Collapse of the universe is closer than ever before

Grumpy:

Nice computer image. Do you have a real image of similar 'magnification' so we can see how well the computer model fits?

Also, I suspect that much of the mass-gulping of old (2 billion years post BB) massive black holes was nearing completion way back then (circa 11,000,000,000 BC). Most mass drawn toward a black hole will go into elliptical orbit, unless there is gas in the way to slow it to spiral inward. That clears out a large void around the black hole. We see from our own Milky Way galaxy that the central black hole has lots of old, orbiting stars at rapid speed. They did not fall into the black hole, but simply orbit about it, likely for quite a few billions of years since the formation of the central black hole. http://wikibit.net/video/duoHtJpo4GY

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No you silly little boy.....You, as a layman like myself [ignoring the self gratutitious compliments you have poured on yourself] need to absorb what knowledge from reputable fields that exist and make a limited opinion.....realising that we do not have access to space probes, Satellite information, telescopes, particle accelerators etc etc.
From where I sit/stand, Standard Cosmology, the cosmological principle, SR/GR, etc, make far more sense to me then the emotional rantings and ravings from anti mainstream fanatics.
Sometimes it is difficult to sort the wheat from the Chaff, but in cases I have encountered on this forum, with the likes of chinglu, rivers, Lakon and yourself, that process is far easier.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1.) - I am not a "silly little boy" - "like" yourself.

2.) - I am not a "layman' - "like" yourself.

3.) - I do not choose to utilize "ignorance" - "like" yourself.

4.) - The key aspect of Theoretical Sciences is the Human Aspect.

5.) - The absolute facts?truths/proofs are more important in "Mainstream Science" than what "make(s) far more sense" to you.

6.) - Judging anything is far more difficult when you decide the result prior to considering the available evidence.

7.) - Judging anything is far more difficult when you choose to ignore any of the available evidence.

But hey, paddoboy, your mind is already "made up", so why not just ignore any facts, truths or reality that you will never allow to "make far more sense" to you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I present exhibit A1, your posts in general directed at me as evidence that you are.....

You certainly aint no scientist/physicist/cosmologist/Astronomer
and anything resembling any of those

You certainly are utilizing stupidity then at any rate...Me? again, I'm not afraid to let my peers at this forum be the judge of my Ignorance or otherwise.
I have had a few compliments though *blush*

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I agree......As long as that human aspect has no excess baggage and any fanatical bias against mainstream ideas for nothing more then just for the sake of it. We see it often here.

Weight of data from observations and experiments are what dictates mainstream science. Certainly not any bleeding heart, sanctimonious crap for the right of some Maverick to dominate debate over discarded nonsense such as Plasma/Electric rubbish.

Correct. Just as perceiving that an individual in this day and age, without access to particle accelerators, telescopes, Satellites, deep space probes, can come on a forum dictating that an already peer reviewed model that was discarded long ago, is actually correct, or to front on a forum with the audacity to say that he has found out that SR/GR is invalid and doesn't work....Now to support the right of such crackpottery is the height of lunacy.

Correct. Yet you support the right of an individual to say that mainstream science doesn't know what they are talking about, and that he/she has some great insight, all without the advantage of modern day technology.

That's why my mind is made up, because I do support models that are continually backed up by more and more evidence.
You on the other hand support any outrageous nonsense under the guise that people have the right to think what they like.
Sure they do...but in the process if that contradicts what the evidence from 100 years of observations support, then I will give them both barrels...to the best of my ability.


Now stop acting like a school boy, alrighty? You aint impressing anyone.

 

Walter L. Wagner

This scale is just not visible in a normal telescope. The image is the result of an N body computation from individual telescopic images and surveys being fed into a supercomputer for a few weeks, running the simulation back to the beginning of time(checking all along the way with actual observation) and then running it back to the present and checking again(actually, checked that the reevolved Universe looked similar in composition). When the simulation matched the actual observations well and evolved as we see the Universe did it was then run further into the future in an effort to see what will occur(theoretically). Seeing this large scale structure while embedded within it would require seeing large swaths of the sky in great detail, something we cannot yet do. We can't see the forrest for all the trees around us. The view is a synthetic one from a distance with the intervening trees clear cut out of the way. But it is based on actual observational data.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This is a computer graphic formed directly from observations of relative positions of several million individual galaxies. This is what we would see if we weren't, like ants, lost in the weeds. An MRI does the same kind of of constructing a synthetic image, it just uses the measurements of it's sensors rather than the same type of data collected by telescope observation. Computers have revolutionized our ability to see clearly in exactly the same way they have done for medical imaging, using similar techniques.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But, paddoboy. the "best of" your "ability", as you have shown, "ain't"!

 

But I'm open to learn from authorities on any discipline........
You?, well you obviously have a problem, as much as you would deny it.

 

Well if this happens, it's my understanding it will happen so fast we won't see it coming. One instant we will be here, the next not.

 

'Layman' is somebody who isn't a professional but shows enough interest, in the subject, to have acquired some working knowledge. Enough to keep them outside the realm of illiterate crank. So you don't qualify to be considered a layman. Just as you said.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Another heavy galaxy cluster that was manipulated to normalize the group and enhance differences in frequency(like exaggerated topological maps enhance altitude). But this time we see not only lensed blue galaxy images, but we also can see the actual galaxies being lensed behind the galaxies in the foreground. We have multiple images of the same two blue galaxies we can see through the group.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hi Walter,

The following paper did not give a rotational velocity (or dimension the rotation path) of these stars for various reasons.

The Shortest Known Period Star Orbiting our Galaxy's Supermassive Black Hole http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1294v1

If you used a circular approximation for the orbital path (represented in the paper as a Keplerian orbit) what do you think the approximate rotational velocity and radius of rotation would be (at c the radius of rotation would be approximately 1.9 light years).

 

Exactly the way I saw the poster Layman, and indeed, appears to be someone willing to learn.

 

Walter L. Wagner

The galaxies and SMBHs sitting at the junctures of these rivers of dust, gas, stars and galaxies are in a much different place than the SMBH at the center of a quiet, rural galaxy all on it's own. Our BHs environs are not representative of that they experience. The mass being thrown at those BHs like the one I'm talking about will probably increase with the continued clumping of mass, the shear volume of mass overwhelming any regulating forces trying to stop it. Even the orbits of the stars orbiting our own BH are degenerating due to lost energy(gravity waves, if not gas and dust), they will end up inside that BH or flung from the system long before a billion years passes.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

lay·man noun \ˈlā-mən\ - from : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/layman
: a person who is not a member of a particular profession
: a person who belongs to a religion but is not a priest, minister, etc.

Full Definition of LAYMAN
1: a person who is not a member of the clergy
2: a person who does not belong to a particular profession or who is not expert in some field

brucep, regardless of your presumptions, assumptions and assertions, what I said to paddoboy was : I am not a "layman' - "like" yourself.

il·lit·er·ate adjective \(ˌ)i(l)-ˈli-t(ə-)rət\ - from : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illiterate

: not knowing how to read or write
: having or showing a lack of knowledge about a particular subject
: not grammatically correct

Full Definition of ILLITERATE
1: having little or no education; especially : unable to read or write <an illiterate population>
2a : showing or marked by a lack of familiarity with language and literature <an illiterate magazine>
2b : violating approved patterns of speaking or writing
3: showing or marked by a lack of acquaintance with the fundamentals of a particular field of knowledge <musically illiterate>

brucep , regardless of your presumptions, assumptions and assertions, my literacy skills and professional status are not up for evaluation nor decided by amateur Internet Forum Thugs. No matter what "realm" those Thugs mistakingly believe or have deluded themselves into believing that they inhabit, nor how those same Thugs choose to embrace and exhibit their seeming ignorance by Posting feckless, puerile and inane statements on a marginal Science Forum.

No matter how deluded or childish, nor how often those deluded and childish statements are repeated, they have, and will never have any relation to actual reality.

brucep, thank you for your opinion, and the infinite amount of knowledge and wisdom that that opinion failed so miserably to exhibit/express.

I will close with the words of an "esteemed, idolized and valued member of this forum"...

 

Again, I'll let my peers on this forum be the best judge as to who is really delusional and shows the most lack of Intelligence.
And my dear friend, if standing up to conspiracy nutters and anti mainstream advocates, and their supporters is being thuggish, then guess what? I'm a thug!
But of course the shoe/boot is on the other foot. It is the behavour in near all instances of the conspiracy nutters and anti mainstream advocates, that most on this forum would view as thuggish.

Anyway my little friend, It's Christmas Eve where I am at this time, and I have a big day ahead of me, and have some friends over this arvo.....probably end up a sleep over for them.
So you have a good one, and take it easy, and remember what Voltaire said: I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it: remembering that each must be responsible for what he says and bare the consequences of his/her words.

 

paddoboy, try to enjoy your company and the Holiday.

Maybe after that you can figure out why you continue to parrot/repeat something that François-Marie d'Arouet (1694–1778), pen name Voltaire, NEVER ACTUALLY in REALITY ever STATED or WROTE!?!?

Again, paddoboy, please do enjoy the Holidays with your family and friends.

 

Sure I will!
http://www.poemhunter.com/quotations/famous.asp?people=voltaire [françois marie arouet]
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire [François Marie Arouet] (1694-1778), French philosopher, author. what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." Real name François Marie Arouet.


http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/504221-i-may-not-agree-with-a-word-that-you-say


*shrug*

 

Please *shrug* all you need or care to , paddoboy, but the ^^above^^ is an OBVIOUS EXAMPLE OF YOUR CONTINUING CONDUCT in this Forum, by continuing your feckless attempt to attribute the quote to Voltaire!!!

In response I will Post this quote :
----- "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to mis-attribute this quote to Voltaire." - Avram Grumer, rec.arts.sf.written, May 2000 From : http://www.classroomtools.com/voltaire.htm -----

to wit :
" 7.)Along the line that the quote may be spuriously attributed to Voltaire (thus explaining why none of the above attribute it to a specific work or date), is the following found at http://public.logica.com/~stepneys/cyc/l/liberty.htm

Beatrice Hall

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
-- The Friends of Voltaire, 1906

The phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is widely attributed to Voltaire, but cannot be found in his writings. With good reason. The phrase was invented by a later author as an epitome of his attitude. It appeared in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S[tephen] G. Tallentyre. ...

Hall wrote:

...The men who had hated [the book], and had not particularly loved Helvétius, flocked round him now. Voltaire forgave him all injuries, intentional or unintentional. 'What a fuss about an omelette!' he had exclaimed when he heard of the burning. How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,' was his attitude now.
...

Hall herself claimed later that she had been paraphrasing Voltaire's words in his Essay on Tolerance: "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." -- http://www.plexoft.com/SBF/V02.html

I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to mis-attribute this quote to Voltaire.
-- Avram Grumer, rec.arts.sf.written, May 2000 "

paddoboy, you seem to have cognitive, memory or attention problem as the ^^above^^ was pointed out to you before!

BTW, paddoboy, since you use the word quite often, another Poster of your ilk was kind enough to explain your ongoing conduct quite well, by Posting the following :

paddoboy, enjoy the Holidays.

 

Rather Ironic isn't it that you chose to make so many accusations re my conduct over a quote generally attributed, rightly or wrongly to Voltaire.

And you have also been so sanctimoniously critical of me in my many cut and pastes and Internet extracts, especially with regards to the quote in question....
Yet you in the same breath, have obviously seen the need to research so many sites yourself, do so many cut and pastes just to illustrate your pedant.
You understand what I'm getting at?
In my country we would call that the height of hypocrisy...and stupidity in not recognising that hypocrisy.

 

I have only commented on your mis-attributing of the quote - when you have proffered that mis-attributed quote - therein lies an Irony?

paddoboy, your continued mis-attributing of the quote to Voltaire is but a minor example of your puerile Conduct on this Forum.

paddoboy, so...how "many cut and pastes and Internet extracts, especially with regards to the quote in question...." have you actually made?

paddoboy, would you deign to QUOTE, completely and properly,...maybe...just 3 or 4...of the "many" of my "sanctimoniously critical" Posts, "especially with regards to the quote in question...."?!

paddoboy, your ability to mistake precise presentation of my viewpoints, as an effort to "illustrate (my) pedant" is impressive.

paddoboy, I understood and recognized what you have been "getting at" since I first started reading your Posts on this Forum - whether in your country or mine(?), it is called the same : demanding attention because of low or no self-esteem.

paddoboy, why else would you Conduct yourself on these Forums, in the manner that you do?