shmengie

On a side note... I apologize. I believe I've kept your attention. I have a reasonable understand of a lot of things. But many are provable and many not. I get it. You get it. We sorta agree but the lines between which is which is so totally unclear (to me at least) that it makes it hard to verify which is which and who believes which are which. Waaa. I think I get that. Hope you do.

Don't know if I lost you guys while I let my imagination run free, or not. -Sorry for that. There are so many questions I pose, some have been answered by Lambda-CDM many, I believe I agree with accepted, have not. But so many questions about so many precepts, makes it hard to agree to accept the full body of Lambda work. I had a personal struggle with the number of precepts and drawing a distinctive line between which might be solidified with evidence, and which may/may never be. Lambda starts on a nice clearly defined set of precepts and it's "accepted" evidence of which will never be observably validated. Only postulations derived at/after CMBR point of time can be observed and once proven goes to solidify the large body from start. -I don't know where any of that's stated clearly. Its my own personal view I've developed over time. I STILL need to verify my understand of the VARIABLE termed CONSTANT. I've not seen anyone address that or provide any agreement for nor against my understand, I've tried to lay out clearly and concise as my ability permits. The thread was locked. I postulated a prediction. Thread was unlocked. I posted postulated prediction. -- job done, thought it might never be provable, let my imagination run wild... DOH, I can clarify prediction. DOH, let my imagination run too free. QUACK. But I still want to see if I can work toward a way to verify prediction with presently "available data". Thought we needed a definitive wave ID to verify. But statistical analysis of variations of the CONSTANT over time might prove useful toward solidifying a postulation I've made that goes against the "accepted" don't know what DE. I postulate it's evidence of rate of Black Hole development over time. The existing data might align to my postulation to reality and show reason for variations. But it does go against any concept of current expansion, not previous. If I my understand of the cosmological constant is incorrect, it might still be possible. Dark Energy has been the root of the problem from the start, I think. I heard its origin was of unknown nature. I didn't like that. Don't like that. Started on a path to clarify it. Close now, to developing a postulation that could use existing data to verify. Need to know specifics. w/out having data readily available via internet, I'm asking ppl I suspect might have a better understanding of some issues of need for data I've ignored to date. To better understand the CONSTANT, one must have the data available for review. That's sorta been a problem from the start. Maybe google can help...

I've switched off topic to a degree from what I was arguing. I misstated what I meant to say. I switched of topic. - accurate. During the switch I went to speculation mode. - talking about speculations. Started thinking about my prediction. Which is pure speculation. I believe its right, but remains speculation. Everything else, can be wrong. Tried to keep it technically accurate... But speculation mode provides freedom of imagination which is an internal switch I usually don't voice to others. Want to switch to prediction mode tho. I don't know much about the cosmological constant. I believe it's use of the word constant is used due to a historical attachment to the constant idea. argh... Then thats the wrong rule. My bad. Hawking equated evaporation to one of the QM w3irdness rules. I don't remember which off the top of my head. Pauli was the first to come to mind. I didn't look it up to verify. My bad! I did want to ask if I'm correct in my understanding of the Cosmological constant. I believe it changes to a lower shift the further we look (time-distance). I don't know how much it fluctuates over what distances. Never looked that up. I got to thinking we need to witness a hole collapse to verify my claim. But if the cosmological variable becomes less integrated over distance.... That would correlate to a photon passing through wave boundaries as more holes have formed from when/where it started to it's final observation point in space and time. The further a photon travels the more hole collapse wave boundaries it passes the more it would be shifted. Don't need to know exactly when it happend just a good estimate of number of collapeses a photon has passed to to figure out how much effect it might have each new boundary it encounters. That's not going to be easy, but it would explain why there's difference in past / closer to present change in shift measurements. And would explain DE w/out waiting for another event to be witnessed. Hardest part is coming up with a good estimation of a count of boundaries. Do you know what the smallest distances are between meterable shift values are? Those would likely be the most accurate, which would help too... If we can locate a way to count holes who's distance from collapse time the photon would have to traverse and calculate the difference in shift to match that somehow, it would be an estimation of values I want to look for in other ways. I don't expect there's going to be a lot of change to account for any one hole, but I don't know all the details or postulations, to make a valid guess. Just guessing about guessing at the moment. LOL... Even if holes everywhere all collapsed at the same time it wouldn't affect one photon's journey or any series of varying distant photons journeys in a smooth line... It would change as each photon would encounter more boundries. Ones leaving later in time start out shifted more???? hmm.. don't know. could be.

Hawking may be smarter than me... I believe the information can get in, but I question making sense of it when it evaporates out. (not that I buy his argument in the first place. He bases his argument on QM which describes electromagnetic interactions between proton and electron balances where chemistry is useful at our mass pressure densities. Here light can affect an atomic particle. pauli exclusion principle counts when a photon quanta of light can change a mass location and exclude knowing both coordinate and integration factors at the same time. Not whatever atomic pressure mass density a black hole is. There we kinda doubt that exclusion works when mass wave densities differed so much the wave can't escape the mass... But that's just a guess.

I've switched off topic to a degree from what I was arguing. Had an internal conflict I started this thread to resolve. Once I came to grips with my conflict, I gave up arguing it. Tried to explain how I concluded (for myself) it was okay to accept beliefs different that the "mainstream". I like Lambda-CDM because all the science in it is accurate all the way up to CMBR, in my opinion. I've argued steady state vs. big bang, over and over again in my head, trying to see how they differed and how they're they same, why one choice was better than the other. Partly because steady state. When one modifies its definition to revolve around a problem Lambda-CDM kinda avoids. I refer to Steady State (my personal interpretation of SS) as one idea: Universe has no outside bounding edge. Seems to me Lambda-CDM requires an edge, or expects one and a lot of its principles require one. But it if it doesn't, it kinda leaves it out in the open, because there's no observable evidence except for CDM of CBMR. Which is a point in time that does equate to a visible edge of sorts. But doesn't qualify as a specific containing edge, other than to that of light. SS in general terms I think is referred to things have always been as they appear. But that rule is broken out of the gate because mass makes things move, every scale possible it seems. So what does steady mean??? I equate it to infinite in size for the universe no boundaries. But that has a purpose outside of the easier assumptions. For BB/LCDM to work, there must be multiverse properties of the universe, in my minds eye. Start at near or at 0 point size and expand. .... Expand into what??? A different verse of the multi verse? Stop at some point because the other verse applies pressure? I can't make sense of the start, stop (or continue at a different pace) w/out two verses struggling against one another, for reasons unknown. The infinite non-multiverse has a steady property, but its not mass. Doesn't lead to a multiverse question (or set of questions) I have no clue how to resolve. Seems Lambda-CDM kinda ignores that. But I don't know how other ppl contend with the multiple verse requirement for different aspects of what theory states we'll never be able to see. We just have to agree it worked that way, and never anticipate ever being able to view it.... It simply requires too many precepts for me to establish and hold true with out ever being able to confirm nor deny. The precept is handy when you can determine there is only one problem you cant observe evidence for.... When you start with a lot of precepts, you add to problems that can't quite ever be resolved by any chance of concrete visible evidence.... Especially when you agree to conclude.... Thats the way it is. But the general consensus is. No problem we'll do it. Done. There's a lot I don't like about Lambda. It starts with more precepts that don't need evidence, won't ever have evidence, don't care..... Based on visible evidence, Lambda matches theory with evidence well. But there's a finite line drawn between imagination that's proveable and one not. The provable part has to agree with visible. I get that, I rely on it. But when stuff in the visible end is effected by the non-visible end, NO DEAL, I can't agree. Everyone agrees the universe expanded. From what.... we just simply believe, no evidence. Any shred of evidence that suggests a change in size, means it's changing.... Therefore all non evident precepts are probably (or might some day be possibly) right. No not really but it causes the mentality of Dark Energy to need to exist and be something other that what it might actually be evidence for... Because all the other stuff needs to be right, based on a faith. Makes me feel like I'm arguing with god's own existence but god simply won't talk. Might as well carry the same discussion with a wall. Most ppl that bother to contemplate that stuff and rely on science know the precept use. But they also know science does every thing it can to avoid requiring FAITH in what cannot be proven. Lambda-CDM requires too much faith. People know it, but say its all science and choose to apply faith, often w/out realizing how many precepts require faith for the very beginning to be correct. Can't question it and ever expect to find evidence.... That's the definition of faith. precept aside... its' not science. its faith. Faith based on scientific principles... YES. But Faith nonetheless. So for me to use anything in Lambda. I had to make a distinction between what I could rely on and what I couldn't... What an apoplexy... After I made my prediction that the gravity wave from a nova collapse to a hole. I finally found evidence that would solidify my beliefs. Now it's just a matter of time before it comes true. Need to measure cosmological shift on either side of the wave.... Only problem is I don't have exact amounts of change to expect. Mostly because I don't know how much change in energy it takes to go from star to hole and how much gravity disappears or actually just changes shape into negative space and time. I think it changes center of mass from our side of infinity to negative space side of infinity. Its an artificial distance of sorts... I don't know how to compute because of imaginary number issues, and how to compute distance, if no coordinate system can make it relative to anything.... Still trying to figure out what I'm missing.... Besides a bridge between -+ on an imaginary boundary. But why bother.... LOL I don't know how to do math. Or should I say. I haven't figured out the math I need to invent. But now I have a reason. Quaternion math wouldn't work it's got more dimensions to cause issues. I listened to Doug argue he could combine QM and GR simply by using quaterions. LOL I didn't know he was wrong then. Now I do. I think he does too tho, now. He wouldn't come out and say it... Just ignored me when I asked.

Actually, the gist of it is my education isn't based on pop. I've watched the Mechanical Universe series broadcast on PBS, don't know when, Dr. David Goldstein did well IMO compiling all the facts, good presentation, boring if you're not really interested in learning. Its old, but most content hasn't changed since then. Pop only provides clues, you gotta weed 'em out from the dramatic spin they like to use. I only look for what I don't know or think I don't. Don't know if that makes any sense. I don't know how many times I've watched the Mechanical Universe in full, over the course of past decade, alot more than family and friends could bare. Trying to grasp all concepts contained therein w/out doing math. I get the the concept of tying them together, with math. I know how, but I'm slow, lacking practice. I know I've run off on a tangent of discussing the original thread. But studying too many subjects that are only tied together by reality, urges one to draw conclusions that others haven't made. Sensible or not. Blackhole is an atom, stretches my imagination to its limits. But its beyond known science AFAIK. But thought I'd toss it out, because I can't stop wondering about it. I believe the periodic table is limited in size by our pressure stable environment. Stars simply do not have such limitations as us.... Made me wonder of possibilities we cannot know. Pop-sci said Einstein was wrong when he said he was wrong. He's can't refute, because it's happened after his time. I had to find out for myself, what he'd have thought, because he cannot tell me or the world otherwise. I believe Einstein was right in the end, and others are wrong to state otherwise. But its hard to explain why. --- which is almost the only thing I believe I truly understand. But then... Pop sci doesn't state as a statement. They leave it hanging as suggestion, which is all it is. I forget the exact rule of Imaginary numbers. I've not practiced with them. But it comes from functions of math together with extra dimensions and one to many negatives == infinity (I think, can't remember). There's no clear rule which dimension gets the right - quality, so infinity is the solution. IMO its incorrect, but only reality decides a black hole can figure it out. How it works... I want to know. Pop-sci says maybe time reverses or worm hole is right. But what the math does that GR matches is provide a loop between two opposing infinities. Depending on which var go to which extreme. GR shows proportions and relates it to reality. More that one way to reach infinity. if BB realized that, it would have said it was both the start and the finish. We get to play only in the middle. GR doesn't say the universe can or can't expand and contract. Its coordinates are independent of that. That's my opinion... for now. I want to see what happens when infinity is not the solution but what the other side of the loop looks like. How could you ever prove that right or wrong. I want to know where you get your FACT. I know it can't happen on earth's pressure/density. But when a dark hole forms... I suspect.... a lot mass becomes one atom. Pure speculation tho. No method to prove conclusive one way or the other. Not yet anyway... GR won't help. Might hint, not help. This thread has for some reason given me courage to put in words, concepts I never though I'd voice. I've been thinking about this stuff for a long time. Took a long time before I could put GR into a thought experiment I could follow. I know Einstein did it, by reading / learning about him. But no one can show you the way, unless u can communicate in concept and math in words, numbers and symbols. I got the words and numbers down, some symbol and concepts to work on yet. I have most concepts. But matching them to other symbols is though for me. I have a hard time remembering ppls names. But I relate that to the symbol concept match. I can do it. But if I get 'em confused.... ARGH. I store concepts in my head differently than most, I only use word pictures concepts and no room for specific symbols??? I can draw in my imaginary math space, but I have to think of a way to make sense of the concept that doesn't match the symbols everyone else uses. Never though about it like that. Like I said, I can do the math, just takes me a while to cross reference symbols to words, to get it right. Need a practical application to force my self to do it... Imagining spac-time doesn't afford much practicality to the reality of it for me.

Could a black hole resolve into an atom at its current atomic weight? Seems like the wrong and right question to ask but never between shall reason might be sense.

GR suggests time slows as mass increases Periodic table suggests as weight increases atoms fall apart faster integrated across time w/relation to increase in atomic weight. Takes a lot of time for atoms to increase a little weight at a time.... 1 atom having weight of a black hole makes some and no sense at all. Especially at our point mass pressure time ratio limits. It's off topic from the start of this thread by a few light years in distance. I've been wondering if 1 light year is the a conceptual time of such an atoms circumference for a while... But have no idea how to postulate the right questions to ask, or if there is even one in the first place.

You guys ridiculed me for using pop-sci as a source of information. I've concluded you are right. Because they stated GR doesn't address the problem of expansion. I boiled it down to DE is simply a problem GR doesn't address as a problem, for sake of simplicity it avoids it from the start. When one confuses concepts that aren't intended to be mixed in the first place, its easy to draw a confusing conclusion. Pop-sci taught me that. All I can say. pressure mass, mass combination, rate of change totally avoided by GR. It seems that simple to me. GR doesn't address these and other issues of Lambda-CDM by design, and for simplicity sake. Confusing it to mean otherwise... Easy to do, hard to get. I'm still trying to grasp which concepts need to be segregated and why. Not because it's easy, because its hard. There's so many concepts involved, the fact that many overlap is the consequence of nature, makes it really hard to simplify. I like Lambda-CDM for what it does. Tries to make sense of it all. In all sense of other words. I would pose a seemingly related question. What would the consequences of one atom having an atomic weight of 136 million solar masses (1.36 × 108) GR says nothing about number of atomic items per point mass weight. Only weight of gravity and point has relevance, according to GR. In postulation, I believe a pre - supernova star isn't limited to such concept, but I don't know how to tie all the concepts together to base a theory. I don't know if such concept has basis for any plausibility. A guestion of plausibility I have no idea how to resolve. Seems either way you look at it infinity is a solution according to GR, that I believe is wrong. That's something I'd like to explore, not that I have much clue how to do w/out enough clues for maths problems with problems.

I'm trying to simply my formula with concept. You're right, it's not all just math. Reality comes into the equation from a different angle. Matching math is a monumental problem. I don't seek to address in its entirety. Pop-sci said inflation is a problem GR doesn't address because there's a light shift that it doesn't explain. I've simplified it in my head to this. GR doesn't explain it, nor does it try to. Big mistakes happen when you try to prove otherwise. Einstein admitted he tried and realized. Explaining is another story... Its not a mistake to try... Seems like we all want to. But its hard to realize why (or so it seems). Ive been trying to figure it out for a while, conceptually, I thing I got it (finally). To make it relatively simple. GR doesn't calculate starting mass nor ending mass amount, that's part of the problem with relating GR to universal size. It avoids it by means of an independence to coordinate systems. GR only relates gravity to points in space and time. mass size/density don't enter the equation either. It's avoided by the concept of the point association with them. So many concepts are so easily mixed together because they share similar properties it's hard to avoid conclusion they mean the same concept. Took me a long time to realize what it all means to me, and why GR is so simple and its reasons, what it avoids and what it doesn't and how it all relates. I'm slow, but I think I've finally cracked.

Well... I'm trying to simplify the need for an acceleration equation so I can understand it in the first place. We don't know what rate black holes and/or mass started forming, have formed or continue to form. This could be what it describes... We may never know... We need some kind of reason to either think it's a problem we understand or make it a problem we can't. Thats the best I can do.

Thanks!!! I might never have realized if you hadn't pointed it out. GR makes 2 allowances for light shift in the math and explains them via prediction. That's all. Only way to add a third and conclude expansion is to change GR. That's not what I set out to prove to myself. It's the only conclusion I can make from its simplicity. DE is an extension to GR w/out proving it. That's the problem that's not a problem IMO, because I've shown to myself, if not anyone else it all leads back to the singularity infinity issue. Mordred explains pressure and density don't compute w/size of it all. The only answer I can provide is ignorance due to limits of practical application of pressure and densities on the atomic scale. We can't come close to conceptualizing the pressure and density of an atomic weight @ 1000 no where near infinity. But there could be a pressure and density we can't whiteness that it could compute, but it's well beyond pressure and density our practices are limited to. Hydrogen starts around an atomic weight of 1. no matter is 0. Periodic chart is limited to about 135 (too many small numbers for me to remember 'em all I have a few key numbers memorized). I think the atomic limit of practical practice is ~ 500... Because the neutron proton aren't directly proportionate in increase on a log scale, I don't have it memorized either. QM and chemistry is electron proton balances, make a difference. Neutron's are more or less ignored. But weight and size MATTERs and go together to some w3ird valiance shell algorithm. GR doesn't take any of that into account, so the singularity solution problem is/isn't a problem and pressure mass is completely ignored by GR. (it's too simple for any of that), partly why it's beautiful and kinda a consequence of it. GR doesn't tie mass weight size ratio together.. QM does. two different problems two different solutions. All mass in GR is defined by COM as more or less point in this fashion to afford simplicity and causes a singularity issue that does not compute when QM and GR come together because they don't address the same issues at all. Like I said, I've changed everything and nothing all at once.... Mostly for myself. If any of it makes sense to you, GREAT!!! You helped me do it.

It's a curious note you make... I've been working toward understanding relativity for a long time. You've told me I don't believe in GR because I don't believe in Lambda-CDM. By order of development and basis of fact that breaks all logic. Lambda-CDM is based on GR, Belief in GR may continue independent of belief in Lambda-CDM. GR is so simple it's tremendously complex. Einstein provided only two predictions for light shift. The only place to break his rules is at the infinity of the singularity. In order to explain a cosmological shift, it's hard to conceive that its simply not possible to do it anywhere else based on the way the math works and the only point it breaks. A new rule for shift would have to be explained in GR to change the way the math works. I'm still trying to cope with that fact, because I know I understand it. I've hinted around at it, but Lambda-CDM has a basis for a start at the singularity because of infinity. But because the way the tool of math is applied to the simple rules of GR. So many other rules have been based on it because the rules of GR keep holding true, evidence by nature. But because Lambda-CDM suggests another shift in light. One must modify the way GR works or add a new rule to add a 3rd shift. Any other conclusion requires breaking the exiting simplicity of GR and/or changing the tools of math. The problem is a singular one, of infinity at the singularity point. -- I'm still trying to understand how Einstein came up with so few simple rules that inevitable work this way. Its so simple its incomprehensibly complex to me. I don't think he intended for GR to break at the singular point. I see it as a problem of our inability to deal with changing -+ rules of math that cannot cope... part of the reason we call imaginary numbers imaginary in the first place. But I've not begun the task that must ensue to solve the problem of infinity and GR. I'm slow, I know it. I heard GR was magical a long time ago. Been working on coming to terms of what that means slowly. I have to analyze too much, to believe I understand. I get that completely! It has to do with the sheer scale of the periodic table and what happens when the valence count reaches anything that might be considered a large number. It doesn't. Not because theoretically it couldn't... But making sense of pressures and where valence shells could increase further than the short list availed to the periodic chart is outside all physical possible experimental requirements for us to see what happens. I cannot help you with your ignorance, nor my own to much extent. All I can do is call notice for reason of ignorance that exist. Explaining why the unknown exists is easy compared to resolving unknowns that exists because the unknowns exist. I gave mordred something to contemplate, I suspect... I got his point about pressures and densities quickly. But I already knew there's much I don't know about that and ruled it out of my thought processes for a reason. Took a while for the reason to return. We don't know if there's any theoretical limit to valence levels. These change pressure and density equations dramatically with only the few changes we think we understand, with a small number (relatively speaking) of valence levels. It's what makes chemistry and electronics so complex and QM such a different field from GR. But we only know a little about it because our experience with pressure and densities of theoretical capacity are limited to what we might experience at our limits. In other words singularities probably don't have these same limitations, doesn't help we that can't observe them in more detail. GR, in a way, eludes to it with the infinity problem. Einstein was right when he said he was wrong. That's all I really need to know, for myself. Pop-sci called it into question. I had to figure out why. Took me only ~ 3 years. LOL Sounds philosophical to me. Subject I really would like to avoid, but seems it cannot be, given the nature of the topics that inevitably arise.

Your trying to tie principles of thermodynamics as you understand them to the principles of General Relativity in ways that don't compute due to lack of grasping methods they don't compute together. We possess too much ignorance to tie the two together in any meaningfully reliable way. GR is beautiful because its so simple. It's unfortunate that we cannot tie it with Quantum Mechanics and all branches of physics from which stem from it, ie thermodynamics. Part of the problem is that they address two different solutions to address two different sets of problems. Where we possess ignorance in thermodynamics is in a realm of imaginary particles and in essence a set of imaginary valence shells. We have no experience with particles with atomic weights only imaginary. Not because theoretically the might exist. But that their half-lives are so short after supernova episode from which they were released they simply would not exist now, their half-lives are to short, its too late to ever find them naturally occurring. Theoretically there is so much difference between where they're made the conditions are so different from anything we can know, it's hard to make up what we would need experience testing in a reality that cannot coincide. Our periodic table is evidence of sorts of these problems. The heavier an atom is the higher its atomic weight. After lead which is fairly low on the periodic table, there's many unstable elements. Lead is the last of the stable. Anything heavier has a much shorter half life. It's not a direct relationship in size, because valence level increase don't quite match on a straight one to one scale, but the more levels needed the shorter the half life does have correlation to this fact. I'm no expert on QM or thermo, I'm only amateur. But I get around a lot. Anyway, we can imagine much heavier but we cannot produce enough pressure and time changing properties to even pretend we have a clue what really happens in stars billions upon billions of times more massive than the sun. We have no rules for matter in the field of thermodynamics to even become to guess how an atom of atomic weight might behave with a weight of 1000. Let alone if atoms of 1,000,000,000 or more are possible in such super massive stars. Iron's way lower on the scale and presumed to be star destruction weight. But many others exist... and our ignorance is too abundant to make guesses at stuff we can't quite even guess how might behave in pressures difficult to comprehend. No, we're kinda limited to GR and its beauty of not locking time, gravity and distance in simplicity. With GR the universe can be any size and change any time it wants. But its so simple in its rules you cannot change the amount of mass and adjust size w/out creating a new rule for divorcing some aspect of GR.... except in the black hole we don't understand. In order for light shift to occur, you have to change time, gravity and distance together. It's only mathematically possible to do at the point of infinity which is at the hole. The way GR works the universe could expand and contract any way it wants w/out breaking GR. Its a flaw of sorts. But conceptually its hard to imagine. if you add shift that's not explained by adding a new rule to GR, it doesn't work with the math at all. You need a new rule. cosmic light shift is a rule w/out a reason. Its associated with an expansion that doesn't theoretically exist. It just seems that way. I'm working toward understanding it all. HEHE, I'd like to be able to tie GR & QM together. But by design they exist to solve different problems. Its not really logical to tie them together. Oh... By atomic weight and ignorance... If a star can be a billion (or some odd factor greater) than that of our sun how can we even imagine what the atomic weight nearing an atom made up of the number of atoms that is our sun? Is a singularity an atom of atomic weight mass of a Schwarzschild radius ? The numbers get so big in cosmic scales, its hard to comprehend what the possibilities might be, or where or ignorance even begins. I've tied QM & GR together in two ways. One is a common denominator in ignorance. The other is that its illogical to tie the together in the first place. But points of ignorance both lie with in numbers growing too big for us to be able to make sense out of either. - problem w/ignorance is its hard to know what you do not know. If the tie lies in what you don't, how do you make a missing connection or even suspect it might exist.

Well... I'm trying not to argue. I'm content w/my decision. Seems you have issues with that. My flawed belief has no effect on you, nor what you believe, so I don't quite understand. I have a reasonable understand of the models. I see one flaw. I can't prove it. I've dealt my issues with it. I can do the math, I can't see how proving cosmic shift changes anything except a consensus that obviously likes thinking different. When I ended up the only change needed was to rephrase one question w/out changing its underlying meaning, I determined everything and nothing were close enough the the same. Depending on small psychological distinction that really only matters to me. That's assuming the same the same density of mass is equal everywhere we can see. What we do not know the exact solution according to GR / Infinite ignorance, is what space-time looks like on the other side of infinity. I get my thesis could be wrong. But it's revealed an accepted ignorant infinity which could be so the cause of confusion. Until this ignorance is resolved, I cannot argue any other point. I find it ironic that anyone would argue against the idea in the first place, esp. since the beginning of the conclusion of expansion started from exactly the point of singularity and ignorance of infinity being exactly the wrong answer. I guess I dug at the point of singularity too much and hit your nerve. But it seems like I have a new investigation to begin, because its not just my ignorance that does bother me, but there's a specific ignorance that needs to be clarified regardless of what I believe. Guess you didn't get my point. The crackpot refusing to start on a point of error must not always necessarily be cracked.

it's all good. I've never argued me being a crackpot is a poor assessment. I've found it useful to contemplate the idea, myself. Tho I also find it convenient to think I believe differently that the general consensus on other topics as well....

While one might argue I don't know what you're saying. I believe I understand exactly. I think my questioning a question had an unexpected result (or several). Since nobody seems to believe matter contraction matters because all mass still has essentially the same amount of gravity, regardless of organization. I'm implying I'm right while suggesting I understand could be wrong for a reason. Because it looks like space is expanding and everyone agrees. But if it looks like it's stretching and nobody agrees its the same (except me, myself and I).... If hole formation causes SN event. What's happening at the time of formation that might be different that what we "think" we know. Too many unknowns to rule out the holes... If the infinity is preventing conceptual visualization, I'm going to find a way around that issue. I want to have my uneducated guess more educated. I see a simple solution tho I've not investigated how wrong this statement most definitely is.

Since I have decided to "know" I'm right... I've decided future work (if anyone but me would call it that) will focus on the dark holes. I really want to know why GR breaks at one single point when I think it shouldn't because of observational evidence. I don't think I can invent a new math, but if I can debug an old one, its a whole hole lot more changing of nothing with an everything implications.

But there's still a lot about dark holes we don't know. If formation of holes provides evidence I'm right. Great!!!! Hope the evidence prevails while I'm alive. I've made a decision that is only important to me. I'll probably finish my paper, if I'm permitted time. Its acceptable to me that I may be wrong. I'm tired of arguing with the accepted "right" choice. Since in the end I do change nothing even if I must change everything...

There in lies my problem with changing nothing and everything. The pillar I chose to fight was redshift and its hubble like meaning. I concluded by way of reason that contracting mass by the way bodies forming from a universal homogeneous cloud of gas reorganizes the field of gravity in such a way that the effects of the field of gravity are lessened everywhere void of mass that has contracted. It's a logical conclusion which requires a lot of numbers in geodesic equations to make sense. But depending on how you phrase one question which happens to be a pillar of some sort. Two meanings can be suggested two have different consequences and mean the same thing. Except one may imply explaining a curious hole and the implies explaining a curious edge to things. Neither requires totally exclusivity of the other, unfortunately or not. BB requires an unobservant and required expansion. A change in expansion rate is not required but likely expected. It wasn't likely to be in the same direction because of the force of gravity. Infact Lambda-CDM had to change course when cosmological redshift implied the opposite. But that's how things evolve. I'm saying cosmological redshift does not HAVE to me it's still going in the same direction if one only realizes its the appearance of stretch is probably caused by a hole (or a lot of 'em really). The fact that the cosmological constant isn't actually a constant might be due to the rate of change or more likely the increase in number of holes. The rate of hole formation is not likely ever to be determined. But when the first were, might resemble some new distant past / pending future observation. I know I'm pushing philosophical boundaries. Not necessarily my intention at all. But there's a lot we don't know about black holes. Partly because we can't physically see them. The infinity I mentioned earlier is another piece. I want to know what a black hole looks like on the other side of the infinity issue. I suspect the formation of black holes might be why there's a stretching appearance to the expanse of space. I've concluded I can only predict what my postulation implies. If I'm right!!!!!!!!!!! It may be only detection of the wave from a hole collapse that will be proof. I don't know if IAMRIGHT the amount would make a significant enough change to detect. For if IAMRIGHT there are a lot of holes that all make only a very tiny change.... No mater if it matters or not. It might require a much higher precision in determination of cosmological shift before it would ever likely be discernible at all. Which leads back to me questioning my self all over again. As it stands I'm already pushing it w/myself in choosing to believe different than that of the general accepted consensus.

RE: worm statement Or to come right out and state it. My thesis does match geodesic equations w/out changing what's excepted and does match the paper. There's only one difference how you view the meaning of cosmological redshift and how YOU read the paper. Because the only difference you make in the distinction is has a lot to do with the idea the universe is expanding verses the fact that the universe does not have to expand IF space-time is stretching toward regions of mass contraction. Everyone concludes because: it looks like space is expanding because of cosmological redshift universal size change is not required it appears as if it looks like space is stretching because of cosmological redshift is gravity field changes by means of mass contraction. stretch and expand are basically the same. one suggests and expansion. My conclusion is that it looks like space-time is stretching, the cause of stretch is mass contracting toward focus of contraction. A black hole is the end result and cause of redshift. w/out expansion being necessary. Argh, I'm entering my loop of describing what seems like clear logic (to me). I'm not saying gravity is a fabric. I was relating the force of the field of gravity to having fabric like qualities. The field of gravity is what presents space-time time coordinates fabric like qualities. I'm trying to say I agree w/what u said.

I know how to locate a mathematical model that would serve to be used as evidence of proof, except that in order to use it, as such I would have to do 2 things I cannot. I've mentioned: determine values that would have to be approximated, through the fact there is no one valid measure for the amounts of mass nor specific size of the Universe. I cannot change that and it would be necessary to have reliable values or approximations for both to trust the end result. would also have to argue there is a flaw in the Lambda-CDM and methodology in the fashion a mathematical construct was created and is used to derive its meaning in opposition to the use of the whole idea that the universe is expanding. There are many reasons to use other peoples work, even if they are used in a different fashion that originally intended. The consequences of my methodology in deriving my thesis in the fashion I had, was not apparently abundantly obvious when I first ventured down that path. I didn't think I'd formulate a solution, even tho I had fun trying. But once I conceived a plausible scenario which seems to have not been previously explored I though I made a discovery. I already knew I questioned a pillar. Its one thing to question a silly question. But the magnitude of such choice isn't readily apparent until a conclusion is drawn in opposition to and directly correlates to the silliness of choice of question in such fashion and magnitude of the question in the first place. It presented quite a dilemma for me. In philosophically, justification and hope of proof. Now I've been considering running the math backward in effort to find some use in what otherwise seems a useless conclusion. Seems that challenging the pillar, I need new evidence that's not presently available. I've tried to devise a method to determine it with existing evidence, but it looks like I have to wait for natures course to run it's predetermined evolutionary path. My prediction's validity currently seems to rely on the fact that the gravity wave will change a measurable change in cosmological shift. A formula may be constructed to determine magnitude of change based on the size of a resulting singularity after collapse. A correlation I've only now deduced might be possible. But it depends on so many unknowns I'd have to resolve to potential possibilities and constructing new equations to show this artifact I don't even know exists in the first place... I haven't started but it seems like I've found a focal point to begin a new area of investigation. The point of which, would be negated if I couldn't believe my thesis is true. I've justified that belief in myself. When going against the accepted principles, w/out agreement, one does what one must to afford justification. A Trivial point; Did you know: BB began at a point of singularity because GR hit infinity at point of singularity. A conundrum I've not resolved, because GR may only reach an infinity at such point because of a limitation of using Imaginary numbers and resolving + and - state infinity is the conclusion, not necessarily the correct answer. Black holes, according to observation are not a point of finite singularity size because we cannot see them, or that's the way the math works. They vary in mass even tho they're still called singularities in some cases. But infinity is apparently the wrong answer. HOWEVER, BB and Lambda-CDM both start there because of this error in tool of choice. It all seems so highly ironic to me, go figure! I could be wrong, but sometimes I choose to think I'm not. At present, according to accepted beliefs, a singularity does not resolve to an exact size but the beginning is based on a an accepted yet unreasonably exact error of the singularity belief that continues to evolve beyond that point... I believe in Lambda-CDM because it's based on science. But the science is based on an exacting point of indefinable error. I'm beginning to believe philosophy and science don't get along all that well. But philosophy is a science and should it choose to divorce itself would loose any respect, it might hope to gain, in making such choice. I hope you get my POINT. I can pose a question I've not investigated about GR and it has some relation to my paper and my philosophy and reasons I don't look for another's conclusion. During my course of education I struck myself with a curious realization. I don't believe Professor Einstein ever stated that space-time has the distinction of space having any properties of a fabric like quality. Space expanding suggests frequency of light is affected a fabric like property of space that I don't believe GR intended to imply by using the term space-time it has the connotation that it does imply it might. The rules of GR suggest the space term is to be used space-time space is used to indicate coordinate relation to gravity, not fabric. I don't know if what I'm hinting at makes any sense or if I'm trying to change meanings of what I've almost come to grips with understanding. GR tied the field of gravity to the term of space-time with and without specifically requiring a fabric quality. My confusion stems from deciding at one point during my investigations it might make a difference. I understand that may sound confusing or that it is confusing because I don't know how to make it sound right. In GR the field of gravity in essence is what ties space and time together to make space-time The fact that it has fabric like properties in relation to its effect on light is why the predictions of gravity and redshift make sense according to the theory. If Dark Energy is a new/undetermined reason for space to have a fabric like quality w/out rules of GR, I understand why ppl have tried to divorce doppler effect from cosmological redshift, but where does the fabric like quality come from. One paper so far tries to tie gravity shift to it, but I've not fully investigated the meaning intended from what it states and the question I pose. In other words I'm posing a question w/out re-reading the paper; again and again.... Just to see if I'm on the right/wrong track. don't want to re-open a can of worms.

I'm saying I haven't run the numbers. I never said I cannot. But have eluded to the fact merely because I haven't. I have trust in science that when someone does, others will verify and rely on peer review for validation and verification. I don't have immediate access to the numbers, so instead of charging myself with completing the task, I haven't bothered to do so. It's not entirely necessary that one repeats an exercise that others do, to grasp concepts therein. Tho it often helps to achieve the desired result. I don't know any specifics of DE, I've never bothered to study it from that angle. Probably never will, changing everything while changing nothing seems a pointless exercise, I only dabble in it a little. I have been a little preoccupied with it lately... I think I've breached MY impasse. I only wanted to know what caused DE, seems pop-sci has an effect. Once I concluded its nature, I felt a little lonely believing I was the only one who knew. I've tried to share my work, so that you or any others might appreciate it for what its worth. But there's a strange belief here that SEEMS to go against one of my core philosophies. Question everything until a viable solution can be presented. I did that, but I had an apoplexy in that I couldn't prove one way or another that I was right. I've finally concluded that evidence of my resolute beliefs will likely be present in analysis of data as I have stated. It seems remote but I think it's likely it will be evidenced only on two different sides of a gravity way caused by black hole formation. Even tho it has happened in recent past the Dark Energy postulation and analysis hadn't happened at that point in time and I believe that time to collect such data has past w/out even gathering such data in time to make validate such prediction. It will happen again. Tho not likely in my lifetime. Because this may occur w/out need for proof of my thesis or consequently irregardless of it, I don't have to prove anything. Simply let nature do what it does, evolve. I stated I cannot run the numbers to prove my thesis. It is true. Not because cannot perform the exercise, but I have no clue how to gather correct and finite numbers which other than what would only represent guess by approximation, my proof would only result in the same Cosmological constant or some approximation thereof which proves nothing toward concluding a change in beliefs. Once I realized that I could predict a change might prove evident, I know what will provide conclusive proof... My main issue of changing others belief is a non issue... Or changing everything has little consequence on the nothing of DE. For a while I thought there wouldn't ever be evidence. I surely don't know black hole formation will provide any evidence either way.... But I have a reason to be confident it will. It's given me something else to work on, but I don't think that's going to be a problem. I want rid GR of an infinity now. I don't know how to do it yet, nor if its possible. Neither are pertinent to search, its just something else to do, while I wait for evidence that may/may not ever exist. I've formulated my predictions as best I can. Right or Wrong aren't so important anymore, I have something else to concern myself with.... All of which only matters to me. Been curious what the inside of a black hole looks like for a long time. Now I have a new goal and a reason to dismiss pertinence of the old. I'll simply move on... Just like the evolution of knowledge (changes everything and in the end... nothing) I too, will do the same (at my own pace tho, not that anyone can argue with evolution LOL). Phi you can lock this thread (again) if you wish, anytime you deem prudent or not... I'm content at the moment, tho if I think of another prediction... I might request it be unlocked again. Hopefully I'll get published. Kinda doubtful. Others seem to require finite calculations performed, as evidence, a little more than I. Wish I could conceive a calculation that would be proof. I feel a need to understand what a black hole/singularity might look like and how it relates to Schwarzschild radius. It's all theoretically possible, in theory at least. Ado! Philosophy mode ON: I think in logical terms a lot. It's a consequence of my chosen profession or my profession was chosen because if it. I don't know which... When I challenged one precept of BB, an apoplexy ensued. A lot of Lambda-CDM principles depend on a large number of precepts which have evolved into a varying yet remain a large number of precept requirements to hold true. However it is also true that it evolves (according to scientific principle) with the observations that are used to solidify and support choice of precept and solidifying or nullifying them as additional evidence may afford. I chose to examine what's been termed a pillar. I have the right, by way of it being a personal choice to choose to do so, should I wish. I change nothing, unless I can prove it to be a correct choice (to thy self) and justify such choice if needed and necessary. Choosing a pillar such as cosmic redshift, might seem a wrong choice to some, doesn't matter it was a personal choice and I stuck with it. Tried many times to determine if it was plausible to falsify the accepted belief redshift means the universe is expanding. Gave me a reason to think about something that differs from the accepted consensus while learning what all it does mean while doing so. Reason to study... If everything about Lambda-CDM is correct, why bother learning it in the first place. Nothing changes. But stating nothing changes, prevents the concept of progress to happen in the first place. Everything changes, even when we don't want change, often we can't prevent it from happening. Entropy and evolution seen to go hand in hand, so to speak, what one wants often has little effect, but when what one wants coincides with what is possible, choices can be made to change direction of some entropy and/or evolution. Finding the differences.... amount to personal choices. I've come to believe cosmic redshift means the Universe looks like its stretching. By only rephrasing the question to have basically the same meaning I can justify my conclusion and not change Lambda-CDM as a whole. Effectively I haven't changed the pillar I've challenged, but found a reason to be able to accept it. I didn't want to break the camel. But the gravity of the situation evolved into me believing I had to. I've skirted this issue by coming to terms with what that all means. Lambda-CDM will evolve, regardless of what I might think is right or wrong. Its still held to scientific standards of matching evidence to theory as best we can. When new evidence becomes available Lambda-CDM has and will adjust only whats needed to make sense of any discrepancies the new evidence might require. Strange was right when he said it didn't matter what I want, the Universe doesn't really care. I agree. Neither does Lambda-CDM but that's the same story depending on your views of what it all means. Lambda-CDM is a curiosity to me. Precept is its basis for its existence and it uses them, in truth to the fullest extent necessary to be what it has become. It doesn't change the nature of the precept, it happens to be a consequence of that device. When one chooses to argue with Lambda-CDM and acceptance, one chooses a difficult argument to justify, with a whole lot of precepts that only to serve to add more complexity to any and every possibility of a possible decisive conclusion. Is there a running count of indefinable precepts in Lambda-CDM. (Question posed in form of statement (ends in a period) to exclaim it rhetorical nature. Philosophy mode off Prediction mode on I mentioned Evolution. I'd like to see change in BB and SS. I think it would be prudent to have a nice well defined shiny new theory to calm disputes between SS & BB and and clarify similarities between the two and leave room for less precept and more decisive distinction between what is science in Lambda-CDM and BB. As best I can fathom. Any and all precepts that lie before CBMR lie in the realm of forever/never being able to verify or witness and verify. Seems Lambda-CDM and CMBR when combined are the theoretical limit of sight by way of definitions established and predicted a line is drawn between what can be witnessed and verified and what cannot. I'd like to predict my postulation will produce such a theory, but I find it highly unlikely because what I want and think are very dependent on agreement of others and I don't have the will necessary to make such arguments plausible. Instead, I'm going to stick to the other thesis. For a while longer yet, anyway. Seems I've not finished formulating my prediction. There are many, many, many different aspects one must consider to clearly define a valid future prediction w/out knowing all evidence that is available to qualify it as such.

I will attempt in brief to reverberate and/or reformulate my prediction, so that I may be afforded another timestamp associated with it, in digital terms of Internet forum discussion and presentation. On this board I first posted it's first formulation in a different thread (a basic search should find "matter contracts" (or similar) the first thread I started on scienceforums.net (trying to keep it all straight in my head w/out verifying)). I later reformulated it and posted links in this thread to that posting on thenakedscientist.com with recent links presented in this thread. According to the large body of Lambda-CDM research and human cosmological observation and Dark Matter is theorized to be large proportion of Energy not clearly defined. A quick synapses of a few key points of my thesis seem prudent: Matter condenses over time fluctuating the field of gravity. Contemplating mass aggregation led me to a determine its significance is dismissed by the accepted body of Lambda-CDM. Thought experiments I discerned based in development of my understanding of Lambda-CDM, I've identified flaws in reasoning that may need to be addressed. However, that is outside the scope of synapse, its prudent to note. By means of logic, I have deduced that black hole formation and/or additional mass accretion into the phenomena believed to be a black hole may produce a pronounced cause. I suspicion further it may likely be most pronounced at black hole formation time. This may prove to develop into another prediction or cited as such now. The force of gravity has effect on light, witnessed and verified on Earth by two differing predictions of the "Theory of General Relativity" (GR) Evolution of the Universe is a process we believe is and has happened through the course of time of approximately 14 billion years (according Lambda-CDM). Changes in mass organization happen more slowly than the speed of light. Black hole formation happens in various regions of space with some understanding. Understanding of black hole phenomena is restricted by various limits of observation, theorized and inherent to the dark nature of such objects. Because there is an abundance of ignorance about black hole entities, the bulk my prediction and thesis revolves around said ignorance. By means of conclusion drawn over the course time, education and development of thesis which provide conclusive belief. (In other words not simply derived as a choice of where to look.) I predict: A development in statistical anomaly will appear in cosmological redshift differing from present correlation drawn, evidenced in current understandings of such data. To my knowledge the only correlation is that to distance in time and space has correlation to metered anomaly termed cosmological redshift. I predict when enough evidence is observed a new correlation will be made in statistical anomalies and it will have a direct relationship to quantities of black mass. Unfortunate or not identification of black mass is inherently difficult at best. Therefore this correlation will not be easy to conclude, especially when a correlation of this nature provides many challenges to presently available tools and limits such phenomena present and gathering data necessary to indicate such correlation may not ever be within reach. One must assume that black hole phenomena have many differing values in size localization and time to form ratios all differ based solely on limits presently imposed on observation and thus rely heavily on theoretical understandings for the assumption(s) to be correct. Based on my understanding of statistical analysis sample size matters. Larger sample size increases volumes of all data to be considered variable that affect such data smoothing. However the standard error may increase due to difficulties in increased distance redshift value formulation, this would likely not account for any angle correlation. Smaller sample size in distance containing fewer black bodies at any given angle reduce standard error in shift value formulation, but present a potential to provide reason for anomaly present itself due to the smaller sample size based on angle and correlation of shorter distance metered. Sheesh, I hope got all that right. I want an earlier time stamp, than a later edited one. The angle of assent may be the only correlation to variation in anonymized presence of data gathered and disseminated to the anomalously but the distances need to be approximately the same. A condensed prediction is this: Black body formation will present an change in previously metered redshift value which correlates directly to the formation of said black body. Witnessing said formation is beyond my personal capabilities. I fear if it is not, said formation may end my lifetime. As is prediction thereof, as well as gathering such information all reside outside my ability, I rely upon those whom may have such capabilities to verify such prediction. However, that is the most simplified form of the prediction I can make, irregardless of said occurrence and correlation happening in the duration of my lifetime. That's curious... I can't sit around and wait for a black body formation to happen... SN1987a happened in my lifetime. Don't know when we might witness another. There's a lot I don't know... But thinking about this made me think about the speed of light and gravity being equal. If black body formation might be an instantaneous change in redshift, ruling out 1987a as proof is slightly in error. If the propagation of gravity is light speed, there might be a chance it can be detected in present data, but it's highly unlikely. I don't believe any redshift data was collected before then and since the difference between now and then has passed, we can't go back and rectify that issue thru present/past correlation. However, this event might present a hint of anomaly still detectable based on angle of ascent correlated to 1987a. I don't expect one blackbody formation to make a hole one whole lot of difference, but opposing angles between 1987a might present the anomaly significant enough now to still represent change in opposing angles and same distance redshift measurements. It's change has past us, but I don't know if that affects the readings on the inside of the wave significantly enough to rule out it's detection straddling distances with enough excess that would exceed the encompassing wave distinction. Unfortunately the difference would likely be so small errors in calculation would likely conclude dismissal of any such anomaly.

I regret covering matters of philosophy. I'm not an expert in that field, being a mere uneducated novice. I would state your are wrong on some points. I will reserve clarification of some for my paper. Ironically to continue in this format might server to increase topics I already believe I must cover, I don't presently wish to add to it in haste. I will address perhaps a few I think I understand. I don't expect they are in sync with the "accepted." Which is a conundrum within itself that has led to complexity I cannot address in brief. I must spell out in the paper format. The conception of the term "Dark Energy" has a basis to be determined. It's underlying premise is expansion. It is related to the concept that the universe may or is to be expanding because it had to have expanded in the past. When one examines the body of Lambda-CDM the conclusion is obvious when one cannot nor will not consciously choose to search for the flaw in reasoning. Because of the volume of information within the gamut that is Lambda-CDM the some simple choices are not always clear, nor easily defined. There is no known correlation between black hole mass and redshift. I my currently vague attempt to predict what has and has not happend, I failed to realize that was a key point. I perceive it to be fact. Evident only in my logic and conclusion (to date). In haste once I realized statistical analysis of the data MIGHT reveal an currently unperceived fact piece of evidence, I rushed to lay out the prediction so that I may claim to be first, with a timestamp associated with it. There are so many factors involved, it is not clear that I might or might not be right. However, current theory holds, gravity waves propagate at the speed of light, thus are not instantaneous. If the anomaly in the data I predict has not been associated with the data, I must make the prediction before the facts can be aligned. This goes to verifying my thesis is correct. The fluctuations in order for my prediction to be valid, I have worked with conceptualizing my understanding of my ignorance to that of the same in others according to my understanding of Lambda-CDM and all of the principles presumed to be accepted. (Which is hard to state clearly and have the correctly implied meaning (all by itself)). Ignorance and confusion go hand and hand. -- least I digress to discussing philosophy, yet again. My prediction, is hard for me to understand. If it troubles you, I do not find it surprising. I've stated it needs clarification, tho the gist will likely remain. I think I can explain the origin of Dark Energy. I've stated "changes everything and nothing at the same time" here or elsewhere. You're statement I had considered previously and led me to state it as such. Presently as I understand, DE = nothing = Lambda-CDM = right.... to change everthing and nothing at the same time DE = defined = Lambda-CDM = right... Logic I Enjoy!