Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
IMO the Pauli exclusion principle prohibits anything from achieving "infinite density at a point", although I'm sure that very massive gravitational objects form in space.
The Pauli exclusion principle can be overcome with extreme gravitational forces, such as when a neutron star forms when electrons are forced into the nucleus to merge with protons to form neutrons, forming degenerate matter. Sufficiently high gravity can overcome even this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle#Astrophysics_and_the_Pauli_principle
Most computer models can't account for neutron stars bigger than 1.5 times the mass of the sun without resorting to exotic particles like hyperons or condensates.
"If you want to reach two solar masses, it's a lot harder to make a neutron star that's not just neutrons. It tests the ability of the particles to hold up," Feryal Ozel, an assistant professor of astronomy and physics at University of Arizona, told Discovery News.
"Even the difference between a 1.8-solar-mass neutron star and a two-solar-mass object is quite a big one. We search for these things all the time. The fact that this was a two-solar-mass object is significant," Ozel said.
I find this whole idea of dark this and dark that really quite hilarious. It can't be measured or detected in any way and yet it must exist, because its effects can be seen (or something like that). Has it never occurred to those who believe in such fantasies that it doesn't actually exist at all and that actually it could be a supernatural force (God) that holds the universe together and makes it work the way it does? Oh I forgot, that would be unscientific wouldn't it and we can't have that.Not one of them can name a single source of 'dark energy' and it makes up the *vast* majority of their theory.
I find this whole idea of dark this and dark that really quite hilarious. It can't be measured or detected in any way . . .
Has it never occurred to those who believe in such fantasies that it doesn't actually exist at all and that actually it could be a supernatural force (God) that holds the universe together and makes it work the way it does? Oh I forgot, that would be unscientific wouldn't it and we can't have that.
I find this whole idea of dark this and dark that really quite hilarious. It can't be measured or detected in any way and yet it must exist, because its effects can be seen (or something like that). Has it never occurred to those who believe in such fantasies that it doesn't actually exist at all and that actually it could be a supernatural force (God) that holds the universe together and makes it work the way it does? Oh I forgot, that would be unscientific wouldn't it and we can't have that.
It is detected the same way gravity is detected, by the movement of stars and the bending of starlight.
You accuse people of believing in fantasies, and then say that they should believe in fantasies. Priceless.
So did gravity precede the formation of stars and planets?
I mean in your opinion. Is aggregate mass a function of gravitational force or is gravity a function of mass that increases with size and density of the mass?
In my theory that information must precede aggregation, even aggregation of mass (gaseous liquid or solid) in the formation of planets and stars followed laws and principles which caused it to happen in the way it did, but not everyone agrees...
If this is true then the formation process happened as informed...or was it random and arose within the coincidence of chaos????
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Electric Universe: Peer Review Exercise 2
If I rip that particular post to shreds, will that accomplish anything in terms of your opinions?
You didn't read my papers apparently .
You tried to hide behind an appeal to authority fallacy.
I can't speak for the OP, but the only thing that will convince me of your personal views on cosmology is if you present them to the actual scientific community and get them accepted and become part of mainstream cosmological science.
Until that happens, why would I simply believe you?
I have already presented my views in the standard scientific manner. Your demand for instant acceptance is simply an appeal to popularity fallacy in the final analysis.
Even GR theory wasn't accepted instantly by the mainstream.
By your logic, Einstein wasn't credible until the mainstream finally realized that he was credible, and that was more than a decade later.
I have already presented my views in the standard scientific manner. Your demand for instant acceptance is simply an appeal to popularity fallacy in the final analysis. Even GR theory wasn't accepted instantly by the mainstream. By your logic, Einstein wasn't credible until the mainstream finally realized that he was credible, and that was more than a decade later.
It seems actual cosmologists who actually publish in mainstream journals, didn't either.
Appeal to expertise isn't the same as appeal to authority.
When all doctors tell me to take certain meds and then there's one guy who tells me otherwise and can't get any one in the medical field to agree with him.... Guess what I'll do.
No, I will not be listening to the one guy. I'll rather go with the consensus of all the others.
And you know what? That consensus COULD be wrong and the one guy COULD be right. But until there is evidence to actually demonstrate and accept that, it would be irrational to go with the one guy....
You don't get a free pass. You'll have to go through the harsh scrutiny of science, just like every other idea in science has to do.
Surely you can understand that, especially for lay people, when there is a tiny minority saying X, while the consensus of the mainstream says "X is ridiculous", it would be irrational to go with X anyway, right? Right?
It took four years for General Relativity to be experimentally confirmed, if you leave aside the fact that it had already accounted for the anomalous orbit of Mercury. Special Relativity may have been ignored at first, but it took only until the following year before Max Planck's eyes fell upon it, and from then on it was generally accepted.
So when are we going to see your name up in lights, eh Michael?
What exactly makes them 'authorities' or 'experts' when they can't even name a single source of dark energy
Actually special relativity was published in 1905 so his beliefs were ignored for more than a decade by the mainstream.
I didn't demand "instant" acceptance.
Great that you are fighting to stand up for your ideas. I encourage everyone to do so.
But don't expect me to pay one iota of attention to your against-the-mainstream ideas until it becomes a mainstream idea...
Point being?
Exactly.
Einstein only became a public icon when his peers realised he was spot on.
Why do we attach the name Newton to gravity for example instead of alchemy?
The guy wrote a heck of a lot more about alchemy then gravity.
So here's a question for you......
What is the rational thing to do for lay-people?
To go with the mainstream of science?
Or to pick an outsider whose ideas go against the mainstream?
And if the latter, for some incomprehensible reason, how should lay-people pick and choose which against-the-mainstream idea they should run with?
At the risk of repeating myself, it took only until 1906 before Max Planck's eyes fell upon it.
Energy doesn't have a "source". Like matter it is one of the fundamental constituents of the universe.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?