Singularity Vs Quantum Theory of Gravity

You miss the word data?

Why are you so outrageously pretentious?
Read how you look in your post I resurrected, and at least offer some improvement.
[Although I suppose anything is an improvement on a "Super Sun"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's OK, that's your own problem.
And of course the counter to what you claim is the logically accepted mainstream model which IS based on much evidence and data from state of the art probes which you sadly are not privileged to.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please substitute the fifth last word "sadly" with "luckily"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I still stick to that........and I look as usual....my motto is that silly stupid statements should have disclaimers or they should not be projected as coming from know-all type people. Few people like you, had some kind of hegemony on this forum with incorrect statements being perpetuated unchallenged, now all those things are getting exposed and the objection and foul cry from people like you and OnlyMe is just temporary..

I did not flip flop that for BH, density is everything and then changed within 4 months that BH density is meaningless and parallely claiming expertise 12 years ago on a defunct forum (want me to dig those posts out ?)

In simple language.....

We have not yet fully understood the Kuiper Belt (it was found out only in 1992), which is not even a few light-hours away, then how are so sure that we are rotating around a point (GC) which is 25000 light-years away ? It is not impossible that our Solar System cannot be rotating around a Super Sol and so on and so forth and finally to GC........Paddo refinement in science is acceptable, and this is not necessary that it should come from a guy who has spent 25 years behind telescope or shuffling those tedious print outs.

 

double post.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Playing switcharoo again Rajesh...As per the forum record, as per this thread, as per the thread I referenced, it is obviously you that has been exposed for the anti mainstream nonsense you spread.
You are not delusional enough surely to believe you are fooling anyone are you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[You can't be that naive surely!]

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Be my guest......BH density as I have argued with you from day one is a meaningless concept. I have not changed that, and other posters have supported it along with my usual excellent references.
Sounds like the rantings and ravings of a desperate man again.Sad.

We understand enough about the Kuiper Belt and the Solar system in general to know with near certain accuracy, that our system orbits the galactic center about once every 250 million years, with an up and down oscillating motion [up and down in relation to the galactic plane]
There is no Super Sol, that's just a made up fairy tale of yours in your evangelic mission to somehow pretend cosmology is not accurate enough.
And of course the chances of any scientific refinement coming from anyone outside of mainstream science is near zilch. It won't happen for the reasons I have stated many times.

 

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/dark-energy-–-required-to-explain-a-plausible-mistake.142322/

The above is Rajesh's first thread, and first post, and it went down hill from there.

The first three pages are doozies!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Anyone Interestedin Rajesh's second thread?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/so...anding-of-main-stream-cosmology.142422/page-2

A sample of a reply......

 

The main problem is, our personal and collective assumptions will create filters of the mind, so the data we see will align the way you expect it to be. For example, String Theory uses different assumptions to fit much of the same data. Their filters of the mind, create expectations that make the data appear in the image of their assumptions. The preferred filters is decided by which is most popular; it the mainstream and the consensus. This means emotions/prestige will decide, not sound conceptual logic. How can something be truth, if there is an alternative; relative theory?

Other people, like myself, have our own unique filter system that does the same thing as the mainstream. This path places one the farthest from consensus, so it is not given any prestige for the added emotional weight. It is not that it is right or wrong, but it lacks emotional appeal to give it more weight.

The only way to decide truth, beyond emotional loading the filtering dice, is to look at each theory based on its foundation premises, to see if each house of knowledge is too heavy for it foundation; appears as problems and questions that go unanswered to avoid neutralizing emotions. Or these are diverted with emotional insults to change the discussion away from logic, into the emotional thinking needed to add or remove subjective weight.

I go back to the question why quanta in the first place? The quantum universe reduced the options relative to the continuous universe that had preceded it. Yet, physics assumed this meant a random universe. This may have been due to relative reference and uncertainty principle. Nobody saw the contradiction. They did not do their conceptual geology before building on a swamp; emotional thinking path where up can be down, and concepts that lower random can be more random.

Quantum was like loading the dice, so instead of six sides, only two sides can ever come up; loose analogy. There is still some level of uncertainty but the odds are not what you expect because of time and distance potential.

 

Rajesh, above and in other posts you present an opinion that the paper referenced indicates that the mass of the Milky Way Galaxy is 150% larger than previously believed. You continue this even after admitting that the paper is beyond your understanding. The paper can be found at http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.00257. Following are quotes from the paper's conclusion, which seems to describe only the distribution of stars/mass, not an increase in the total mass, or the observation of new star material.

In this paper we show that there is an oscillation in the number counts of stars in color- magnitude diagrams generated for patches of sky above and below the Galactic plane, in the Galactic latitude range 110◦ < l < 229◦. This number count oscillation corresponds to an oscillation of the stellar density asymmetry as a function of distance from the Sun, in the direction of the Galactic anticenter. ....​

Our results roughly resemble the radial and vertical oscillations expected from the infall of the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy (Go ́mez et al. 2013). ....​

Even the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy does not represent new mass and its involvement is primarily in how it affects/affected the distribution of the known distribution of stars/mass of the Milky Way.

BTW this discussion should have been kept in the thread it was introduced in, The corrugated galaxy: @ http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-corrugated-galaxy.145306/

It seems more and more that you are attempting to present what should be Alternative Theory, within the science section of the forum. Presenting speculations about mainstream science is not really a problem, when it is presented as speculation, within a declared hypothetical or as a question. Presenting unsupported speculation and/or interpretations of mainstream science, is not good. Provide some quote from the paper that you believe supports your contention that cosmologists have previously missed the existence of 1/3 of the mass of the Milky Way, or take your speculations to Alternative Theories. The only possible source of that idea that I could find was section 3. Metallicities of the structures and even then it requires information that the distribution of metal heavy objects represents a change in the total estimated mass. Information that is not present in the paper.

 

Thats great !! You could find the time to read the paper, thats the kind of desire to learn, I create in people who cross me. keep it up.

It does not matter that you misread the same, anyone would misread if he has no background understanding, so I will give you some background details and then you will come to the right conclusion....But nonetheless it is commendable that you read this paper.


BackGround..

1. 1 kpc = 3260 Light years.

2. way back in early 1990's it was established that span of our milky way is around 15 kpc from Galactic Centre, that is roughly 100,000 light years from one corner to another corner.

3. Mathematical models were presented and it was established that beyond around 15 kpc the density of stars falls considerably low, the most acceptable mathematical model double exponential formulation which gave sharp fall in density beyond 15 kpc (around 50000 lightyears) from GC, thus limiting the span of milky way to 100,000 light years or so.

4. The discovery of Monoceros Rings (around 2002) and TriAnd rings was puzzling, there were substantial high density star formations beyond 15 kps from GC (50000 light years), which could not be explained with our existing model. And disparage ideas were presented......one such idea was that it was part of some outer galaxy getting accreted.

5. In this Paper the lead scientists Yan Xu with others, has proposed that this Monoceros/TriAnd and some other nearby structures can be considered as the part of Milky way, by proposing a mathematical formulation which talks of corrugated structure of our galaxy, and this corrugation starts as close to our Sun (it is not that the corrugation has just appeared beyond 50000 light years from GC), so this way these guys want re look into the existing mathematical modelling of MW and thus taking the span of Milky way all the way from 100,000 light years to 150,000 light years, covering a hell lot of mass in the ambit of MW............

6. The dimension has certainly gone up by 50% (from 100 kly to 150 kly), mass I cannot comment right now, because I have no data how much star mass is present between 100 kly to 150 kly.....

OnlyMe, If you come to a different conclusion, even after this, then let me know please, I will further assist.

 

Compare your above statement to a quote from your post below, that I was initially responding to.., where is seems clear you were talking about total mass.

My first comment on this was to question, your assertion that 50% of the mass of the Milky Way had been missed, by earlier estimates. (Even the figure of 150% would have only represented having missed 1/3 of the mass. 50% is 1/3 of 150%)

My contention had been that the paper was talking about a change in the distribution of stars rather than an increase in the number.., and thus any change in the mass of the galaxy, or a discovery of any new stars/mass.

Now after a long post of misdirection attempting to assert some kind of expertise, you admit that you have no data to support your earlier claim... And essentially agree with the intent of my original post, quoted below.

So, you are now retracting your original conclusion and agreeing with my original interpretation? Then claiming somehow that you have educated me? Your discussion as it relates to this issue seems initially just mistaken.., and then dishonest!

I am not an expert on the subject, but I can read. You don't seem to be an expert and I am uncertain you can give anything an unbiased read.

And again this has been a sidetrack within this tread that should have been posted in the thread that the issue was initially raised. It has little to nothing to do with the subject of this tread, Singularity vs Quantum Theory of Gravity! And seems to serve no purpose other than an attempt on your part to assert your superior intelligence and expertise on amost everything, which from where I sit seems to be in question.

I have been responding in this discussion primarily to caution naive readers... You present unsupported opinion as if it were science, rather than the workings of your own imagination. I too speculate a great deal, but I try to identify it as speculation when I do.

 

OnlyMe,


You are making me laugh at your silliness.......You have made a total fool of yourself by above post...

 

​

Two important issues in my highlights above by OnlyMe.....
He certainly has admitted more than once that all he has had is a passing 12 months interest in cosmology, yet we get claims that mainstream cosmology has it all wrong, and he has seemingly rescued it all from its illusions.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As with many alternative hypothesis pushers, when we mix delusions of grandeur, with inflated egos, and arrogance, we get nothing but nonsense.
This is why I have posted extracts from his first threads on this site, to illustrate what I and others have been claiming from those first threads.
I mean "Super Suns!"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

...What next will he dream of?

The other point that I have inferred more than once, and as indicated by Aquious Id in his post in one of the old threads, it does appear this person to use AId's words, is a hoaxter.
Who he was before changing handles I'm not sure....At first I thought undefined, but after checking out his old threads, perhaps sscully may be closer to the mark.

Anyway, I hope that I have been of assistance in helping to expose this person for what he is.
Busy day ahead of me so I won't be around till much later to answer his "comeback" to my claims.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Really, because it looks like he found that you either purposely or accidentally misrepresented the paper to support your point of view. If you disagree, I would be interested to know what specifically you think made him 'look like a fool'.

 

Obviously, taking into account the many times he has misrepresented different posts and people, it is most assuredly "on purpose".

 

OnlyMe / Paddoboy

You are asserting that "there is increase in distribution but not in the mass"......

In the context can you please explain to this forum, what does increase in distribution mean without increase in mass ??


This will partly answer 'Origin'....

PS: Paddo has no answer (he could not answer when asked in post # 466), he can be excused because he has not gone through that paper, he just tagged along with you to oppose me, but you boasted reading that paper....now answer or apologize to forum for spreading incorrect information.

 

Metaphorically — yesterday cosmologists counted visible stars in the Milky Way and estimated the total mass. At the time the theoretical model they worked with assumed the the stars existed in spiral arms distributed in a relatively uniform manner... More or less uniformly relative the the plane of the galaxy.

Then today (metaphorically) better methods of observation came along and they developed a better model, that placed the distribution of stars in the spiral arms, in a manner better resembling an undulating or corrugated pattern.

Both yesterday and today (metaphorically), they were counting the same stars and estimating the same total mass, they just placed the distribution of those stars in a different manner.

As I mentioned earlier, it has long been known that as the earth orbits the galactic center, it also moves north and south through the galactic plane. Since the earth is not special, it stands to reason that all or most of the stars orbiting the galactic center also move north and south through the galactic plane. Which means this new study has confirmed something that is consitent with a previously predictable pattern... That the spiral arms are not just flat.., they bulge north and south of the galactic plane.

Is it not incredible how the doers in science, those who take the time to truely look closer and closer at the galaxy and cosmos in general, continue to refine our understanding and knowledge! Providing us the opportunity to discuss and even speculate on the implications of their hard work.

 

Its better you stop your silly argument any further.....no need to fully expose your inability to decipher the basic aspect of paper even after background is explained to you.

Metaphorically speaking, till yesterday, monoceros rings, TriAnd rings and other structure extending beyond the present range of MW (100,000) were not considered as the part of Milky Way disc, due to non compliance with our present models as explained in my post above.

Metaphorically speaking, today, these scientists have come up with a different model of our disc and proposed (based on data analysis) that MW is a corrugated structure and the new model (with corrugation) can cover monoceros rings etc as the part of our Milky Way. This not only extends our MW till 150,000 light years (from 100000) but also adds up the mass of MW.....

Please stop further trolling on this issue......

 

Actually that completely answers me. You misrepresented that paper and you are now back peddling.