pywakit

Yes I did...

 

I still don't see it scanning quickly.

 

Dark energy is added because our current working theories don't work... It is not magic it just some unknown mechanism we are trying to explain.

Py wrote : 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.

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 ....

Go to CERNs site, you can read about all their experiments from themselves not some third party. I'd take their word for it.

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'.

I suggest you used a logical fallacy. It happens.

 

 

You said so yourself, and in the context of the astrophysics you pretend to know better than everyone else, anything less than actual studying under him is brief.

 

 

Says the one who actually believes he knows better than *everyone*, without exception, always.

 

That's why in science we don't go by the people who said something, but by the claims made. When you keep saying "Dr Tyson told me..." it is irrelevant. He could be wrong. You could have misunderstood. He could have thought that the context is different. A billion reasons could result in the assertion to be false.

 

Read a bit about the fallacy "appeal to authority". It's a logical fallacy, a well known one, a very well defined one, and arguing that appealing to Dr Tyson's role as a scientist when you state answers is not an appeal to authority is like arguing a wooden spoon is not a wooden spoon.

 

It's appeal to authority by definition.

 

 

The fact you are shown to be wrong doesn't mean people attack you. Not sure how many more times to say it. Maybe in Chinese?

 

 

 

~moo

I am not going to respond to anything you say anymore. You clearly have issues that I can no longer deal with.

I wonder how you go from saying things are indecipherable to you, to saying that they make claims which the evidence does not back up... if the evidence is indecipherable you might have just missed it...

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.

Dr Tyson is a very knowledgeable Astrophysicist, but even he would tell you he doesn't know everything, nor is it possible that you got all the details in all accuracy from a brief conversation with him, or from an email exchange.

 

Beyond that, repeating the fact that your data comes from him is an appeal to authority, and when the data is shown to be false, it's not doing Dr Tyson any justice.

 

 

~moo

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.

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.

LHC is not trying to create mini black holes. I'm not sure where you got that idea from. Some hypothesize that it might create them as a consequence of its operation, but that's not its goal.

 

In any case, I don't think any of the LHC data has actually been analyzed and published yet. It's far too soon for them to jump to any conclusions.

 

 

Now, shall we get back on topic? SETI and the LHC have nothing to do with gravity.

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.

it wasn't pointless, the mission hasn't been going on for very long, its not the main purpose of the satellite and it can only gather dat on that particular phenomenon if it happens to capture a glimpse of something that resembles a disintegrating black hole with little possibility of it being anything else.

 

 

 

the point of that(although i don't see its relevance) was that the level of technology rises rapidly once it gets going. there'd be what, maybe a 200 year window of opportunity for detecting recognisable radio transmissions? as our own level of communications technologies gets better, the size of this window will increase.

 

 

 

only the little ones leak at an appreciable rate. all known black holes are very very big. its hard to detect a microwatt signal when the noise is over a yottawatt.

 

 

 

thats because they haven't been looking. and as swansont says, the first thing they'd need to do is make a black hole. the ability of the LHC to do this is as yet unknown. quit denouncing stuff before there has even been a test.

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?

i was just glancing over the thread and seen these, come on pywakit, really?

 

 

 

1/ not its primary function

 

Didn't say it was the ONLY thing on the 'to do' list. But it's high on the list. Your comment is pointless.

 

2/ its only done about a year of a long long mission. this is like saying an expecting woman is never going to give birth because after only a few weeks the baby still hasn't popped out.

 

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.

 

LHC is still undergoing testing to make sure it works like it's supposed to. do you expect a car to be winning a race when its still in the factory? no. well then.

 

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

What? To see them would require making mini black holes, and these are only created if certain hypotheses about extra dimensions is true. It's a heck of a reach to claim that it's on the "to-do" list.

 

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.

 

This is flat-out wrong. To equate a phenomenon predicted by established theory with the existence of mythical creatures is an appeal to ridicule. How about sticking to scientific arguments?

 

Py wrote : So to use Hawking radiation as an argument is just as valid as using elves.

 

Ok. A small exaggeration.

 

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 :

 

The quantum fluctuations at that tiny point, in Hawking's original calculation, contain all the outgoing radiation. The modes that eventually contain the outgoing radiation at long times are redshifted by such a huge amount by their long sojourn next to the event horizon, that they start off as modes with a wavelength much shorter than the Planck length. Since the laws of physics at such short distances are unknown, some find Hawking's original calculation unconvincing.

 

I could post many more ....

 

( Also, please note the 'scientific' comments made by the prior poster.)

I was asking about initial velocity of an orbiting body like Earth or Moon. I don't think the creation of the Moon has anything to do with my question. The material of the accretion disk was orbiting before the Earth was created.

I was just interested to hear someone say that gravity is not enough to make bodies orbit. You need something else, like "initial velocity". And I am still asking, where does this "initial velocity" come from?

For example, the solar system is orbiting the galaxy: where does its initial velocity come from?

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 ...

Recall that for a Kerr black hole you have two important surfaces. The event horizon and the (boundary of) the ergosphere.

 

The ergosphere is interesting as it is a region that is being dragged around (via the Lense-Thirring effect) the black hole at a speed greater than c. This is not in violation of relativity.

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:

Another 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:

Well this becomes a bit more tricky since we're discounting cosmic expansion.

 

However, in the universe we're imagining here which is empty and initially static except for these two objects, we can't rule out the second law of thermodynamics: The level of entropy always increases. The Black Holes evaporate into hawking radiation. If there was enough initial mass in the 2 black holes to be drawn together (just how super-massive can you get?) then it all collapses into a big crunch. Otherwise (more likely given that there are only 2 bodies to begin with) the matter-energy from the black hole spreads out, spreading further and further apart until it approaches absolute zero and infinitesimally low density and you have a big freeze. The 2 possible ends of the universe. How long it would take would depend on the initial conditions of the universe.

 

Of course, long before big crunch or big freeze, the black holes themselves will have evaporated so we need to ask the question, do the initial gravity waves from one BH reach the other before it has completely evaporated. This would depend entirely on how much mass is in each BH to begin with. They would have to be very very very big to last for a septillion years.

 

 

 

 

I thought we were discounting cosmic expansion?

 

Certainly if they had started off closer together they would indeed be interacting, but then if 2 supermasive black holes with their immense gravity fields were so close together, how could they ever have drifted so far apart?

 

Otherwise we could assume a universe without a beginning - they have simply "always" been there. In this case, since they evaporate in a long but finite amount of time, they would have evaporated an infinately long time ago.

 

I think a lot of the problem with this is that we're trying to talk classical physics, but classical physics struggles to describe interactions over such huge distances and timescales.

 

Fun to think about though

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:

Computers! 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.

Another example of the significance of quantifiable (that is, mathematical) prediction is Aristotelean physics.

 

Aristotle described physical phenomena in qualititative terms. He said, for example, that earth seeks to go downward, explaining why the air is above the ground and not vice versa, and why rocks come back down when you toss them in the air. Sure, this agrees with observation. The air is over the ground. Rocks do fall. Because he never tried to predict the way in which rocks will fall (e.g. plot their course over time), this wasn't really falsifiable, and it wasn't a model. It wasn't until much later, when people like Galileo and Newton began making mathematical predictions, that there was actually something to test, to measure and confirm or deny. Newton's law of universal gravitation is a falsifiable model. "Rocks want to go down" is not a falsifiable model.

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.

The relationship with a theory and the actual universe is very subtle. It is not usually appropriate to say if a theory is correct or not, but one can ask how well it relates to nature. We can ask if it describes nature very well or not very well.

 

So, a theory is by definition a mathematical construct. It is not to be thought of as actually being nature. So you have to be careful in quantifying well or not well, good or bad.

 

Given a theory one should be able to calculate observables. Say the path of a test particle, or the energy of a photon emitted from an atom etc. Now, if the calculated outcome(s) agree with the observation to some arbitrary, but specified degree of accuracy the theory is said to be good. If not it is bad.

 

There is also the issue of range of validity. So far all our theories are not going to describe all phenomena well for all possible ranges of parameters. Either the theory itself will mathematically break down, say infinities will appear or the calculated outcomes will not agree well with observation. Good examples of this are general relativity near the singularity of a black hole and classical Newtonian mechanics applied to a particle near the speed of light. No one will say that general relativity nor classical mechanics is wrong. The described situations are outside the theory's domain of validity.

 

There is also the issue of falsifiability. This is subtle. At some point our theory is considered to be so bad it cannot be reasonably used. This maybe due to some predicted phenomena not being observed or a large degree of difference between a calculated observable and a measured one.

 

In practice this can be buried in experimental errors or the theory can easily be modified to take this into account. At the moment the non-Gaussian part of the CMBR has not be resolved to the accuracy needed to falsify specific models of inflation. One day it will be. Another example is supersymmetry. It is possible that the supersymmetry scale is higher than we thought and so will not be detected at the LHC. So a null result will not exactly rule supersymmetry out as part of nature.

 

Ruling theories in or out is in general very subtle, but very bad models quickly get thrown out.

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:

ajb writes :

 

Science as a whole is a collaborative evolving thing. People only really understand small parts of the bigger picture.

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?

I have a hard time reconciling the first sentence with the second. Without the math, you do not have the capability of making specific predictions, which cripples the ability to falsify it.

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'.

If this thread does not quickly get away from discussing the details of your cosmological model then I am sure it will get closed.

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:

Your model is no longer under debate here pywakit. That thread was closed.

Follow our rules, please.

 

 

If you want to continue lecturing about your model, I suggest you open a blog.

 

~moo

Then stop referring to it.

James

( When I write like this, I am speaking as a rational human being.)

The thing is your original thread was closed. It is considered bad form and against the rules to open a new thread on the same topic.

 

I am happy to continue to discuss models in general, the ethos of theoretical physics or anything else related. But not your specific model. I don't want this thread to end up like the last one, which I fear it has.

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.

oh many people have pointed out the problems to you. you just flat out ignored it.

Allow me to give several examples of the 'problems' associated with my model.

These are 'expert' opinions.

1. Black holes appear likely to be limited to 10 billion sols. ( reference 'someone I know familiar with cosmology' )

I provided a plethora of 3rd party referenced, peer-reviewed material easily contradicting this 'someone'. Current research clearly points to BHs achieving far greater mass than 10 billion sols. In fact, GR predicts that they can contain an INFINITE amount of mass.

2. There is no way in physics for a black hole to 'fly apart'.

Again, I provided many material sources to rebutt this assertion. From Einstein, to the simple fact that centrifugal force, or massive head-on collision of UBER-massive black holes could achieve conditions similar to the BB.

Their argument also made many assumptions which are not proven. It is not a 'fact' that BHs are infinitely dense/small. In fact, QM rejects that possibility. And GR breaks down before we reach infinitely small.

3. There is no way BHs on the 'opposite' sides of our ever expanding universe could ever be in either gravitational communication, or that even if they were, the gravitational force would be too weak to overcome the accelerating recession.

I showed how both these assertions have no basis in fact. Current research shows UMBHs formed very early in our universe. In all probability. long before galaxy formation. And those very same BHs would have been in communication then, and are still now .... now matter the distance between them.

I also showed how merging BHs consolidate gravitational attraction. And that new evidence shows BHs merges are much much more common than we believed just a couple of years ago.

In short, and these are just 3 examples of 'problems' that I have been accused of ignoring, the evidence is in my favor. And contradicts the assertions of the experts.

I have been dealing with any and all objections from the start. I have ignored NONE. And to be contunually accused of doing so is simply incorrect.

Insane alien just did it again in his post. Claims I have ignored the problems, yet fails to cite a specific problem. Not trying to be mean here, but this is not rational. It does not agree with the facts in evidence. Yet the same irrational claims are repeated over and over.

You say the model has 'problems'.

I ask ... what problems? Specify.

You say ... you are ignoring the experts. It has problems.

I say ... ok. What problems? Specify.

You say ... You continue to ignore the problems.

There is nothing rational in these exchanges.

PLEASE SPECIFY THE PROBLEMS!

There is nothing 'personal' in this request.

JUST SPECIFY THE PROBLEMS!

Bottom line here is ...

My model fits the current evidence. The current evidence does not fit the BBT, or any other publically available model ( according to my research ).

Because none of you are up to speed on current astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmolgogical models, you 'claim' my model has problems.

I have made every reasonable attempt to bring you up to speed, but for whatever reasons you have chosen to ignore the evidence I have provided.

Until you can absorb the new information, the latest research and observations, you are operating in the dark.

Please take the time to do your research. Get current. Perhaps my model will have far less flaws than you currently believe it does.

Thank you.

Merged post follows:

oh many people have pointed out the problems to you. you just flat out ignored it.

That is not a factual statement. I have ignored nothing.

Merged post follows:

That is what scientists do.

 

In bridging the gap between theory and observation is the branch of physics (I'm thinking of physical theories here) known as phenomenology. The idea here is to see if the models fit the data to an acceptable degree.

It does fit the data.

Okay, let's discuss definitions for a second.

 

If we were in a LEGO forum, a model would mean colorful building blocks arranged in a specific construct.

A model might mean something different in philosophy. Or construction.

 

This, however, is a science forums, and when we say "Model" we mean a scientific model. A scientific model requires very clear properties to be called a model. A model *describes* a phenomena scientifically and mathematically. Without math, a model is not a model, it is a hypothetical philosophy.

 

So let's get our definitions straight here, please. We are in a science forum and not in a free-for-all philosophy forum. It's not about what you wish, or how you feel, or what your opinion is. Science isn't about feelings, or wishes or opinions. It's about empirical data and strict definitions.

 

Let's start using them. This is not a model. It's an idea. It might one day turn into a model. It's not yet one.

 

~moo

Moo, you are the one who continues to bring up 'feelings' and 'opinions'. I just keep posting evidence to support the model. Or I did, until you ( mods ) locked it. You continue to deny the potential validity of the model. You continue to claim it has problems. You still can't seem to point one out.

Why do you think the model is undeserving of research, and exploration ... and FUNDING? Because it has 'problems' you can't/won't delineate?

How do we define reason?

 

I am sure that all scientists think their work is reasonable in the sense that it is based on a sound logical argument based on some initial premise. There maybe some question about the initial premise (starting assumptions). However all scientists are aware of these.

 

By "reasonable" do you mean something more informal like "common sense"? If so, we are all too aware that our common experiences are not sufficient to explain at lot of natural phenomena observed.

No. I don't mean common sense. I mean correlating all the evidence. There is a lot of evidence that flies in the face of common sense.

Merged post follows:

Your Insult->Apology routine is getting old. Even if Sayo was a woman, calling "her" "Miss", is derogatory. And I am speaking as a woman.

 

This isn't the 1950s. "miss." My goodness.

 

Instead of apologizing all the time, how about you just be respectful to begin with.

 

~moo

Blame my mother. I was raised to be respectful of women.

Merged post follows:

If a model A makes all of the same correct, specific, quantifiable predictions that model B makes, plus correct, specific, quantifiable predictions that model B fails to make, then it is a better model. Otherwise, it isn't. Whether it "makes sense" to any particular person is completely irrelevant.

 

History is full of scientists who are highly skeptical of new models, yes. This is part of how and why science works. It is not full of scientists who dismiss model A in favor of model B. Scientists become scientists because they want to expand and refine human knowledge, i.e. directly contrary to enforcing dogma.

My model was not formulated by me standing in the kitchen 'imagining things'. It is the culmination of following the evidence for over 50 years.

Merged post follows:

Only if the model has no other flaws.

 

 

If they have no flaws, and the fit evidence, they would get research grant. Similar research venues *do* get money "thrown at them" if they manage to demonstrate they actually have potential.

 

That's the difference between investing money and wasting money.

 

~moo

Here again, you claim it has flaws. But refuse to name one.

And again, you cast aspersions on something you clearly know little about by implying that money spent researching my theory is money 'wasted'.

Sorry Moo. My model DOES fit the evidence.

"Miss"?

 

I suggest that you stop demanding people "prove" things to you. Especially me.

In this context the word "prove", apart from carrying a very specific scientific meaning, connotes a bargaining position which you simply don't hold.

Again, no disrespect intended. And I never asked you to prove anything.

If a model A makes all of the same correct, specific, quantifiable predictions that model B makes, plus correct, specific, quantifiable predictions that model B fails to make, then it is a better model. Otherwise, it isn't. Whether it "makes sense" to any particular person is completely irrelevant.

 

History is full of scientists who are highly skeptical of new models, yes. This is part of how and why science works. It is not full of scientists who dismiss model A in favor of model B. Scientists become scientists because they want to expand and refine human knowledge, i.e. directly contrary to enforcing dogma.

So if model B can make observational predictions, then that is good, right? If those predictions are not made by model B, then we have an improvement. Excellent.

Mine does.

Merged post follows:

pywakit, if you don't stop being obnoxious when you speak to people, you will not continue to be here. Sayonara is not a "Miss" even if he *WAS* a woman (which he isn't), and no one here owes you anything.

 

If you want a debate, that's fine, but you better start behaving like a human being and stop disrespecting the people who put the time to actually consider - and reply - to what you're saying.

 

Go over our rules and our etiquette. Pronto.

 

~moo

No disrespect intented. I thought he was female.

Unless you can do it in a new and novel way. There can be lot to learn in the "doing" even if the "results" are not surprising.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Be very careful about comparing yourself to Einstein or Hubble. It is usually unrelated to any argument about the validity of any theory. It is generally seen a inadvisable unless there is a real connection, for example you went to the same school as Hubble.

Missed the point of the OP. Was not comparing myself to these scientists. I was merely pointing out that scientists can and do ignore evidence corroborated on many levels because it conflicts with their world view.

The biggest problem when someone (not thinking of you specifically) proposes a "new theory" that is not formulated well and is rather generic is that it can be very difficult to point to specific issues. Sometimes things are based on very obvious misunderstandings and sometimes things are not formulated in a way as to make specific predictions or testable hypothesis.

I understand. But I repeat ... the model is quite specific enough for a bright human to understand 'generically' what the process is. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the process here.

A physical theory is synonymous with a mathematical model. It may well be true that models started with some "physical insight" but ultimately these need to be stated mathematically. Almost inevitably the mathematical formulation will "feedback" into the "physical interpretation" and can change ones perspective.

Yes. Can't wait for someone to put the theory to math. That will reveal much about the theory. Perhaps it will reveal fatal flaws. Perhaps it will support it 100%. But despite the mathematical underpinnings, it is obvious that the model is not 'crack pot' or fairy dust, or completely out of touch with our current undersatanding of physics, GR, QM, gravity, and our most recent observational discoveries.

So, "physical interpretation" what is that? A lot of people think that this is the theory. In reality it is a description of a mathematical calculation or construct using "physical ideas and language". This is what you will read in most popular science books. The ideas and ethos of some calculation.

Ok.

Physical interpretation can be very useful in theoretical and mathematical physics. It can guide you and lead to ideas you may not have seen in the "pure maths". But it is not substitute for the real work.

Agreed.

Also sometimes physical interpretation and analogies can lead to ill-posed questions. These really arise from not looking at the mathematical framework. Often a little understanding of the mathematics will make such questions "vanish". Great examples of this are "what is the universe expanding into?" and almost every question about virtual particles.

Another good point. However, we have observational capabilities now that are beginning to answer some of these 'pointless' questions.

The last point I would make .... math is an imperfect tool. Brilliant scientists begin with the basics ... then somehow end up at extremely diverse solutions. Frampton's 'solution' starts with basic math and physics ... continues on through extremely advanced math ( and physics, I presume ) and ends up with empty packets sprouting an infinite number of new universes from 'nothing'.

Turok? Same process. Now his math and physics says time can ( and will ) reach an 'arbitrary' point and reverse.

Green? Once again. Very good understanding of math, and physics ... yet he arrives at 26 mythical dimensions.

Reason says .... somebody, if not ALL the somebodies ... made a mathematical mistake. Clearly, logically ( lol ) they can't all be right.

So my point is, at this stage of mathematics, and our observations, maybe it's time we started giving some thought to REASON in our exploration of the universe.

Doesn't mean we have to start exploring every conceivable mythical possibility. There is nothing 'rational' about belief systems. They have ZERO physical evidence to back them.

But we should be taking the time, through all our billions in resources to examine rational assesments ( hypotheses/theories ) based on actual evidence, and at least partially supported by proven math.

That make sense?

Merged post follows:

Yes. Making attack the first line of defence for a model you are proposing.

 

If you wish to discuss the same topic on these boards, then you are going to have to do so according to the conventions of the discipline the topic belongs to, as well as the rules of SFN. Now I realise that this thread has been more of a grudge match than a debate, but I'm hoping (perhaps optimistically) that the participants will learn from the mistakes made.

There is a grudge match only if both, or all parties carry a grudge. I am not built that way. I am simply defending myself against incessant, irrational attacks. The person in question continues to 'make it personal' while claiming I am the one doing so. I have better things to do with my life than carry grudges.

Pointing out specific errors is not 'personal'. It's just the reality of the situation. The mod has made the same claim many times. Yet has never actually pointed out WHAT the problems are. Just keeps saying that "our experts told you it has problems and you ignore them."

Well, Miss Sayonara3, that is not true. I did address the 'problems' ... one by one. With referenced material to support my arguments. They did not reciprocate. It was "we are experts". I showed them that their information was either dated, or just plain inaccurate. ( which they, as a group, refused to acknowledge, btw )

So the one remaining 'problem' was/is my lack of formal training in math/physics. I never disagreed with that assessment. In fact, I announced it from the start.

Yet even with that 'decimating' admission, the 'experts' allowed my model to remain on the mains for 33 days. It seems they were willing to overlook this glaring deficiency to allow them to attack my model on it's 'other' merits.

But they lost every argument. Every single argument. I supported my model with referenced material over and over. They provided NO evidence to back their arguments.

And that is the reality of what happened Soyanora3. so then they were reduced to insisting it was unfalsifiable ( in reaction to ... apparently ... my comments about ST being unfalsifiable.)

Within minutes of my posting 20 ways my model could be falsified right now ... or in the near future .... Martin ( unbeknownst to me ) moved my thread to speculations with ZERO explanation, and against policy ... anonymously.

I think, under the circumsatances, I have handled this abusive behavior reasonably well. I just keep pointing to the reality of the events, and offer to re-address their 'problems'. And at times I begin to lose patience. I'm human, and I am not being treated all that well.

I'm told over and over, if I can't stand THIS heat, I won't last a second under REAL peer-review.

Well, the fact that I'm still standing says something, doesn't it?

Soyanora3, if you can prove someone made an error, and they either ignore it, or refuse to acknowledge it, and refuse to address it in any manner .... well, this is not rational debate anymore. This is now ego, and pride.

By contrast, I have made several factual errors. None critical to the function of my model, thankfully, but still ... errors. In every case I acknowledged the errors, apologized, and thanked them for correcting me.

Rational debate is a two-way street. So far, it's been one-way. Again, considering the amount of frustration this brings, I think I have handled myself quite well.

If I am treated rudely, or disrespectfully, I repay in kind. When I am treated as a rational human, deserving of respect, I am a sweetheart. The proof of this is in the posts.

Fact Soyanora3 : Your 'experts' weren't. They knew next to nothing about our current state of astrophysical, astronomical, and cosmological knowledge.

These people all lacked the credentials in either training, or awareness of the facts as we know them today.

My battle has been against ignorance ... not intelligence. They simply lacked the pertinent facts. They ignored all my evidence, then claimed I was the ignorant one.

I really have tried hard to educate your experts with patience, and humor. But they don't care to have a layman 'teach' them anything. And their actions have made that quite clear. It is simply inconceivable to them that a layman coud be right ... and they could be wrong.

But they were. And they continue to be. And they continue to ignore every bit of evidence that proves me right, and them wrong.

So even though I am being subjected to this onslaught of irrational behavior, I continue to hang in there ... assuming that at some point reality will sink in.

This is the best assessment I can give you of the current situation.

They laughed at Bozo the clown, too.

 

To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough to be persecuted: you must also be right. (Bob Park)

 

A model needs to make specific, testable predictions. It must be falsifiable, i.e. there must be a quantifiable way to show that it is wrong. A mathematical framework makes this possible. Without it, the model is generally of little value. It is because of such specifics that previous models in science (not just Cosmology) have been shown to be wrong or incomplete.

Another excellent point. So we can use reason, based on a plethora of supporting evidence ... experimental, observational, and even ( partial ) mathematical evidence to decide if the model warrants further research, and exploration. Mathematically, experimentally, observationally.

Isn't it nice that the model has many many ways it could be falsified! So that leaves us with just 'completing the math' to determine it's true value.

Perhaps it will end up with little, or no value after all. But if we can throw money at Frampton's 'empty packet' universe, or Turok's magical 'time reversal' universe, or Green's 10^500 universes, then it seems rational to explore an apparently 'sensible' solution that has no such bizarre requirements to function.

Too rational?

I've so far only done a quick scan of the OP... But one question pops into my mind every time I see a thread like this...

 

Why does the universe have to be logical to a human?

 

If people thought about that a bit more they'd realise it doesn't.

That is a very good point. But you have forgotten something very critical. All human's capacity for logic varies from one to another. And it's quite subjective.

90% of Americans think it's 'logical' to believe in a supreme being. An additional 3% think it's logical to believe they have some 'spirit' that seperates them from other lower animal life ( rough numbers ).

Some people think it's logical to refuse to answer direct questions that they don't like the answer to.

Where was/is the 'logic' in thinking it was possible that out of an entire universe of stars ... at least quadrillions of them ...only ourstar 'might' have planets?

A purely mathematical possibility, eh? Even in the face of ALL the other knowledge we had showing those stars were pretty much the same as ours.

Yet in the same breath, you can deny the possibility that a man who has studied the universe for half a century is by definition 'clueless' about the nature of our universe because he does not have a degree in math, or physics. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that he has a good working knowledge of the germane issues.

So what's the mathematical probability that a layman could use general knowledge of physics and math ... and a million observations to figure out the overall functions and structure of the universe?

Less than 1 in quadrillions? This is irrational.

No. The universe doesn't have to be 'logical' to humans. If it were we would have an elf for president, and our future would be preordained in the worn out cards of a charlaton.

Rational, however, is quite another story. It does have to be rational.

Indeed, many people do not understand how science works. Trial by fire is harsh, but that is exactly science's strong point.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

Well, keep in mind that a model of the universe is significantly more complicated than a lightbulb. Maybe you'll need more tries than Edison had for making the lightbulb.

Maybe you are correct.

But maybe I am just extremely lucky.

Or just maybe I am very good at observing and correlating evidence.

That possible?

Indeed, many people do not understand how science works. Trial by fire is harsh, but that is exactly science's strong point.

Many do. And it could be much worse. My last name could have been Bruno .....