Galaxy Zoo Talk

A crazy idea for the science team

  • PaulMetcalfe by PaulMetcalfe

    Hi,
    I am not a scientist, so you will probably shoot holes (big black ones) in what I am about to suggest and maybe it has even been considered already.

    It appears that black holes are at the centre of all galaxies and there is a vast space of emptiness (that we know) between galaxies, so I am making this suggestion on those two criteria.

    I postulate that if the stars and other matter started expanding from a point billions of years ago, then there would have been no galaxies but just a super clump of expanding gases and stars forming from those gases.

    Because they are in relative terms tightly packed at that stage, many of those stars and gas fields would coalesce throughout the clump forming super dense clumps (Black holes) within the larger clump.

    As they grow they become comparatively small black holes. Those black holes continue expanding out from the origin together with other stars and debris that is now being pulled toward the individual black holes – the galaxies we see now. The process of star creation would still continue in these galaxies but because the stars and debris around each black hole are less dense, other black holes may not be created in the galaxies.

    In other words the galaxies are no more than a continuing build-up of the black holes formed in the super dense clump which in my theory would account for the vast emptiness between galaxies.

    This would of course mean that at some future time there will be no galaxies but just black holes in a very dark universe. That could possibly result in the black holes then being attracted to each other and forming a super black hole that at some critical stage ‘explodes’ for want of a better description starting the whole process over again.

    Perhaps the dark matter that is thought to exist is the remnants of a universe or universes that existed before this one.

    Breaking it down, I believe that:-

    1/ Black holes formed from the coalescing of stars and gases in a dense star field way back in time.

    2/ Each black hole expanded away from the origin dragging other stars and gasses with them that are being sucked toward the black hole. These are the galaxies.

    3/ Eventually everything is sucked up by these black holes leaving no galaxies except the black hole itself.

    4/ With all the stars gone, the black holes MAY slowly be drawn together and form a super black hole.

    5/ For some reason that I cannot explain yet, the super black hole destroys itself and ejects the gases and matter that starts the process of universe creation all over again.

    Okay, you can stop laughing now – I did say I am not a scientist.

    Paul

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate

    Welcome to Galaxy Zoo.

    If you've classified galaxies here in GZ, then you are a scientist, PaulMetcalfe, a citizen scientist! 😄

    Did you know that several of your fellow citizen scientists are also (co-)authors of papers published in such prestigious scientific journals as MNRAS? And that some are members of various Zooniverse Science Teams?

    How interested are you in developing your idea? For example, would you consider learning about how astrophysicists model black holes, stars, dark matter, and gas, in galaxies and beyond?

    One thing scientists do with new ideas is try really hard to find ways to test them, by making predictions for example. How do you think your idea could be tested, scientifically?

    Hope this helps, and happy hunting! 😃

    Posted

  • PaulMetcalfe by PaulMetcalfe in response to JeanTate's comment.

    Hi Jean,

    Thanks for the reply but my old brain tends to forget things now rather than learn new stuff.

    However, I have no objections to any other party considering the idea if they wish to.

    The proof aspect of my theory would be nigh on impossible, although I believe circumstantial evidence could possibly be gathered if we can assume that our galaxy and very close galaxies are younger than those billions of light years away. I would not like to assume that because we do not know how close to the point of origin, if any, we are. If it is possible to determine how far galaxies are or might be from a point of origin then checking for loss of density of visual objects such as stars in those further away may help to prove the theory.

    Mission impossible is to test the furthest detected galaxies because we see them as they were billions of years ago. If we could see them as they are today then I think my theory could be proved or disproved immediately regardless of point of origin. I would see three immediate possibilities as to their ‘NOW’ appearance.

    1/ Galaxies with very few visible components could tend to prove the theory if all those distant galaxies showed a lesser density of stars etc.

    2/ Normal looking galaxies may tend to disprove my theory.

    3/ Vanished galaxies may tend to prove my theory if it could be established that it was now a black hole.

    As I said – Mission impossible.

    I believe the only long and painstaking investigation would be to try and establish how far galaxies are from a point of origin (Of course there may be more than one point of origin) and compare visible densities.

    This in itself would be complicated because a model would have to account for different types of galaxies and a high and a low density baseline when they formed and such things as merging of galaxies. It would not be impossible but probably a very unreliable data set to offer as proof.

    I suppose that the examination of the theory rather than proving or disproving it would require the following.

    1/ Establish that all galaxies do have a black hole at the centre.

    2/ Establish that the space between galaxies is comparatively empty. I might expect the occasional artefact such as stars, rocks, gases and black holes to be found in that space. This is because some of the initial clump may not have been dragged away by the forming black holes. Also, a black hole could form and drag very little other stuff away with it, thus consuming it very quickly.

    3/ Form a mathematical model to try and establish the distance and direction away from a point of origin of galaxies, including ours of course, to test the variance of galactic densities, if any, that might show the gobbling up of the visible structure.

    4/ Another course that could be explored would be to determine whether our galaxy is being consumed and estimate when it will be fully consumed. If a similar estimate was made for other galaxies it may show an estimated future when the galaxies disappear. To reverse engineer this to estimate a previous time when our and other galaxies may have been larger might be another ‘mission impossible’ but it could show that the galaxies are shrinking. Both of these may tend to show the possibility of the theory being correct.

    Anyway, I hope this may be of use to somebody.

    Paul

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate in response to PaulMetcalfe's comment.

    Thanks for the reply but my old brain tends to forget things now rather than learn new stuff.

    You're welcome. My old brain seems to work the same way, but I'm told that if I really try hard to learn new things, my brain won't give up on me quite so fast. Digging deeper into the science of galaxies sure seems to help!

    we do not know how close to the point of origin, if any, we are

    Your idea would be a very, very "hard sell". Why? Because it seems to require that General Relativity (GR) does not 'rule'. There is an extraordinary amount of hard evidence, of many different kinds, that the universe we see was once, ~13.4 billion years ago, very dense and very hot, with everything we see today just a very tiny distance apart.

    Establish that the space between galaxies is comparatively empty

    This has already been well-established (it's not all that empty). And for rich clusters of galaxies, it has been found that what's between galaxies has a mass that is many times that of what's in those galaxies. Zwicky was the first to report this, back in 1930 (I think), using a somewhat indirect method. Once x-ray telescopes in orbit around the Earth reported what they 'saw', at least one component of this massive IGM (intra-galactic medium) became clear: it's a diffuse, but very hot, plasma.

    If you haven't already read it, I recommend Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial; it gives a good overview of the relevant astrophysics, and is not too technical.

    Hope this helps, and happy hunting! 😃

    Posted

  • Budgieye by Budgieye moderator

    I think your cosmology has too much emphasis on black holes. The poor things get too responsibility for the destiny of the Universe. They make up only a small part of a galaxy, and don't suck all the stars in. They will all get further and further apart as the Universe expands. They will all eventually evaporate (if the Universe has a lifetime that long).

    It is fun to think of these things. Myself, I go for the "Dark Energy Turning the Universe Inside Out To Cause Universe Collapse And Continuous Creation of a New Big Bang" I'll have to think of a catchier title though. 😃

    Torus - Mobius from the https://www.facebook.com/TheResonanceProject/

    https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-euNQ8ZWF3aw/VwAKYwj8GNI/AAAAAAAABFI/F9Egpu74VEgwqwACl4oMmg_toKMbxlWqACCo/s255-Ic42/torus%2Bepic.gif

    Posted

  • PaulMetcalfe by PaulMetcalfe in response to JeanTate's comment.

    Jean,

    I must apologise if you thought I was saying that the things that it would be necessary to establish hadn’t been established by the scientific community. I was just listing them as what I considered essentials in investigating the idea I had put across.

    I think you cleared up ‘the how close we are to the point of origin’ bit but I do not see how I have ruled out GR (No need to explain that to me). I now understand that the universe formed ~13.4 billion years ago whereas I had heard that figure before and had mistakenly thought that was when our solar system formed (but I do only have a casual interest). But the mention that the origin was very dense and very hot and everything was close together is what I had already stated as a requirement at the start.

    To me, 13.4 billion years doesn’t seem very long ago for the age of the universe, so it in my mind has only just been created and therefore any consuming of stars etc. by black holes may be negligible for many more billions of years. Okay, that is only my uninformed opinion and not a blast at the science.

    Hey, it was a 'hard sell' to convince people the world is round but joking aside, it is only an idea with no science applied to it but what I would call plausible bare bones logic. Apply the science and the logic is not so logical. If there is any merit to the idea then I am sure that the scientific community will uncover it as more information is learned about this wondrous universe. It doesn’t really matter to me if this idea is a load of hog-wash.

    Your explanation of the mass of objects between galaxies I find most interesting. It still fits in with my criteria and in a way I do not find it surprising. Again this is only my uninformed opinion but I may find it easier to consider that dense non black-hole object/s could, at the point of origin, resist being dragged away by black holes if their distance apart was sufficient. Perhaps those could consist of material such as stars that never got dense enough to form black holes - failed black holes - Just a thought.

    This bit is not relevant to my subject but you mentioned this was detected in rich clusters of galaxies. It strikes me that the material between them may have been tugged away from the galaxies when they were closer together or possibly that material is still being tugged away. This I assume could mean that it can also be sucked in by the strongest galaxies in the cluster.

    I thank you for the recommendation of Ned Wright’s Cosmology Tutorial and will have a look at it. I am glad you said it was not too technical otherwise I would probably struggle deciphering the first word.

    Thank you very much again for your time and my main concern is that I haven’t wasted your time. Good luck with your study of galaxies.

    Paul

    Posted

  • PaulMetcalfe by PaulMetcalfe in response to Budgieye's comment.

    Hi Budgieye,

    I just thought I should say that the idea posted by me was about black holes and galaxies, so it is very strange to say that my cosmology has emphasis on black holes. If I talked about other subjects would that also be my cosmological influence – No, just a subject I wish to mention.

    I hope you take this in the friendly manner that it is intended but I only respect positive statements when the positive is known and not assumed. This does not mean that I do not respect your opinion.

    What I mean is:-

        **They make** up only a small part of a galaxy, and **don't** suck all the stars in.

    You could be right but I do not believe that has been proven yet.

        **They will** all get further and further apart as the Universe expands.

    I tend to agree this point but will not discount some unknown factor that may limit expansion.

        **They will** all eventually evaporate (if the Universe has a lifetime that long).

    I don’t believe enough is known about black holes or even the universe to know what has/is or will happen.

    I have heard so many people (not all scientists) that have made positive statements (usually a lot egotistical) only to be proved seriously wrong and ruin their credibility and sometimes careers. I am not saying that applies to you but just saying that is why I only accept the positive when it is proven or generally accepted with valid reservations.

    I agree that it is fun to think of these things and that is why I will occasionally forward an idea that can be accepted or rejected.

    The only way you can get an idea or theory known is to mention it and definitely not to worry if others don’t like it.

    All the Best
    Paul

    Posted

  • Budgieye by Budgieye moderator

    Serves me right for being lazy and not quoting my sources. 😃

    Galaxy formation and black holes are big topics of research, and scientists are in the process of developing models for the galaxies and the Universe and everything. 😃

    The Galaxy Zoo Team https://www.galaxyzoo.org/#/team Here are the real experts in black holes

    Brooke Simmons - Astronomer, CalTech?
    Supermassive black holes live in galaxies; the bigger the galaxy, the bigger the black hole. But, wait. Why should that be? Galaxies are huge, and even supermassive black holes are small by comparison. So how do they grow together? That's cool. Brooke studies that. Mostly.

    Meg Urry - Physicist, Yale University
    Works on supermassive black holes (growth history, unification, relativistic jets, blazars) and their interplay with galaxies. In her spare time, she writes for CNN.com and works to increase the participation of women and minorities in science.

    Here are the topics that the scientist of Galaxy Zoo publish: https://www.zooniverse.org/about/publications

    Some facts useful for us Galaxy Zooites are in the index to Talk

    3.7 Black holes and Super Massive Black Holes ( SMBH ) http://talk.galaxyzoo.org/#/boards/BGZ0000001/discussions/DGZ0000wrb?page=3&comment_id=53d8b91b0d43f77bb6000f96

       **They make** up only a small part of a galaxy, and **don't** suck all the stars in.

You could be right but I do not believe that has been proven yet.

    wikipedia is always good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole
    Thought experiments are good, Einstein did them, but they have to fit available data. If 10,000 astronomers agree on a fact about black holes, it should fit into your model, or at least until some new discovery makes us all change our ideas. And certainly, this might (and probably will!) happen.

    Blog: Black holes – why do galaxies care, anyway? January 28, 2010 by The Zooniverse http://blog.galaxyzoo.org/2010/01/28/black-holes-why-do-galaxies-care-anyway/ "at the centers of most, if not all galaxies, there is a supermassive black hole. We call these black holes “supermassive” to distinguish them from stellar mass black holes that were formed in the deaths of massive stars. These supermassive black hole can be as heavy as a million or even a billion solar masses....So you might think that these enormous black holes can wreak havoc in their host galaxies. However, galaxies are even bigger, much bigger than these black holes. In general, the black hole makes up about 0.1% of the mass of its host galaxy making really just a drop in the bucket....But why is the mass of the black hole always some fraction of the galaxy mass (or to be more precise, bulge mass)? How does the black hole even know how big the galaxy is? Why does the mass of the black hole correlate with the mass of the galaxy bulge (the M-sigma relation)?"

    Stars do not fall easily into a black hole. They have too much angular momentum, Instead most of their mass forms an accretion disk, and some of it gets thrown away as relativisitic jets.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk

     **They will** all get further and further apart as the Universe expands.
I tend to agree this point but will not discount some unknown factor that may limit expansion.

    Yep, lots to discover here.

      **They will** all eventually evaporate (if the Universe has a lifetime that long).
I don’t believe enough is known about black holes or even the universe to know what has/is or will happen.

    Yes, the presence of Hawking radiation hasn't been detected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
    But there are lots of impressive equations so hopefully Prof. Steven Hawking knows what he is talking about.

    😃

    Posted

  • PaulMetcalfe by PaulMetcalfe in response to Budgieye's comment.

    Hi Budgieye,

    Thank you for the links and eventually I will look at them all. I have looked at a couple so far and my initial post doesn't look so wayward anymore to me. As you will appreciate it would be very boring for everyone if I, with only casual interest was to post a very long item without the science base to explain precisely what I mean. I can only use simple language on subjects I know little about. However, I do hope I put things logically.

    By the way, I have no doubt that Steven Hawking does know what he is talking about and I also expect he keeps a very open mind on all he does. That to me makes a great scientist and I believe he will supply a greater understanding of the universe that will be difficult to equal for a long time.

    Thanks again for the links.

    Paul

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate

    @PaulMetcalfe I'm puzzled by this, hope you can clarify:

    the vast emptiness between galaxies

    In terms of relative distances, the emptiness between stars is far, far, far vaster. As a quick BOTE (back of the envelope) calculation shows this:

    • suppose stars are separated, on average by 1 light-year
    • suppose the size of the planetary system around an average star is 100 au (astronomical units)
    • suppose galaxies are separated, on average, by 500 kpc (kiloparsecs)
    • suppose an average galaxy is 25 kpc end-to-end

    Taking the last two, the 'distance between' vs the 'size' ratio is ~20.

    The first two are harder to directly compare, without looking up how many aus it takes to make a light-year, but it's easy to work out in your head (no matter how old and tired your brain is 😉): it takes light ~8 minutes to get from the Sun to us; that's 1 au. So 100 au is 800 light-minutes, which is barely a half light-day, so the 'distance between' vs the 'size' is ~700.

    Also, while the ISM (interstellar medium) is certainly denser than the IGM (though there may be some minor exceptions), in terms of mass, stars in galaxies greatly 'outweigh' the ISM. And even for SMBH (supermassive black holes) in galaxies, collectively the stars in those galaxies greatly 'outweigh' the SMBH.

    But why should the SMBH be so important anyway? After all, there are likely thousands of 'solar mass' BHs in most galaxies, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of them. What role, in your idea, do these BHs have in terms of "sucking in" stars etc?

    Finally, as Budgieye has pointed out, you seem to give SMBH some rather magical/mysterious properties, not found in stars, solar-mass BHs, or anything else; namely the ability to "suck" stars etc towards them. If this ability is simply gravity, then it should be fairly straight-forward to model a galaxy like ours, and work out how good the SMBH is at "sucking in" all its stars, right? If not gravity, then what? How would this new property work? How could it be detected and studied?

    Hope this helps and happy hunting! 😃

    Posted

  • PaulMetcalfe by PaulMetcalfe in response to JeanTate's comment.

    The first thing I must say is that this reply of yours seems to have adopted a hostile and sarcastic tone toward a member of the public that has simply offered an idea. I can handle that because I have never stated that the idea has scientific merit or that I can answer the scientific questions it would raise.

    If you are a member of the science team then a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no it is not’ worth considering would have been enough for me.

    In terms of relative distances, the emptiness between stars is far, far, far vaster. As a quick BOTE (back of the envelope) calculation shows this:

    Excuse me but I didn’t say it wasn’t. I was talking about the space between galaxies appearing to be empty and not the space between the contents of galaxies. It was a criterion that the idea was based on.

    but it's easy to work out in your head (no matter how old and tired your brain is

    Lots of figures mentioned by you and believe it or not I do understand them.
    If you are going to be catty then at least be correct – I said my old brain did not want to learn new stuff – not that it was tired. I do not see what relevance these figures have on the basic idea. They may become relevant IF I or anyone else was convinced that the basic idea was plausible.

    in terms of mass, stars in galaxies greatly 'outweigh' the ISM. And even for SMBH (supermassive black holes) in galaxies, collectively the stars in those galaxies greatly 'outweigh' the SMBH.

    I find nothing surprising with that and would expect that to be the general case. There is a big difference between the ‘weights’ as you put it of a single object and a greater weight divided among lots of other objects spread apart and preferably orbiting. To my simple mind that gives the single weightier object at the centre an advantage when it comes to control of motion. There are other factors but you mentioned ‘weight’ and I have answered that.

    But why should the SMBH be so important anyway? After all, there are likely thousands of 'solar mass' BHs in most galaxies, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of them. What role, in your idea, do these BHs have in terms of "sucking in" stars etc?

    If you are referring to Black holes that are in a galaxy but not the one at the centre, then they if my idea had any merit would be drawn in toward the central black hole (or whatever it is discovered to be) together with the rest of the galaxies components. They are not the immediate point of interest in the basic idea. The central Black hole is – as I had made clear. Any others orbiting it within a galaxy I would expect but not stubbornly state to be individually less ‘weighty’.

    Finally, as Budgieye has pointed out, you seem to give SMBH some rather magical/mysterious properties, not found in stars, solar-mass BHs, or anything else; namely the ability to "suck" stars etc towards them.

    No, I gave them no such definite abilities but suggested that they may suck (attract) stuff toward them and even into them. I am quite prepared to accept that if this definitely cannot happen then it won’t happen. Perhaps the better word would be ‘attraction’. I would be quite prepared to toy with the possibility that material could be attracted to the black hole without entering it. Even with that concept my assumed result of shrinking galaxies would be much the same but probably with a different outcome. I haven’t read the stuff on accretion yet but I believe that has something to do with stuff outside the black hole.

    If this ability is simply gravity, then it should be fairly straight-forward to model a galaxy like ours, and work out how good the SMBH is at "sucking in" all its stars, right?

    That sounds correct to me but the model would not be that simple to construct.

    If not gravity, then what? How would this new property work? How could it be detected and studied?

    I do like this bit.

    If I knew the answers to your questions and they are questions I would ask myself, do you think I would be on this board? Of course not, I would probably be an astrophysicist submitting a paper on it.

    Anyway, without any connection to this idea, you probably have many scientists working on other aspects of the universe that may answer those questions, if there are answers. I am not a scientist, just Joe public with an idea.

    Posted

  • ElisabethB by ElisabethB moderator

    PaulMetcalfe,

    For the record I find nothing hostile or sarcastic in the responses you have been getting. On the contrary both JeanTate and Budgieye have been extrmely helpful in answering questions and giving useful links so you yourself can check out if your ideas have any merit.

    Happy hunting !

    Posted

  • PaulMetcalfe by PaulMetcalfe in response to ElisabethB's comment.

    ElizabethB

    For the record, I did not say all the responses were hostile or sarcastic, just the last one from Jean Tate seemed that way.

    I haven't asked them any questions, but just tried to answer theirs although I do not have the scientific knowledge to give a good answer as I made clear from the start. I have also thanked both for the links.

    But seeing as I am naturally the villain, Apart from the first reply I do not recall getting thanked for my replies or even being greeted with a 'Hi there' or 'Hello Paul'. That doesn't worry me but good communication and reading what someone has written counts for a lot.

    I believe I have been excessively polite throughout and I will trouble your board no more.

    Paul

    Posted

  • Budgieye by Budgieye moderator

    Dear Paul Metcalfe,

    Hey, ye ken that we are all volunteers here, except for some scientists and administrators, We gave up some our day to help you learn about the Universe. Often posts are not as polished as they might be, because the potatoes are starting to boil dry. Sometimes posts appear colder than they really are, unless we sprinkle them liberally with 😉 or slang.

    Please feel free to post again. Or try a similar talk site http://nemesisrising.freeforums.org/portal.php

    Cheers
    Christine

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate

    Hi Paul, Budgieye, ElisabethB,

    First, apologies Paul if my posts have come across as unduly negative; that was never my intention. Having said that, I am a huge fan of new ideas in science, and also that all such ideas should vigorously tested and challenged. And to stress, I think the ideas should be challenged, not the person.

    Second, GZ - and the Zooniverse in general - is an online citizen science collaborative endeavor. That means that all four of us, and ~1.5 million others, are scientists. This has, I reckon, somewhat changed what we think about science and who scientists are. For example, did you know that both Budgieye and ElisabethB are members of the (Space Warps) Science Team, and have been for nearly four years' now (link)? And that both are authors of papers published in the peer-reviewed astronomy journal, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (MNRAS) (e.g. Küng+ 2015, More+ 2016)?

    Third, I think your ideas, Paul, may be tested, in part, by observations of the jets, lobes, etc associated with certain AGNs (active galactic nuclei), at the heart of which are the SMBHs central to your idea. An awful lot of these AGN seem to be the source of spectacular radio emission, sometimes many Mpc in size. How these jets, lobes and other features arise is a hot topic in astronomy; see, for example, the GZ blog posts How do black holes form jets?, and Making Radio Galaxies in a Computer.

    Which leads me to a plug for Galaxy Zoo: Radio (RGZ), a Zooniverse project over two years' old now. The tag line, which is a "lie to children" (black holes cannot "erupt"), is "In Search of Erupting Black Holes", followed by "Help astronomers discover supermassive black holes observed by the KG Jansky Very Large Array (NRAO) and the Australia Telescope Compact Array (CSIRO)". We ordinary zooites have already made several interesting discoveries in this field, for example as reported in Remarkable Discoveries Underway – Citizen Scientists fire up Radio Galaxy Zoo, and a draft paper already submitted to MNRAS (with two ordinary zooites as co-authors, see the RGZ Talk thread New RGZ Publication - Giant WAT).

    What new discoveries have yet to be made, by sharp-eyed volunteers clicking on radio-overlaid-on-IR images? 😃

    Best,

    JT

    Posted

  • zutopian by zutopian

    I believe I have been excessively polite throughout and I will trouble your board no more.

    Hi Paul,

    who said, that you troubled this board? 😃 I don't think, that you did!
    Budgieye, who is one of the moderators (as you might know), replied.:

    Please feel free to post again.

    Jean wrote.:

    First, apologies Paul if my posts have come across as unduly negative; that was never my intention.

    So you are welcome here!
    You might want to continue here and/or to discuss about your idea also in the Cosmoquest forum!
    http://cosmoquest.org/forum/
    I am not a member of that forum, but I visit it sometimes as a guest!
    The right place to discuss your idea might be the board "Against the Mainstream" in the CQ forum.:
    http://cosmoquest.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?17-Against-the-Mainstream&s=65cfaf0bf68c109531a29ef4df888f99

    Posted

  • PaulMetcalfe by PaulMetcalfe in response to JeanTate's comment.

    Hi Jean, Budgieye & ElizabethB

    Thank you for advising me of your post and you also have my apologies because I have been, and still am involved in some time-consuming research (not astronomy related) and took a couple of phrases the wrong way because my attention was really elsewhere.

    I totally take your point about challenging ideas although I prefer to say ‘keep accepted norms under surveillance’ as that keeps science moving forward and doesn’t tie one to a principle that may and probably will have room for modification. I suppose that new ideas do set out to challenge accepted scientific principals but in my case not to distract from them.

    Hey, I thought a light year, was how long my 100W light bulb was guaranteed for.

    I am not offering this up for debate (not yet anyway) but it would be interesting if the SMBH turned out to be something slightly or even completely different to what it is thought to be.

    I am trying to find a simple way of expressing this and hope you get a rough idea of what I mean. There is a rare phenomenon that some call a reverse rainbow that can occur with an ordinary rainbow but only when climatic conditions allow it. Essentially it is formed under the same climatic conditions as the rainbow; is the same shape and has the same colours but in reverse order – a reflection if you like.

    However it is not completely the same as the ordinary rainbow because it needs a little addition in the environment for it to show.

    That is probably not a brilliant example of similar looking things being completely different but I hope you get my drift.

    I did have a notion that Budgieye and ElizabethB and yourself are well into the subject and it is good to hear that you have published papers. I will look at all the links when I can spend some time on them. Hopefully, if all goes well, that will be in a month or two but I must keep my concentration on my present task - it would be silly now to blow several years work by getting distracted near the end.

    I think that the upcoming citizen scientists have lots of new technological advances to look forward to and the micro spaceships to Alpha Centaurii will probably (no, not probably – certainly will) open up whole new sources of research. More exciting times ahead and plenty still to discover now.

    Anyway thank you all again and I will try to visit the sites you have mentioned. I also wish you all the best in your research and hope you get more papers published.

    Paul

    Posted

  • JeanTate by JeanTate

    Hi Paul,

    Looking forward to seeing you over in RGZ, including on RGZ Talk, when you're free, and diving into creating and collecting data that might be used to test your idea! 😃

    Best,

    JT

    Posted