can be very high (1000 km/s, if you recall in Post 1 where I talked about peculiar velocities) because of the amount of mass in the clusters. Counting up the baryonic matter isn't enough: again, if we only consider the matter that interacts with light, we don't end up with enough.

    Furthermore, we can use something called the Virial Theorem to relate time derivatives of the moment of inertia to the potential and kinetic energies of the cluster (I don't know how to write that less physics-y, sorry). The short version of this story is that there are ways to obtain the mass of the cluster that isn't just inferred from its motion: and again, when we measure the mass, the baryonic matter is not enough. There is mass that can't be seen (at the very least), and that makes it "dark."

    So we have two independent ways to mass the cluster, and both agree that the baryonic matter is not sufficient to account for its mass. Why not add a third independent way? We can use its x-ray spectrum to derive the temperature and density of the gas in the cluster, and infer that the gas is supported against its own gravity by its pressure. We measure the gradient of the density and temperature profiles to measure the enclosed mass (if you have questions, ask them; I can show how we do this).

    As it turns out, we get masses in agreement with the previous two methods discussed: so again, baryonic matter is not enough to explain the mass of the clusters.

    Why do I keep harping on independent methods to cross check other results? Because imagine if we were just wrong about gravity for some reason: we wouldn't expect a completely independent method to agree with other methods that depend on gravity. It's evidence that we're correct about gravity when we independently cross-check it.

    We can go further: since the velocity dispersion (in the Virial theorem method) and the temperature both trace the underlying gravitational potential in independent ways, we should be able to plot them against each other and they should trace each other. It's another way for us to just make sure we're not chasing phantoms, and that's exactly what we see!


    (This is velocity dispersion on the y-axis vs. temperature on the x-axis of a cluster).

    There is a fourth way to measure the mass in a galaxy: gravitational lensing. Lensing is a consequence of General Relativity, and since I'm trying to keep these posts really "light," just take my word on this: mass bends spacetime, and light will "bend" around massive objects (take questions to the comments if you want).


    If we know the distances and angles, this is a very accurate way to mass a galaxy or a cluster: and again, we find both that baryonic matter is not enough to account for it and that we get masses in agreement with the other methods listed above.

    Now, gravitational lensing brings us in another direction that we can use: we can use weak lensing and microlensing to make a "map" of where mass is distributed in space (the process is involved, again, take questions on that to the comments if desired).

    So what would happen if we were to find some mass via lensing but we couldn't see anything else there? That would be a good indication that there was some kind of "dark" matter, right? Well, we can do exactly that! Behold, the Bullet Cluster:


    What you're looking at here is four images. In the top left is just a plain optical view of the cluster. In the top right, you're looking at the baryonic matter of the cluster as viewed via x-ray.

    The bottom left shows mass as mapped by weak gravitational lensing. The bottom right shows mass detected via weak gravitational lensing on top of baryonic matter observed via x-ray. You're seeing that where a bulk of the mass is for this cluster is not where the baryonic matter is.

    So what's the story here? I'll tell you. Two galaxy clusters collided to form the Bullet Cluster. The interesting thing is that while all matter interacts gravitationally, only the gases and such from the baryonic matter would self-interact with other baryonic gases in various ways. Imagine these two "clouds" as passing through each other. The baryonic mass self-interacts, so it gets caught on itself passing through, passing through slowly (in fact, on the right side, you can see a bow shock shape from the baryonic matter passing through the other baryonic matter). The dark matter does not interact with photons (so it doesn't radiate as it gets excited, etc.), so it just passes right through, ending up further away on either side of the collision!

    Is the Bullet Cluster unique in terms of cluster mergers, have we maybe just measured the mass wrong in this one instance or something maybe?

    No. There are tons of them to observe:

    So, to wrap this up, there is matter out there that is not baryonic.

    Furthermore, as far as we can tell, this matter does not interact with light. It's "dark."

    Is it maybe just regular matter that doesn't have light shining on it, or doesn't get excited enough to radiate? No. Remember, we know how much baryonic matter there is total, and it's not enough to get a flat universe. We know how much baryonic matter there is in these galaxies, and it's not enough to account for their mass. We know how much baryonic matter there is in galaxy clusters, and it's not enough to account for their velocity dispersions, temperature, etc.

    There aren't enough rogue brown dwarves and so on in the universe that could make up this difference (and remember, there wouldn't be enough baryonic material in the first place to make them).

    So there is some other kind of matter than baryonic matter, and it is "dark."

    Next post will conclude the dark matter section with dark matter's influence on structure formation in the universe, the cosmic microwave background anisotropies, and baryon acoustic oscillations. These are some of the best evidences for dark matter, probably even better than anything presented in this post.
     
    • Informative Informative x 4
  2. Viker

    Viker Filia Diaboli, in a shroud of metaphor and mystery

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2011
    Messages:
    4,392
    Ratings:
    +2,022
    Religion:
    LHP, Diabolism, Witchcraft
    She blinded me with science. :musicnotes: :D
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Friendly Friendly x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    3,844
    Ratings:
    +523
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    Well "gravitational ideas of celestial motions" were directly contradicted in the galactic realms, so gravity is not very well understood in general.
    Sure, and as the assumed fundamental gravity force couldn´t explain the observed motion in galaxies, logically other fundamental forces should have been considered and incorporated, but this didn´t happen at all.

    The "standard cosmologists" simply assumed and inserted "dark matter" in order to patch their failed initial gravity assumption.

    This is very strange to me, as there are clear tell tell signs of electromagnetic activity in galaxies with strong nuclear gamma- and z-rays jets beaming out of the galactic poles. Why isn´t this observable imagery taken into account in modern astrophysics and cosmology?

    I don´t comment on the other sentences of "dark matter" as I take "dark matter" to be a flaw in general, and the only way I can accept "dark things" in the Universe is if cosmic clouds aren´t enough ionized by electromagnetic influences to be measured by ordinary telescopes.

    BTW:
    I wonder how scientists can get such an idea. They can measure at least 13.8 bill. lightyears in all directions from the Earth and still they talk of a "flat Universe"? This is IMO more silly than the Flat Earth proponents who at least are excused by just having a horizon as their basis.
     
  4. Meow Mix

    Meow Mix Curious Kitty

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    8,398
    Ratings:
    +2,360
    Religion:
    Nontheist
    Gravity wasn't contradicted by the discovery of dark matter any more than it was contradicted by the discovery of Neptune, though. Dark matter not only explains the galaxy rotation curve, it explains the velocity dispersion of galactic clusters, their temperature, even how galaxies are fed gas for star formation from the filamentous structure of the universe. (Which also tells us why star formation is different over time).

    A few things here:
    1. Scientists considered everything imaginable to try to explain the galactic rotation curve, going so far as to just make ad hoc and ugly hypotheses like MOND and TeVeS (have you ever seen the action for TeVes? It's like 3 lines long, it's very unparsimonious).
    2. Just because forces exist doesn't mean that they're even plausible explanations for galactic motion. For instance, the nuclear strong force is a force that exists, why would it even be considered though? It's just not what it does. It would be like trying to diagnose a car's A/C unit being out by turning up the radio: why would that even be a troubleshooting step taken seriously in the first place? (Now I'm all about trying whatever, but usually we need a good reason to give things a try).
    3. I know that your answer is electromagnetism, but you can't just say "maybe it's magnets" and leave it at that with no quantitative analysis for how and why that would even attempt to be an explanation.
    4. I cannot stress enough that you do not propose an alternative because when asked to quantify one, you can't. There's a reason you can't: because it's not a serious alternative.
    This entire post (Post 4) is a love letter written to how that exactly that didn't happen.

    Black holes can have electromagnetic fields (we use the Reisser-Nordstrom metric on asymptotically flat and stationary solutions to Einstein's equations to describe them; I actually did some of my first research for term papers on black hole thermodynamics). Jets are actually more complex than you might think, and it probably has more to do with GR than it does E&M (though the EM fields are necessary for the effect, yes).

    However, understand that the electromagnetic fields of black holes and even magnetars don't permeate all of space in an impactful way (technically they do, but most stuff is neutral). Why would you assume that the electromagnetic field around a black hole would cause the orbit of stars around it in a galaxy any more than you might think a bar magnet on a table would cause a coffee cup to orbit it? That's a serious question, I'm not kidding: why would you think that's even a serious proposal, based on what?

    I think it was Post 2 that goes into great detail about what is meant by a flat geometry for the universe. It's true that I haven't gone into detail about how we observationally confirm that I suppose, but that's easily google-able.

    For instance, what's a good way to tell if a surface is flat? Draw a triangle on it. If the surface is flat, the angles will add up to 180 degrees. If it's curved, it will add up to less or more than 180 degrees even if it's a perfect triangle. But the triangle has to be sizeable enough on the thing being tested (for instance, drawing a triangle on my floor doesn't tell me whether the Earth is curved: I'd have to draw a triangle that's sizeable compared to the Earth).

    Well, we did this with WMAP and other missions: we used CMB anisotropies to draw triangles the size of the visible universe (basically), and the visible universe is indeed flat.
     
    #4 Meow Mix, Jun 25, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2021
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    3,844
    Ratings:
    +523
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    I didn´t say gravity was contradicted by "the discovery of dark matter". I said it was contradicted by the rotational patterns in galaxies - which was patched by "dark matter".
    Unless you have "dark matter" to be a 5th fundamental force, you have to find another explainable fundamental force but gravity to explain all this.
    I know of these attempts - and to no surprise for me, it is "gravity" which is in the way in all attempts.
    I´m sure you can do better than this. If any fundamental force are at play, they of course have some sort of an influence.
    I didn´t said "maybe it´s magnets". I´m saying that electromagnetism in the Universe ionizes clouds of gas and dust to become plasmatic formations of stars and planets via the Bennett Z-pinch effect.
    I know standard cosmology has the E&M fundamental forces not to be a serious alternative - but as long as standard gravity cosmology cannot find a Theory of Everything, anything else but standard perceptions and explanations are relevant alternatives as long as they refer to real fundamental forces.

    Regarding your quantifying claims, you have at least to be open minded and not just refer to old standard gravity dogmas, before you even can begin to grasp what I´m talking of and describing in plain words and sentences.

    I said:
    This is very strange to me, as there are clear tell tell signs of electromagnetic activity in galaxies with strong nuclear gamma- and z-rays jets beaming out of the galactic poles. Why isn´t this observable imagery taken into account in modern astrophysics and cosmology?
    I take it that you know of the different ranges of E&M with it´s infinite range?
    I underlined this above with this: "I´m saying that electromagnetism in the Universe ionizes clouds of gas and dust to become plasmatic formations of stars and planets via the Bennett Z-pinch effect.

    As electric swirling currents creates perpendicular magnetic fields, this explains how the central electric gamma- and x-ray whirling current are beaming out of the galactic poles and how the very galactic disk is formed and filled with stars and planets of all kinds in a pattern which ONLY can be explained by the circuital EM force.

    IMO "black holes" is nothing else but "formative circuital funnels of transformation and formation in galaxies" and all other assumed standard holes are simple fly away speculations derived from "gravity thinking" only.
    If you use a flat tool to measure anything, you´ll always get flat results.
     
  6. Meow Mix

    Meow Mix Curious Kitty

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    8,398
    Ratings:
    +2,360
    Religion:
    Nontheist
    I was insinuating that the discovery of the flat rotation curve is congruent with the discovery of dark matter, much in the same way the discovery of Jupiter and Saturn's anomalous orbits was congruent with the discovery of Neptune.

    Gravity works exactly as it should with dark matter. Dark matter interacts with gravity exactly the same way baryonic matter does: in accordance to mass and distance.

    Not true, we don't attribute every force to every interaction because most of the time they're negligible or not pertinent.

    It's my fault for trivializing your position by characterizing it as "maybe it's magnets." I knew what I was doing. Sorry. Got a little too tease-y ^.^ (I promise it's in good fun)

    This just isn't true though. We couldn't seriously propose "maybe planetary orbits are caused by the weak force." Why would it be true of electromagnetism without a good reason?

    But I do understand what you're describing in plain words and sentences. But vague ideas only go so far. Before we could seriously propose that everything attributed to gravity is actually electromagnetic, we'd need a theory of how this would be done. Period. We'd need the mechanism (because the existing mechanisms for E&M do not work for this), we'd need to quantify it, even in a test system with only two objects. We'd need to explain why net-neutral charge objects like planets would respond to the force. Etc.

    Yes, I actually edited my comment a bit ago to reflect this. I was trying to say that the fields permeating space get exponentially weaker, and many of the objects in said space are net charge neutral.

    It does not explain any of this. You don't even get black hole jets without GR effects (frame dragging), which is gravitational in nature. For you to say otherwise, you must present theory and quantification, not just vaguely say things.

    For instance, there is gas in space. Gas is capable of rotating. I could make an off-the-cuff "hypothesis" that there is no gravity, that planets are orbiting because they're submerged in a gas that's rotating. Those words all individually mean something, but that's not a theory, that's not quantified, and it's not a serious alternative precisely because of that. This is what you're doing with E&M: you're using individual words that mean things, but when you string them together without theory or quantification, it's not a viable alternative because it's not seriously proposing anything other than a vague concept that doesn't get born out.

    What informs this opinion, what mechanics, what theory, what quantification? How do we model it?

    Not if the surface is curved. You can test this yourself by drawing a triangle on a sheet of rubber and then stretching the rubber over something round, like a basketball. Measure the angles on the triangle: they will not add up to 180 degrees because of the topology.
     
    #6 Meow Mix, Jun 25, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    3,844
    Ratings:
    +523
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    Listen: We are discussing the invention of dark matter in galaxies in where the stars are orbiting the galactic center differently from the planetary orbital motions in our Solar System.
    If you like to compare the galactic and planetary motions, you´ll have to explain WHY different orbital motions in the local closed galactic system can occur in the first place before making your conclusions.

    I said:
    Unless you have "dark matter" to be a 5th fundamental force, you have to find another explainable fundamental force but gravity to explain all this.
    Well, that´s the standing position of scientists who only believes in one fundamental and one directed force - and even on the weakest of the fundamental forces.

    I said:
    I´m sure you can do better than this. If any fundamental force are at play, they of course have some sort of an influence.
    May I remind you of the fact that all atoms in the entire observable Universe have E&M qualities? Of course ALL fundamental forces interacts everywhere and none can be neglected at all. They all works accordingly to their strength - and if some of those forces eventually should be neglected, Occam´s Razor would logically chose the weakest, namely "gravity".
    Remember? I´m a philosophical inspirator in this RF Forum. I guess if we take the average of the scientific divided three E&M forces and take this average to explain the galactic formations and motions, the standing scientific society would be utterly surprised.

    Besides this: No one can reject an E&M theory just by holding onto the dogmas of the de facto dynamically unexplained gravity force.
    Yes, gaseous atoms rotates. But if you´ll have a local static cosmic cloud of gas to rotate as an unity, you´ll have to have an EXTERN "whirling force" to do just that.

    I said:
    IMO "black holes" is nothing else but "formative circuital funnels of transformation and formation in galaxies" and all other assumed standard holes are simple fly away speculations derived from "gravity thinking" only.
    Just by simple natural logics you can, by the laws of energy conservation, conclude something which disappears into a hole (or funnel) to come out of the hole as well and transformed to something else.
    What is it then you´ve distorted in this analogic experiment? You´ve distorted the very geometric perception of the obvious 3D spherical universe.
     
  8. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,747
    Ratings:
    +1,776
    Religion:
    Christian
    Thank you! You helped me figure out a question I was having a hard time verbalizing.

    How do we know that space is structurally compared to a surface? Like your earth comparison, why would we say we are on the surface of the earth and not in the center of its core, where we would expect to "draw" euclidean triangles?

    Or, how do observations differ from what would expected if we were in a spherical void of space instead of space being a surface?

    Thanks again.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Meow Mix

    Meow Mix Curious Kitty

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    8,398
    Ratings:
    +2,360
    Religion:
    Nontheist
    I'm not sure what you mean. The dark matter is affected by gravity exactly the same as the baryonic matter. The only difference between them is where the dark matter is located; and the dark matter is located in a different location only because it doesn't radiate.

    If I were magic and poofed all of the dark matter into baryonic matter of the same mass, the galaxy would still have the same rotation curve.

    This last bit doesn't make sense. Gravity is by far the most dominant force at cosmological scales.

    I mean, I'm not going to defend a silly idea whose purpose was to show how ideas can be silly.

    So the question for you though is why would net neutral objects like planets respond to EM forces?
     
  10. Meow Mix

    Meow Mix Curious Kitty

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    8,398
    Ratings:
    +2,360
    Religion:
    Nontheist
    Hoo boy I'm not sure how I'm going to answer this one ^.^

    I would say that calling space a surface only matters as far as I know for visualization analogies that help people think about it. The space in cosmological models appears in the form of metrics, like the Minkowski spacetime for general flat spaces, anti-deSitter for negative curvature space, etc. (there's like a billion of these for different things and boundary conditions).

    A mathematician or topologist might be able to say something more insightful about what it would mean for a space to be a surface or not. I would think that a surface is just a space with boundary conditions.

    For the latter question, I'm not sure. For curved space we'd use some Robertson-Walker metric regardless. So, if it were a surface of some topology, we'd still be using the same metric, just with some additional boundary conditions.

    Edit: So, duh, what I meant to say is the surface is a boundary condition.
     
    #10 Meow Mix, Jun 25, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2021
  11. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,747
    Ratings:
    +1,776
    Religion:
    Christian
    Maybe it is me not quite understanding things :) Sorry if I am confused or confusing.

    Let me ask this, if we presume for the sake of argument that the universe is a hollow sphere of infinite scale, so without bounds, would that still be considered "flat"? Is flatness as used here less a structural understanding like we think of everyday flat and more of a space does not turn on itself such that at no point if I continue in a straight line will I even theoretically pass the same point more than once?
     
  12. Meow Mix

    Meow Mix Curious Kitty

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    8,398
    Ratings:
    +2,360
    Religion:
    Nontheist
    Let me think about it from the beginning. For cosmological scales we'd want a metric for this with uniform curvature, enough dimensions for our needs, probably the only time dependence in the scale factor a(t).

    What kind of curvature would just sort of have to be decided piecemeal (we do this in cosmology anyway, hence the k term).

    The stress-energy tensor would be assumed to be homogeneous and isotropic.

    I mean this just gives us the regular Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric. I don't think we have to do anything special here. It seems like we'd have to do something special if we wanted to specify that we were "on the surface."

    Edit: And by "do something special" I mean define boundary conditions for the surface, and then work it at those conditions (the surface).
     
    #12 Meow Mix, Jun 25, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2021
  13. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,747
    Ratings:
    +1,776
    Religion:
    Christian
    I found an interview with Joseph Silk from 2001 where I think he answers my question: "Flat is just a two-dimensional analogy. What we mean is that the Universe is 'Euclidean', meaning that parallel lines always run parallel, and that the angles of a triangle add up to 180"

    I think I just got hung up on tying flatness to the idea of a plane, probably mixed in with model of space time as a "fabric" that gravitational objects sit in and depress.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    3,844
    Ratings:
    +523
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    So what do you think of the following:

    Subject: “Strongest Gamma Ray Burst Stole Energy from a Black Hole - Proving Penrose Process”.
    From an Anton Petrov Video:


    His video notes:
    0:12 Black hole giving more energy than it takes.
    0:18 The Penrose Process
    0:24 Extract energy from a spinning black hole.
    0:39 Works only for spinning black holes.
    0:55 Neutron stars black holes spinning thousands of RPS.
    1:06 The faster the spin, the lesser we understand what happens in the black hole.
    1:17 Black hole a singularity – or “ringularity”.
    2:40 Theoretically achieving up to 25 % energy from the spinning “ergo-sphere”.
    3:02 A weird science fiction anomaly, but it apparently it really exists.
    3:30 The strongest ever (EM) GMR burst was detected - The newborn black hole in GRB 191014C proves that it is alive
    3:44 It wasn´t clear what caused this burst.
    4:01 Consensus explanations and further ideas.
    4:21 The GMB radiated all kinds of EM frequencies.
    4:42 Difficult to explain by modern theories what caused this strong GBR burst.
    5:03 Applying Penrose´s ideas.
    5:15 Extracting energy from the black hole.
    5:32 Forming stars via Super Nova.
    6:08 Neutron star collapsing and exploding and creating a black hole.
    6:38 But some of the magnetic lines were still there around the hole after the explosion.
    7:08 Twisting and bending the magnetic lines thus creating even more electromagnetic energy than there were before the explosion.
    7:21 Electromagnetic energy started to be transferred into the GRB.
    7:42 The energy to this GRB was originally taken from the energy of the rotational black hole.
    7:58 The direct proof of the Penrose Process theory of gaining energy out from a black hole surroundings.
    8:13 The entire process took just 3,99 seconds for the neutron star to become a black hole and ejecting the GRB.
    8:46 Black hole spinning at 40 % of the speed of light and having a powerful magnetic field as well.
    ------------
    Cosmo Logics:
    The force of gravity cannot be explained dynamically and causally as a force; hence it is scientifically endangered and left to live its life in the astrophysical and cosmological department of assumptions and ad hoc assumptions.

    Gravity is described as a one direction force of attraction, but still it is thought to make expanding explosions in the opposite direction - and this is the simple inconsistent basics in “gravity cosmology”.

    Everything in the observable Universe is attempted to be explained by these simple and unexplained “Standard Cosmology” assumptions, which in general are disconnected from all other fundamental forces.

    THOUGH: In the present video the E&M forces and GRB emissions ARE in fact connected to the former assumptions of the gravity forces alone as the causes and explanations.

    The Standard Model of having a cosmic neutron object spinning with several thousands of RPS is utterly impossible. It´s only electromagnetic frequencies which can achieve, rotate, and radiate impulses with these RPS, so speaking of physical gravitational rotations is non-cosmo-logics.

    The same gravitational misconception and inconsistencies also rules in the Super Nova “explanations”. These novae have shown up to be able to “explode” several times in a row, thus directly contradicting the very super nova assumption itself.

    The logical explanation is that stars frequently have their E&M bursts – just like the burst in this video and the bursts in our Sun as well. It all is a simple question of frequently EM charging and frequently discharging.

    This present video contents are de facto connecting the so called “gravitational black hole” to have “powerful E&M field results” – which I´ve claimed for as working in galactic “black holes” for some decades and getting much ridiculing for in this RF and other fora.

    The galactic formation is governed by the EM force as everything else in the Universe, and it is explainable, in contrast to the assumed “gravity”. And this EM force apparently also goes for the "black hole" observations in this video. (Holes which just are "transformative attractive and repulsive EM funnels of formation".

    There is NOTHING peculiar and unexplainable in this present video content when having the EM perceptive, perspective and descriptive approach.

    Link.
    Penrose process - Wikipedia
     
  15. Meow Mix

    Meow Mix Curious Kitty

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    8,398
    Ratings:
    +2,360
    Religion:
    Nontheist
    Not on a keyboard this morning, but a significant chunk of papers I wrote on BH thermo was about the Penrose process, I actually know a lot about this. While I’m sleeping what did you want to say about it?

    I know it very technically at this point, and could probably link in some of my papers if need be
     
  16. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    3,844
    Ratings:
    +523
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    ? Do you refer to our personal conversation here or what?
    I rather prefer to have your personal thoughts after you having some serious ponderings about general "pro et contra".

    I sort of have had enough of some debaters who just copy paste or links to their cosmological gurus without thinking much independently for themselves.
     
  17. Meow Mix

    Meow Mix Curious Kitty

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    8,398
    Ratings:
    +2,360
    Religion:
    Nontheist
    Oh yes I mean I would still be replying here. But for instance I could paste some of my diagrams, plots, and equations from my papers to illustrate points or clarify anything that needs to be clarified.

    My main thermo paper is an overview of black hole thermo: BH thermo from a classical perspective (and where we run into trouble with the GSL, the Generalized Second Law) and then the quantum corrections necessary to get out of trouble.

    A massive portion is on the Penrose process leading into the BH thermo laws, so of things in physics, that is something I know in great technical detail.

    So what I meant by “while I’m sleeping” was like if you had questions about it or challenges about it for me to defend, etc. It seriously took up a large portion of the overview paper because it was necessary to cover to do the rest of the paper.
     
  18. Heyo

    Heyo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    7,489
    Ratings:
    +6,570
    Religion:
    none
    Is that really so? As I understand it Dark Matter doesn't react to itself gravitationally as strong as regular matter. I.e. Dark Matter doesn't seem to clump. All Dark Matter observed behaves like a gas, never as solid objects. Or am I wrong?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Meow Mix

    Meow Mix Curious Kitty

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    8,398
    Ratings:
    +2,360
    Religion:
    Nontheist
    The way baryonic matter condenses into really compact objects like planets and stars is accreting (such as into a planetary disk) and radiating when it’s hot. Dark matter’s inability to radiate keeps it diffuse; its full mass still interacts with gravity the same way.

    Not at a keyboard right now or I’d be more thorough; but accreting into really solid objects needs radiation and conservation laws to happen.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  20. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    3,844
    Ratings:
    +523
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    The standard gravitational idea of "lumping atoms together", i.e. "condensing or accreting" is a very assumptive and false way of explaining formative cosmology in general.
    05.Fundamental Forces.PNG
    It is the strong EM force which binds atoms and nucleus together and when it comes to form stars this happens i connection with the overall E&M force in the galactic centers and out in the galactic arms.
    Bides this "dark matter" isn´t needed in order to explain the galactic rotations as this is a logical formation and rotation in all electromagnetic currents and their perpendicular and circuital fields.
     
Loading...