Jump to content

pywakit

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    215
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

23 Nice

About pywakit

  • Rank
    Banned
  1. Couldn't agree more. It's not that DE is magic. It's that we are trying to find *magical* explanations for it. ( Alternate dimensions, etc ... ) All I have done is offer another alternative. Do with it what you will .... And perhaps you should slow down while reading ....
  2. Oddly enough, I have gone to the CERN site. Several times. I have found nothing to contradict any information given to me by 'a third party'.
  3. I am not going to respond to anything you say anymore. You clearly have issues that I can no longer deal with.
  4. I agree. Did you miss my disclaimer? However, I am not illiterate. I am quite capable of noticing 'facts not in evidence' in reading their comments, observations, and summations.
  5. Now you are suggesting I can't read a simple email? What 'false data' do you refer to? And how do you presume my conversations were 'brief'? You have made this same claim many times. You have a lot of gall. I am not 'appealing' to authority. I have cited information given to me by a respected astrophysicist. Information that I did NOT somehow misinterpret to satisfy my 'beliefs'. Any more than I misinterpreted every other referenced peer-reviewed material I have posted. If Dr. Tyson is in error, then that's his problem, not mine. Knock off the attacks, Moo. I have been nice enough to ignore most of them.
  6. I just got back from an exceedingly long, and alternately fascinating and extraordinarily boring journey through WMAPs summation of seven years of observations. Although the charts and graphs were in many instances indecipherable to me, many were not. I will talk about one of those graphic illustrations in a moment. One stunning revelation was the truly astonishing bias of the authors of the study. Reading their comments, and conclusions, I found that in one breath, they place severe restrictions on various predictions/assumptions regarding inflationary theories, and in the next breath they speak in glowing terms of the 'promise' of various inflation theories ... needing only the invention of brand new physics to explain. Another stunning 'fact' was the apparent disregard for GR, and it's amazing accuracy when dealing with very large scales. Instead of considering real, practical, and rational solutions to observed discrepancies with inflation theories, the authors just 'run' with the 'potential' of the many cosmological theories being floated, citing 'subtle' predictions made by those theories ... all, of course, requiring *magic*. In addition, they also touted their 'toy' model as far superior to the current BBT, and claim to be the 'new' standard model, using the graphs ( and presumed flawless mathematics ) of observed parameters as their evidence. They make many unsubstantiated claims, including assuring the reader that the universe is indeed 'one-way' and will very likely expand forever, even though their 'evidence' makes no such proof. All the evidence produced merely proves that the universe is currently expanding. But again, this only shows their bias, their lack of observational skills, and an inability to correlate data, and deductively reason. In short, their clear bias blinds the authors to some rather obvious patterns in their data. Which brings us to the graphic illustration of the universe's expansion since the BB. I found this graphic to be particularly fascinating. What is so interesting about it, is the remarkably steady expansion until quite late in the 13.4? 14? billion year history of our local universe. Then the rate of expansion 'takes off', accelerating rapidly. It seems as though 'space' wasn't all that interested in 'expanding' for the majority of our universe's existence. Then, magically, DE, or whatever you want to name the force, arbitrarily mounted a massive effort to separate the major clusters of galaxies. So it would appear that 'space', or DE decided to 'respond' to the large scale concentrations of gravity, whereas before it was seemingly unconcerned with matter/energy more generally distributed. Perhaps I missed something as I was grinding my way through all the data. Feel free to correct me on this. If the RATE of recession is increasing now, that means the RATE of recession was less in the past. Why didn't space act immediately upon the matter/energy released from the BB? If space itself is expanding, then it would only make sense that it must do so independent of any matter/energy present. Is it simply a function of space? That it just inherently 'expands' creating brand new space constantly, thereby increasing the distance between any matter present? If that is not the case, then DE must be causing the recession. Right? Well, we have a problem here, too. For now we have to ask, why didn't DE start working on the matter/energy from the moment of the BB, too? Clearly, there were no great concentrations of gravity in the early plasma. Well, that is the assumption, anyway. DE, if it exists, should have been pushing everything away from each other right from the start. If it is strong enough to shove clusters of galaxies apart, it should have had no problem pushing gas and dust apart. Unless it just magically appeared late in the game, materializing out of nowhere, having waited for greater concentrations of matter/energy before applying its force. This simply does not jive with GR, or any other observations of matter/energy present in space. You can't have 'localized' concentrations of DE only acting upon superclusters. It has to be everywhere. If it isn't everywhere, then it 'does' just materialize in an arbitrary fashion. And therefore is adding matter, or energy into our universe where none existed before. This does not agree with the axiom 'energy can neither be created, nor destroyed'. And there is certainly no evidence that matter/energy is either being continuously created, or 'arriving unannounced' from alternate dimensions. So why isn't the rate of expansion/recession steady? What was the 'original' rate of recession? What triggered this phenomenon of 'acceleration'? I have stated this before, and I will state it again. A rational solution to this phenomenon is that space is uniform unless disturbed by mass/gravity. Just like Einstein said. And we have a plethora of evidence staring us in the face to support this. Our observations show us that space doesn't like gravity. It doesn't like matter. It doesn't like being NON-uniform. It will always work to straighten the lines out. But the evidence suggests it does not seem to care a whole lot if the energy distribution is relatively uniform. When the local universe was in it's early stages, the matter/energy was ( apparently ) fairly evenly distributed. We can't say for sure, because we are relying on imperfect mathematical models to make this assumption. There was a time when the universe was 'dark' to us, meaning we can see no photons from that period of time. This doesn't mean they were not there. It means we couldn't see them. So I am suggesting that a better alternative to 'expanding space', or DE, or alternate dimensions, is just the simple realization that Einstein was correct. That GR is correct on macro scales. Space may very well be imbued with energy that places limits on matter and energy 'outside' of itself. It limits photons to c. It limits matter to < c. It's low energy density is constant, isotropic, and generally homogeneous, and will work on all concentrated mass/gravity at a steady rate. This would easily explain the accelerating recession, as there is a cumulative effect of the 'straightening out' of the lines of space.
  7. Am I allowed to respond to your statements, Cap'n? According to Dr. Tyson, the mainstream 'scientific community' was hoping HR would be detected with the LHC ... and the only way that was going to happen was if they created mini-black holes. According to Tyson, mainstream was hoping this discovery ( through the use of the LHC ) would garner a Nobel ( long awaited, much deserved ) for Hawking. I don't know where you get your ideas from, either. Again, I am going to take Tyson's word for this over yours. Sorry. Perhaps you failed to notice that HD invoked HR in the discussion of gravity. It needed to be dealt with. Removed from the discussion. The only reasonable way to do that was to point out the fallacy of HR as an argument. And yes, I am happy to take the conversation back to gravity.
  8. I didn't 'denounce' it. I stated a fact. Something wrong with stating facts? And how do YOU know they haven't been looking? I'll take Tysons word over yours. And maybe I'm missing something here. From what I have read, they ( LHC ) are trying to create mini-black holes. Shall I post 'proof' that the GLAST mission ( now FERMI ) is, among other things, to observe leaking black holes? W/E! Ever occur to you that there might not BE a FTL method of communication? Ever occur to you that the Drake Equation might be off by several orders of magnitude, simply because it ignored a mountain of evidence in it's initial assumptions? Ever occur to you that SETI expected to detect a signal in the first few years? Ever occur to you that the whole premise might be completely flawed? 50 years. Think they were just checking a couple of frequencies?
  9. Didn't say it was the ONLY thing on the 'to do' list. But it's high on the list. Your comment is pointless. Not exactly. That is as intelligent a comment as Seth Shostad's defending SETI's lack of success by stating "We have carefully examined less than 1000 stars." That was about a year ago. That equates to less than 20 stars a year. At that rate, we might detect a signal in about 3 billion years ( give or take ). Of course, he failed to mention we have casually examined millions, if not billions of stars. His other excuse was "Maybe they have all advanced to technologies 'far beyond our current technological ability to detect'." So they all just went straight from fire to tachyon transmissions. Hmmm. There's a lot of black holes out there. They have had plenty of time to 'discover' them leaking. It was/is part of their 'mission statement'. So this comment was not only pointless, it was disingenuous. The 'gun' has been fired repeatedly now. Particles have been smashed. Certainly there is more data, and a lot more smashing to come. But so far, there is nothing in the data to support 'leaking' black holes. But as has been stated many times, even if they do leak, there are other serious problems with black holes simply evaporating away. Perhaps you are still unaware of those problems. And I did say ... "yet". Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Just going by what Dr. Tyson told me. Shall I dig up the specific email from Tyson? I would prefer not to, since they are private communications. How about not taking statements out of context? That also is 'an appeal to ridicule'. Clearly it was hyperbole to make a point. Which was lost on you, apparently. As of today's date, Hawking radiation remains experimentally 'untestable'. Not borne out by observation. And unproven after more than 30 years of direct, and indirect research. So it's a little premature to use HR as a 'given', don't you think? Perhaps you are also unaware that HR is still considered 'extremely speculative' by many 'respected' scientists. Exerpt from wiki : I could post many more .... ( Also, please note the 'scientific' comments made by the prior poster.)
  10. Sorry Michel. I didn't understand the question. I think you are correct. ( later post ... third body ) A nice fat black hole at the center of our galaxy spinning at near c ought to do the trick. As far as our solar system rotating, unless I am incorrect ... per Einstein ... a collapsing star ... like our proto sun, would have a great deal of spin remaining after it transformed into the star we see today. Having thrown off a great deal of gas, dust, and heavier elements, I would have to assume there was a great deal of kinetic angular momentum transferred to the castoff material. Add the 'spinning' gravitational waves of the sun, the matter 'falling back' toward the sun, and you have a recipe for matter ending up in orbit. Fascinating, isn't it, that the velocity of our planet's angular momentum ( relative to the sun ) is well over 100,000 k/h. Equally fascinating is that our galactic 'arm' is travelling at about 900,000? k/h relative to the center of the galaxy. Think the 2 processes were any different? I don't think so. Just a matter of scale. I think we will find that our current galaxy was formed shortly after our SMBH was formed. Here is an interesting bit of info from ajb ... I have no reason to doubt this, as it corresponds to other observations of BHs, the universe, and it also agrees with GR's prediction that space itself is not limited to c. There are equally interesting things to realize here. Although matter is limited to < c in relation to space, we know that space can drag matter along at speeds far exceeding c. 1. The ergosphere of a BH. 2. The intitial expansion from the BB. 3. The accelerating recession. So it doesn't seem to crazy to think that our galaxy's rotation is not only regulated by the gravitational 'spin' of our black hole, but it also lends credence to the idea that a black hole might be spinning at a velocity that is far above c. You have to ask yourself .... Why would the ergosphere be rotating beyond c? If space can be dragged along by the gravity of a BH at such velocities .... why couldn't the BH be spinning at many multiples of c? Think space is 'normal' at the BH? Sure isn't looking that way ... Of course ... this only 'makes sense' as GR predicts space is collapsed at the BH. This phenomenum could also explain why we can't seem to detect the gravitational waves of BHs with our detectors. The frequency of the wave could be far beyond our technological capability to detect. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnother interesting tidbit. It has been assumed that our SMBH is non-rotating. As there are no jets ( correct me if I am wrong ) it is assumed that it is 'done' feeding. There are many reasons to question these assumptions. 1. How BHs form. 2. The lack of 'friction' in space. 3. The velocities of massive stars in close orbit to the BH. We can look to our own solar system to view the smaller scale version of the galaxy. There is a lot of material in orbit around our sun, and now and then gravitational perturbations will cause material to either 'escape' ( although we don't know if the escape is permanent ) or to fall toward the sun. ( Shoemaker-Levy ) I have no doubt the same thing happens at the galactic scale, and if we are lucky, someday we will get to witness some star falling into our SMBH. Perhaps it has already happened, and the light has yet to reach us. Should be quite a show! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I don't have time right now to address all the inaccuracies here. Let's just go with the highlighted sections. Hawking radiation was first hypothesized in the mid-70s. It has a strong theoretical basis, it's true. However, it has never been proven. The Fermi Space Telescope was sent up in 08. On it's 'to do' list was find evidence of Hawking radiation. NADA. Nothing. Zip. On the LHC's 'to do' list is to find evidence of Hawking radiation. So far ... NADA. Nothing. Zip. So to use Hawking radiation as an argument is just as valid as using elves. Ok. A small exaggeration. I'll cover your other misconceptions later. (edit) Other problems with BH evaporation : According to my conversations with Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a 50 million sol BH has been calculated to take 10^140 years to evaporate. And that assumes it never eats another drop in all that time. No CMBR. No gasses. No matter/energy of any kind. Furthermore, Hawking ( or anybody else ) has been unable to come up with the 'end game'. Remnant? Evaporate completely? So HOW long for a 50 BILLION sol BH to evaporate? Do some research on how big BHs could get. Einstein says INFINITELY big. I'm just guessing here, but I think 10^140 years is slightly longer than a septillion years. ( 10^17 ?) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedComputers! I just finished dealing with the other inaccuracies, then I lost power. And lost the post. I am too tired to repeat it. I will just say there are several errors in it. Also wanted to apologize for coming across the way I did. It was rude. Maybe I will cover the problems tomorrow. Anyway, SFN is an interesting place. Hope you enjoy it.
  11. Ok. There is proven math behind everything my model claims. Just because I don't have the ability to express it doesn't mean my model is reduced to 'rocks want to go down'. This is a false analogy. Sorry. Centrifugal force, gravitational attraction over large distances, gravitational consolidation ... these are known, and mathematically sound principles. There will be a complete mathematical expression for the model. Maybe it already exists. Let's give it time to surface. There is nothing magical involved here. Just straight GR, etc. It's just a matter of some mathematician spending some time on it.
  12. All good points. Clearly my model does not fit in the 'very bad' category. So let's not throw it out just yet. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Collaboration .... Hey! This is where I come in!! I take all those small parts and put them together in a nice tidy package. It's great to have at least ONE talent, right?
  13. I can't make the mathematical predictions. But they do exist. Because the model closely follows the BBT. Someone will look at this, and come up with a complete set to describe it. But my model DOES make physical predictions. In the last year, all new and unexpected ( even shocking ) discoveries are inherently predicted by my model. Good track record so far. And there is a list of ways *sigh* to falsify it right now. So, no. Not 'crippled'.
  14. Then let's drop the not so veiled attacks on the model. ( Yeh. It's got problems. Deal with it.) Ok? It's fine with me! I'm happy just to debate the current state of scientific methodology, and explore whether or not it needs an 'update' due to a new deeper awareness of the structure, and form of our universe. Sound good? And thanks Andrew. You are a voice of reason here. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Then stop referring to it. James ( When I write like this, I am speaking as a rational human being.)
  15. That's because Moo chose to make it personal. She used my OP to attack me and my model. It was not my intent .... clearly from the content of the OP to 're-instate' my cosmological thread. The OP was merely a series of observations on the state of mathematical theories, and their relationships to the actual, physical universe. There was no real choice but to rebutt her grossly inaccurate mischaracterizations. The fact that she ever so carefully didn't SAY my model does not change the intent, or meaning of her post. I could have ignored it, but she opened the door with her comments. She should have kept her commentary confined to the OP, without thinly veiled references to me and my model. That is the reality of the situation.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.