Re: [Vo]:This is where it all began?
If the original estimate for NGC 1277 as suggested in Wikipedia was that it was Once thought to harbor a black hole so large that it contradicted modern galaxy formation and evolutionary theories, re-analysis of the data revised it downward to roughly a third of the original estimate, existing theories for galaxy formations were apparently then incorrect. The theory that was apparently contradicted was written up in Nature-- a.. van den Bosch, Remco C. E. et al. (29 Nov 2012). An over-massive black hole in the compact lenticular galaxy NGC 1277. Nature 491 (7426): 729–731. arXiv:1211.6429. Bibcode:2012Natur.491..729V. doi:10.1038/nature11592. Retrieved 29 Nov 2012. I wonder what has changed, if anything, to explain the new large black holes that are estimated to be 40 Billion Sun masses? It may be that even peer reviewed items in Nature are incorrect at times. Wonders never cease. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Paul St. Denis paul.st.de...@stonybrook.edu To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 9:06 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:This is where it all began? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_massive_black_holes On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Isn’t it bizarre how most physicists will embrace that load of cosmic crap (FTL expansion) without the least bit of real evidence for it (other than a brain-dead theory) … yet … in the next breath they reject out-of-hand the dozens of successful LENR experiments, simply because those experiments are not successful 100% of the time? From: Bob Cook Eric brings up a good point… From: Eric Walker mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com About the big bang theory -- my understanding is that it requires faster than light expansion in the earliest period. A theory that says the rules change at some point in time seems a bit ad hoc to me.
RE: [Vo]:This is where it all began?
Agreed! _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2015 8:04 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:This is where it all began? Isn’t it bizarre how most physicists will embrace that load of cosmic crap (FTL expansion) without the least bit of real evidence for it (other than a brain-dead theory) … yet … in the next breath they reject out-of-hand the dozens of successful LENR experiments, simply because those experiments are not successful 100% of the time? From: Bob Cook Eric brings up a good point… From: Eric Walker mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com About the big bang theory -- my understanding is that it requires faster than light expansion in the earliest period. A theory that says the rules change at some point in time seems a bit ad hoc to me. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:This is where it all began?
cold fusion really have a problem. I've seen very conservative science forum like future science, bloggers start with a bang, or goatguy being unable to accept anything on cold fusion , despite busines, circumstantial, kilowatt, 50 sigma, isotopic, varied or identical replications... while they were considering EmDrive with skepticism, and accepting dark matter, or well known consensus based on recently experimentally refuted theories... i was shocked to see the way FTL neutrino were considered more easily while it was simply one instrument making one measurement my vision is to propose two fact : - cold fusion is now a meme and like belief in god, or cholesterol from food theory, it cannot be refuted despite any evidence without huge shocks to the population (of scientists) - globally moderns science focus more on theory, on models, on mathematics, than on experimental results - globally modern science trust more big and complex instruments and scientific teams, and less simple and small science. - globally modern western society support negative vision more than positive possibilities. if you see current consensus science, and scientific debates, you see that is is a general problem. cold fusion is not so specific, but by it's importance, and by the fact that it accumulate all the reason to be rejected : - no theory (moreover material science facing high energy physics) - small science (moreover chemistry facing physicists) - positive - officially debunked 2015-03-01 16:03 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: Isn’t it bizarre how most physicists will embrace that load of cosmic crap (FTL expansion) without the least bit of real evidence for it (other than a brain-dead theory) … yet … in the next breath they reject out-of-hand the dozens of successful LENR experiments, simply because those experiments are not successful 100% of the time? From: Bob Cook Eric brings up a good point… From: Eric Walker mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com About the big bang theory -- my understanding is that it requires faster than light expansion in the earliest period. A theory that says the rules change at some point in time seems a bit ad hoc to me.
Re: [Vo]:This is where it all began?
Hi Jones, thanks, I have in fact tuned again into Vortex a couple of months ago. Cosmology is too young a science. The Universe is not only expanding, but expanding at an accelerated rate. This poses a very serious problem for any Big Bang model where the expansion energy comes for the initial explosion. See, by example: Cosmological constant predictions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant#Predictions, and the so called Vacuum catastrophe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_catastrophe. 120 orders of magnitude... those who rejoice in the accurate predictions of Quantum Mechanics, down to many significant digits, should never forget that enormous discrepancy between a Quantum theory of the microscopic, and the observed macroscopic behaviour of the Universe. Regards, Mauro On 02/28/2015 03:11 PM, Jones Beene wrote: This is where it all began? Here is abigstory for Mauro Lacy,if he is still tuned into Vortex, or anyone else withcosmology credentials… _http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-02/anu-afi022415.php_ This“impossible”object presentsus withthedistinctpossibility of a new version of the Big Bangwhich can explainUniversalexpansion in auniqueway.This could be called “bifurcatedexpansion”… which isbasicallyasingleexpansion,followed bythe earlycontractionofa fractionof theoriginalmass;andthen acontinuingexpansionor the remainder– all in the first billion years. The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological modeland it proposesthat the Universe was in a very high density state and expandedwith asinglebangapproximately 13.8 billion years agoand that matterandantimatterwere not created in equal amounts.But [SDSS J0100+2802] as the ultra-luminous quasar is called, is too large for the Big Bangmodel to accommodate.Effectively all bets are now off, since the Big Bang theory will be shown to be incorrectby this discovery. This objectis a singularity whichcould betellingus thatIT aloneis the actuallocus–theplace oforigin of the Universe,and that everythingsubsequentlyderived fromthis exact location (which isbetween Pisces and Andromedafrom ourperspective).Thus, what we have is an initialCreationevent which expanded formanymillions of years but which thencooled andunderwent abasicchange-so that part of the total mass (perhaps half) coalesced and contracted, while the other halfcontinued to expand, gaining velocity from the half which contracted. We could surmise that the halfwhichcoalesced was antimatter,or at least another form of matter (mirror matter) and the half that continued to expandis theregularmatter,which we know and love.The implication is that[SDSS J0100+2802]is composed exclusively of antimatter (or mirror matter). You heard it first on vortex…J
Re: [Vo]:This is where it all began?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_massive_black_holes On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Isn’t it bizarre how most physicists will embrace that load of cosmic crap (FTL expansion) without the least bit of real evidence for it (other than a brain-dead theory) … yet … in the next breath they reject out-of-hand the dozens of successful LENR experiments, simply because those experiments are not successful 100% of the time? From: Bob Cook Eric brings up a good point… From: Eric Walker mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com About the big bang theory -- my understanding is that it requires faster than light expansion in the earliest period. A theory that says the rules change at some point in time seems a bit ad hoc to me.
Re: [Vo]:This is where it all began?
Spacetime, including our atmosphere is wormy stringy http://www.andersoninstitute.com/wormholes.html http://darkmattersalot.com/2015/02/23/sail-the-seven-dimensional-seas/ Earth's core is 6-D vacuum brane toroid and our weather disturbances are one more dimension warping, inflating decaying in our atmosphere and gradually condensing everything and triggering electromagnetic discharge as the dark matter inflates to dark energy around us. Best I can figure. Stewart On Sunday, March 1, 2015, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Isn’t it bizarre how most physicists will embrace that load of cosmic crap (FTL expansion) without the least bit of real evidence for it (other than a brain-dead theory) … yet … in the next breath they reject out-of-hand the dozens of successful LENR experiments, simply because those experiments are not successful 100% of the time? From: Bob Cook Eric brings up a good point… From: Eric Walker mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com javascript:; About the big bang theory -- my understanding is that it requires faster than light expansion in the earliest period. A theory that says the rules change at some point in time seems a bit ad hoc to me.
RE: [Vo]:This is where it all began?
From: a.ashfield Jones, Big though it is, it is not large compared with the 100 billion galaxies in the Universe. No but it is by far the most massive structure that we presently are aware of. And the fact it has gone undetected until 2015 raises many issues about prior assumptions used in our models (and our capability to understand the cosmos). Not to mention, what other major surprises like this one await discovery? In our frame of reference, this object is spewing out the equivalent energy of 3000 Milky Way galaxies most of which have their own black holes, and 3000 galaxies (450 trillion suns) is a small fraction of all galaxies. Yet this overlooks its great age, which then begs the question: since the quasar is almost as old as the Universe, as we are seeing it now - how much more mass has it gained in the intervening 12 billion years, unbeknownst to us - and will it spew out increasing amounts of energy over time? It will be most interesting if 100 years from now, someone notices that its energy emission has increased substantially. Mind boggling. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:This is where it all began?
About the big bang theory -- my understanding is that it requires faster than light expansion in the earliest period. A theory that says the rules change at some point in time seems a bit ad hoc to me. About the huge black hole -- what are the chances that it looks like a black hole from our perspective, but from another angle looks like something quite different? Eric
Re:[Vo]:This is where it all began?
Jones, Big though it is, it is not large compared with the 100 billion galaxies in the Universe.
[Vo]:This is where it all began?
Here is a big story for Mauro Lacy, if he is still tuned into Vortex, or anyone else with cosmology credentials . http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-02/anu-afi022415.php This impossible object presents us with the distinct possibility of a new version of the Big Bang which can explain Universal expansion in a unique way. This could be called bifurcated expansion. which is basically a single expansion, followed by the early contraction of a fraction of the original mass; and then a continuing expansion or the remainder - all in the first billion years. The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model and it proposes that the Universe was in a very high density state and expanded with a single bang approximately 13.8 billion years ago and that matter and antimatter were not created in equal amounts. But [SDSS J0100+2802] as the ultra-luminous quasar is called, is too large for the Big Bang model to accommodate. Effectively all bets are now off, since the Big Bang theory will be shown to be incorrect by this discovery. This object is a singularity which could be telling us that IT alone is the actual locus - the place of origin of the Universe, and that everything subsequently derived from this exact location (which is between Pisces and Andromeda from our perspective). Thus, what we have is an initial Creation event which expanded for many millions of years but which then cooled and underwent a basic change - so that part of the total mass (perhaps half) coalesced and contracted, while the other half continued to expand, gaining velocity from the half which contracted. We could surmise that the half which coalesced was antimatter, or at least another form of matter (mirror matter) and the half that continued to expand is the regular matter, which we know and love. The implication is that [SDSS J0100+2802] is composed exclusively of antimatter (or mirror matter). You heard it first on vortex. :-)
Re: [Vo]:This is where it all began?
Eric brings up a good point. I think the concept is that we are looking at a polar end of the thing putting out all the energy near the 13 B year mark. What is the subtended solid angle that we see? Is it a fine line that is able to emit the light? If this is the case there must be many others oriented in a different direction that we do not see. Some may be significantly larger black holes. I also not understood the concept of the expanding space and what influences its rate. That may have a theory to explain it. Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 4:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:This is where it all began? About the big bang theory -- my understanding is that it requires faster than light expansion in the earliest period. A theory that says the rules change at some point in time seems a bit ad hoc to me. About the huge black hole -- what are the chances that it looks like a black hole from our perspective, but from another angle looks like something quite different? Eric
