pywakit

Lol. Yes. Sometimes. I will look for them. (edit) Actually, I did have quite a few others over the years. None of them worked. Lol. Serious answer is ... until about a year and a half ago, I felt there was insufficient data to make a reasonable determination. I may be wrong. I understand this. But I also understand ( contrary to the opinions of several ) that the theory has merit, and should be explored, both mathematically, and observationally. And ( again ) I also understand that it needs math. But the description given is sufficient for any good mathematician. I would not be surprised at all if there are a few scientists around the world quietly exploring this theory right now. We will see ...

Ok Moo. You keep insisting it has 'problems'. Cite the actual problems. You never have cited a specific problem yet. Show me where it conflicts with the law(s) of physics. Show me where it conflicts with GR. ( Not where GR 'breaks down'.) Show me where it conflicts with accepted QM. Show me where it conflicts with current particle research. Show me where it conflicts with any known, and verified experiment. Show me where it conflicts with any verified, and accepted observation. Prove to me that all the other respected scientists agree that the 'expansion' is irreversable. Prove to me that gravity is not infinite. Prove to me that space itself can not exceed c. Prove to me that black holes are infinitely small/dense. Prove to me that black hole spin can not exceed c. ( Not that it matters ) Prove to me that centrifugal force can not overcome gravity. Prove to me that the gravitational waves of early black holes have not preceded the 'expansion'. Prove to me that ancient black holes are no longer in 'communication'. Prove to me that black holes have a ( naturally occurring ) mass limit. Prove to me that space is expanding. Prove to me that matter is continually being added to our universe. Prove to me that DE exists. Prove to me that the visible/local universe ( what came out of the BB ) does not have a finite amount of mass/energy. And back all of your proofs/claims with referenced, 3rd party, peer-reviewed support. If you can't do that, then your claims are worthless. Anything irrational, or illogical here? Doesn't look like it.

My observations in the OP were factual. Rational. Verifiable. History is full of 'scientists' who went to their graves refusing to accept overwhelming evidence. Yes ... you did insult me. Nobody ( except you and perhaps a few others in the clique ) was fooled by Moo's comments. Now ... Good bye. I'm done talking to you, or any other disingenuous, and/or irrational poster.

Bignose wrote : You really think that, don't you? Too funny. As to your other point, didn't EINSTEIN scoff at an 'expanding universe'? Doyle? Didn't they publicly ridicule HUBBLE? Are you bereft of your senses? Check your history Bignose.

Moo wrote : Looks like YOU are the one who brought it up, Moo. Not me. You are the one who just attacked both me, and my model. And I don't recall expressing a desire in the OP to 're-open' the locked thread. Your 'attitude' clearly has a few issues. As do your emotions. Get a grip on reality. Now please leave me alone. I mean it.

Moo, that is a gross ( as usual ) mischaracterization of my model. It is based on my 'miniscule' knowledge of math, physics, and a whole bunch of new observational evidence that supports it. And no doubt ... a lot of really lucky guesses. There is nothing 'philosophical' about it. And I DO accept the possibility that my model has mistakes. But thanks for ignoring the serious point made here. Go ahead and make it about me. You will never ( apparently ) grasp that I rely on OTHER scientists' math. Like Einstein. Newton. And many others. My model doesn't contradict ANY principles, although you continue to insist it does .... without actually NAMING the offending principles. I have provided referenced, researched material over and over ( which you choose to ignore ) that supports my model. YOU didn't. You have just repeatedly claimed the same things. Without ANY referenced, current material to back your claims. That's the fact. I don't HAVE belief systems. You can insist I do, but you are absolutely wrong. There is NO empirical evidence to falsify my model. The fact that the recession is accelerating is NOT proof that the model is incorrect. It IS proof that we don't yet understand the mechanisms involved, nor do we KNOW that it is irreversable. And you continue to deny the reality that there are many scientists ... not cranks, or fools ... who would disagree STRENUOUSLY with you. Edison didn't need to be a theoretical mathematician to build a light bulb. He built upon the knowledge of many 'scientists' before him. HE NEVER WENT TO COLLEGE. He didn't HAVE to know everything about EM. He didn't HAVE to know the 'history' of chemicals. So say whatever you want.

Ok.

Please try not to take offense by the things I am about to say. It is not meant to be condescending. I am not a mathematician. I am not a physicist. I am an OBSERVER with sufficient wattage between my ears to make rational, logical ( in most cases ) sense of my observations. "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." So many here speak in 'absolutes'. NEVER. EVER. WILL ALWAYS. You just can't seem to learn from the mistakes of those who came before you. These issues ... the structure, form, and functions of our universe are FAR from 'settled'. One hundred years ago, we had theoretical mathematical models of the universe. The Universe didn't cooperate. Observations just didn't agree with the models. So we ( eventually ) came up with NEW mathematical models. And for a few decades everything was 'cool'. But then our observations, using better tools, began to contradict those models, too. So we grudgingly created NEW mathematical models to try to agree with the observations. Naturally, at each point in this cosmological history there were those who 'held fast' to the old thinking. History is littered with nameless ... and not so nameless scientists who ended up on the wrong side of the fence. 50 years ago ... it was the 'steady-state' universe. Famous scientists ... mainstream scientists went down in history as 'losers'. At each point, 'mainstream' scoffed at, and/or ignored evidence that contradicted their beliefs, or the theoretical mathematical models. And at each point, they said ... "Ok. Well we may have been wrong in the past, but we are RIGHT this time. And anyone who disagrees is a crank. Or a fool. They just don't know what they are talking about!" Well, I hate to say this, but the 'ever-expanding, heat-death' universe may very well soon go down in history as another "Oooops!" There are more and more scientists who are finding reasons to question this 'final truth'. The observations just in the last 5 years are casting serious doubt on the theoretical mathematical models once again. As I mentioned to someone else today ... If there is corroborating observational evidence to contradict current mathematical models, it's time to reassess the math. Not your eyes. Some facts about our universe ARE immutable. But there are a whole lot of 'assumptions' made here that have little backing from observational evidence. If you want to repeat the mistakes of the 'losers' of the past, that's your business. I prefer to keep an open mind, rather than assume these issues are 'settled'. I hope I have made my point clearly enough.

Yes. No. Pretty much the same is not 'the same'. Thankfully. Because of CURRENTLY competing gravitational waves, you assertion is generally accurate. However, this will change as black holes consolidate gravitational competition. As they are doing as we speak. Think 'bigger'. 'Ever' is a rather strong word. Calculate the gravitational attraction of two remaining UBER-MASSIVE ( say 1 quintillion sols each ) black holes, who have been in gravitational communication from the beginning of our universe. Take away ALL other competing gravitational sources .... since they will have been consolidated into the last two black holes. I think you may find that gravitational attraction just might be sufficient to 'reverse' the recession. Even at a septillion light years apart. Also consider the possibility that the 'expansion' ( which may not be an expansion at all ) could stop ... or reverse ... once you have removed all those gravitational sources that 'DE' or whatever force is involved is apparently acting upon. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No disagreement there. But we were just doing mind experiments. ( or at least I was ) Not actually discussing space as it really is.

Moo writes : Yep. But that wasn't really the point of the hypothetical three black holes. The point was that ... "Objects in motion tend to stay in motion. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest. UNLESS acted upon by an outside force."

Ok. My error. Let's have the BHs run into a hydrogen atom every year. And since ( from the viewpoint of the universe ) either two, or three identical HYPOTHETICAL BHs will be considered a SINGLE object, with a COMMON center of gravity, it doesn't really matter. At some point, far into the future of our hypothetical universe, the orbits will become ellpitical to the point of merging. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMoo writes : Sorry to disagree. In the REAL universe, we LOSE those cancelling effects everytime black holes merge. I'm afraid you might not be grasping the relationship between black hole/galaxy merges and the reduced 'cancellation' effect. When the gravititational forces COMBINE, they lose the ability to 'cancel each other out'. Need to think at the correct scale. Anyway, I am not the only one in the scientific community ( so it appears ) to think that our universe DOES crunch down to a black hole. I have to assume that they have a lot of math and physics behind their reasoning. Even if I am illiterate in those fields.

At last swansont and I agree on something. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Fascinating that you can give the 'universe' a lifespan. Care to support that assertion? How do you 'measure' the lifespan? What criteria are you using? What is YOUR definition of 'lifespan'? And you are incorrect. Those two objects' gravitational waves were in communication from the start. BEFORE they were a septillion light years apart. They didn't just 'pop' into existence. So no matter how far they may have become seperated, they will ALWAYS remain in communication. Unless you would like to disprove GR. So yes. They DO interact. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Or ... according to recent findings/observations, the universe was much lumpier at the beginning than we have assumed. If there were UMBHs from the very beginning ... or very CLOSE to the beginning, then the gravitational waves from these BHs would have done a great job of perturbing the plasma ... then the gasses, and dust.

From Space.com SPACE.com -- 24 Hours of Chaos: The Day The Moon Was Made http://www.space.com/...'>http://www.space.com/... /solarsystem/moon_making_010815-1 An excerpt : Hope this answers your question Michel. Also ... more recent info : Earth Hit by Neighbor in Making of Moon By Robert Roy Britt Senior Science Writer 21 June 2004 http://www.space.com/ scienceastronomy/moon_formation_040621.html And ... NASA - Moon http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/moon_worldbook.html Excerpt : And this alternate theory : Later Than ThoughtRichard A. Lovett for National Geographic News http://www.news.nationalgeographic.com/... /071219-moon-collision.html December 19, 2007 And still more ..... Nice graphics on this site ... From Universe Today June 19th, 2008 http://www.universetoday.com/2008/06/19/new-instrument-could-reconstruct-planetary New Instrument Could Reconstruct Planetary and Moon Origins Excerpt : Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Hmmmm. Interesting. I wonder if two ultramassive ( and then some ) ancient black holes ( ones which formed shortly after the BB ) ... septillions of light years apart would ALSO pull on each other? Lol. No. I suppose not. I guess that would require an EMPTY universe .... and no cosmic expansion. Or would it ...... ?? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOk. How's this for bizarre? I can make three ultramassive black holes, a trillion light years apart, merge into one ... with just two hydrogen atoms. I think ... lol. Let's see. We start with three identical non-rotating, non-radiating UMBHs ( 50 billion sols ) positioned in a straight line on the exact same plane of the ecliptic, equidistant, in otherwise empty space. The end BHs are rotating in perfect circular orbits around the center BH at exactly the same orbital velocity ... say ... 1000 k/s. ( Just a guess. It doesn't matter.) At the exact same time, the end BHs collide dead center with an atom of hydrogen 'at rest'. If I understand inertia, angular momentum, and gravity .... The end BHs' orbital velocities will slowed by a nearly infinitely small amount. But they will be slowed. And they will begin to 'fall' toward the center of gravity. Wind the clock forward 10^500 ( give or take ... lol ) years, and those three BHs will have merged into one. From just 2 atoms of hydrogen. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Noted, appreciated, and I agree. (edit) Just a note. There are well over 300 ground-based and space-based telescopes in operation. In particular, Hubble, Chandra, Fermi, and the new Planck Mission suggest an exciting year ahead! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Here is an interesting link from Space Daily on recent measurements of entropy. According to the researchers, the universe is 30 times more entropic than previously thought. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100126104844.htm Don't know if it is peer reviewed yet. But there just seems to be more and more evidence of black holes containing a much higher percentage of the mass of the universe than anyone expected. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWhen I think of angular momentum ( spin ), I think of centrifugal force. One reason no one seems to think a black hole could 'fly apart' is that it has always been assumed there is no volume, and therefore no radius/diameter. But if it turns out there IS an actual diameter, then this should come into play. Isn't here some simple formula that could deal with this? Such as ... m = mass/gravity, r = radius, a = angular momentum ( spin ), v = velocity required to fly apart. To my simple mind it would look something like ... ( m / r )( a ) = v for a typical non-black hole stellar mass. And maybe for black holes it's something like ... ( m / r^3 )( a ) = v Just thinking out loud ... It might ( using this entirely made up formula ) require a 1 million sol BH with a hypothetical diameter of 1 kilometer to have a spin of c^1,000,000,000,000 to = v ( ridiculous ), whereas it would require a 1 quadrillion sol BH with a diameter of 1 million kilometers to have a spin of c^1,000,000 to = v ( still ridiculous ). And a 1 octillion sol BH ( which might be fairly close to the total mass of our visible/local universe ) with a diameter of 1 trillion kilometers to have a spin of only c to = v. ( not so ridiculous ) Crudely stated, but you get the point. Am I way off base? Maybe I am just better off with the last 2 black holes crossing the universe, accelerating to near c and colliding. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedNow that I am all calmed down I would like to address a couple of IMO excellent points made by both Klaynos and Moo. I meant to address them before, but in the heat of the battle .... There seems to be an area of scientific research that is woefully understaffed, and I'd love to volunteer ( or get paid ... lol ) for this job. As Klaynos correctly pointed out, it takes so many years of intense, field-specific study to get your degree(s), and by the time you have achieved it, the world ( in one sense, anyway ) has passed you by. You may be awesome in your discipline, but in the process, you didn't have time to keep abreast of the OTHER disciplines, giving you the opportunity to correlate all the latest observations, and experiments into your own work. Crudely stated, you can't see the forest for the trees. Or as Klaynos said, you may be at best, only dimly aware that there IS a forest. Anyway, I would love to work in an 'information clearing house'. Have a systematic, and real-time procedure for examining all the latest data, and consider how the data fits, or doesn't fit, as the case may be, into the developing picture of our universe. What an awesome job this would be. Working with a dozen or so people, ( each trained in the various sciences pertaining to astrophysics, and cosmology ) covering all the bases at the same time. There are plenty of repositories of information, but as I said, there seems to be little communication among the researchers, other than peer-reviewing the papers. Most certainly, no individual researchers have the time to wade through the thousands of papers submitted for review in all the various periodicals. This 'think tank/universal warehouse' could then automatically post short, pertinent updates ( both specific to, and related to the individual's field ) on the newest research ( with quick links to the papers ) at the end of every week to all the signed - up researcher's computers. Maybe this is already being done. Moo's point ( expressed with the very good Newton/Einstein analogy ) was that I needed 2 things ( at least ) to make my model valid. One was the math to fully describe my model, and show where my model seperates from the BBT. The other was providing physical evidence to support the seperation, and the math. Well, as my mathematically illiterate equations illustrate, I am in dire need of a good mathematician. But the other is happening with out any real effort on my part. My model, as I have said so many times, predicts certain phenomena by default. So does the BBT, and GR. And so does my greatest competitor, inflation theories. I have actually welcomed the cheerleading for inflation/strings because that gives me an excuse to point out the poor foundation, and flaws inherent in them. I have said ( among other predictions ) that "Every discovery made will fit flawlessly into my model." On the surface this may appear to be broadly over-generalized, but actually it is a very specific claim that ( IMO ) the BBT, GR, and ST have not, and can not make. I can say this with certainty, because the universe has not fully cooperated with GR, the BBT, and ST. Whereas it has ( to our knowledge ) fully cooperated with mine. Even if I have yet to explain the features mathematically. The seems to be no aspect of the model that is contradicted by the universe. Not even accelarating recession, as my model addresses the issue with simple Newtonian gravity. The data is coming in a growing tidal wave. At any point, we could make a discovery that flatly contradicts my model. So far, this has not happened. How lucky. But as I have also said ... in science there is no safety in numbers, there is safety in truth. So maybe luck has little to do with my model's success. If my model IS correct, and not just 'better', then every single verified, and correlated observation ... and every single experimental result will fit perfectly. If it does not, then there is a problem with the model. Maybe a 'fixable' problem, but a problem nonetheless. So my 'evidence' to this point Moo, to support my model is that it appears there is no 'conflict' yet. I still need a mathematical support for overcoming the accelerating recession, and the process of releasing all that stored energy from the BH, but I think that, contrary to your assertion that I am 'wrong', there are scientists out there who might not be so enamoured with ST anymore. It would be naive to think that funding is not a critical aspect of research, and there is an understandable need to go with the popular research ... but there is also the very human desire to seperate from the pack. To make your own mark in science. Contrary to 'popular opinion' which has been stated by several here, I think I am going to find that some scientists are going to be grateful that a viable alternative to the 'pop' science that is going on has presented itself. An alternative that they can sink their teeth into, because it appears to need only GR. In this, I am counting on human nature, and the very real point made by Klaynos. The disgruntled scientists may simply never have considered a model like mine. It never occurred to them individually. It was never addressed in their studies, and it was never on the radar ... up till now. We will see how this all plays out, but it seems my model is on the right track for now. (edit) I'm sure you all realize that if the above cutting-edge research ( at the link posted ) had found our universe was 30 times LESS entropic than we had believed, this would suggest problems with my model. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedA couple more interesting links : First Stars In The Universe Astronomers Reveal First Objects In Our Universe Astronomers removed light from closer and better known galaxies and stars from pictures taken with the Spitzer Space Telescope. The remaining images. ... > full story You will find the link on the top right page of ... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0126104844.htm An exerpt : The next link just discusses another new telescope set to launch in 2014. Can't wait! James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) http://www.jwst.nasa.gov And here is a link to "Slip Stream Drive". I have included a passage that I think is rather 'illuminating'. This book was written in 2006 ( it appears ) and it makes a prediction which I have highlighted. SlipString Drive - String Theory, Gravity, and "Faster ... http://www.slipstring.com This prediction appears to be in trouble, based on the 'entropy' link I posted. Still, the webpage is interesting reading .... and of course, I may be misinterpreting this prediction.

Lol. Yes, Moo. That is a good definition of 'impasse'. Good luck to you, too. Hopefully, this exposure will assist me in locating a good mathematician to assist in the preparation for publication. As this has always been one of my stated goals, I could not be happier. I am quite certain I will have a 'working' theory soon. Most certainly I will post a link at the appropriate time. In the meantime, continued exposure/debate on this site can only be beneficial.

Your input is noted. Thank you. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No claims are dismissed out of hand. They are dismissed only if there is sufficient 3rd party evidence from other respected sources to do so with relative confidence. I never said Tyson 'accepted' my theory. I said that after discussions, he was unable to point to a flaw, or to where it conflicted with known physics, or GR. If I have misunderstood the cheerleading for strings, I am sorry. Re-reading the posts by the experts would suggest that they consider it a better alternative to my theory. Futhermore, I have already referred to other models besides ST, so to claim it is ST or mine ( or the BBT ), does not reflect the facts in evidence. I never claimed to 'know everything in the phenomena I am trying to describe'. I agree that a trained mathematician/physicist would be MUCH better than me at describing said phenomena. Assuming they had a good grasp of the phenomena involved. Never suggested otherwise. Actually, it is. If I just 'created' a hypothesis, or theory out of thin air, then any one of those criteria could instantly falsify it. The fact that none of them would appear to do so implies I am either extremely lucky, or I have at least a basic understanding of these laws. I have already shown adequate referenced material 'proving' that the math does NOT 'work out beautifully'. This is a baseless assertion. Hawking Radiation has been 'accepted by mainstream' with no viable way to experimentally prove the hypothesis. This has remained unchanged for over 30 years. It was hoped that the FERMI telescope would show evidence. After more than a year of intense searching, the hypothesis remains unproven, or even 'suggested' by observations. The LHC was the next great hope. True, it has only been up and running for a short time, but here too, there has been no confirmation of the hypothesis. And ... per my conversations with Tyson, even if it is shown to be real, there are many other problems associated with this 'mechanism' for removing black holes from our universe. Furthermore, because something is not 'currently' unfalsifiable, such as SST, this in no way suggests that it will always be unfalsifiable. We could find out tomorrow that space did not exist before the BB. It is just another problem, like all problems that we have faced, that may, or may not find resolution. As to the rest of your post, I will just say that you are entitled to your opinion. I have been told by other experts that my model IS falsifiable now, and that there are strong reasons to believe that further evidence uncovered in the near future will address several of the falsifications tests that can't be addressed now. Additionally, I have clearly stated that the list will " ... falsify, or at the least, provide strong evidence to contradict the model. And these tests can be done now, or will likely be available in the near future." Again, you are welcome to your opinion. Maybe it is valid. I don't think it is. The real problem here is, you expect me to simply take your word, and the words of the resident experts as accepted 'truth'. If every other reference source from other specialists/experts in the appropriate fields agreed with you, so would I. They don't. For me to just accept your claims would be irrational. It is not going to happen. So on this, we are at an impasse. I hope you can understand my position. I mean no offense.

Alright. Let me see if I can recap all of this in a purely objective manner. The problems ( as you see them ) : 1. String theory is an equal, if not superior alternative to my theory. ( and is falsifiable ) 2. My model is not falsifiable. 3. There are no physical laws that can cause a black hole to release it's stored energy. ( and therefore no mathematics that could describe such an event ) 4. There is no way to overcome the 'accelerating expansion of the universe'. 5. The BBT is superior because it is 'simpler'. 6. My model can not use the same physics to support it as the BBT does. Related issues : 7. A lack of formal education in either math or physics reasonably assures us that I lack the capacity to understand the overall functions and processes of the universe ... on the macro scale. 8. A trained mathematician/physicist by definition will understand the overall functions and processes of the macro universe, and will therefore ( presumably ) have at least a good working knowledge of the current state of astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology. The Rebuttal : 1. I have already posted numerous, clearly adequate, referenced arguments against this assertion, including the actual statements ( not taken out of context ) of actual principles involved in string research, such as Brian Greene. Strings are not falsifiable. 2. Post #130 clearly shows numerous ways my model can be falsified. 3. This assertion is slightly more difficult to address. My claim is based on Einstein's undying insistence that black holes can not form due to angular momentum. I have assumed he based this claim on his knowledge of physics, and his mathematical calculations. Since he was incorrect, I have also assumed ( perhaps incorrectly ) that a good mathematician would be able to 'tweak' Einstein's math ( based on current knowledge of our universe in general, and our knowledge of black holes in particular ), working out a formula for such an occurrence using well understood physics regarding spin, mass, and ( potential ) physical diameter of the black hole. 4. I have laid out my case for this, and I again assume that a clever mathematician can work out the formula for gravity overcoming the expansion ( accelerating recession ) through the mechanism of reduced 'gravitational confusion'. 5. This assertion ignores the reality that the BBT is extremely limited in it's scope. It does not cover the events immediately preceding the BB, the BB itself, or the events immediately following the BB. A model that covers all ( or even just one ) of these issues using known, accepted physics will be, by definition, superior. 6. I have repeatedly stated that my model REQUIRES those same physics to function. The improvements over the BBT stem from the massive amount of observational and experimental evidence that has occurred since the BBT was proposed. 7. As I have repeatedly shown ( using numerous, adequately referenced materials from such sources as NASA, and other top-notch institutions ) a reasonable, and accurate knowledge of differing cosmological models, and a reasonable awareness of the current state of astronomy ... and in particular, a reasonable knowledge of black hole behaviors on the large scale, including accurate predictions of potential mass, ( which GR clearly states is unlimited ... theoretically ) and the commonality of black hole merges ( in contradiction to mainstream science's expectations ) I think this assertion is baseless. 8. The facts do not appear to support this assertion. One of the experts claimed ( in one example ) that black holes were 'likely' limited to 10 billion sols. The only reference given ( as I recall ) to support this claim was "I spoke to a cosmologist." This claim was easily rebutted using numerous references from respected ( presumed ) peer-reviewed sources. In the interest of brevity, I will not list them all again. In another example, one expert asserted that, in regards to CMBR, "Careful analysis of the CMBR suggests that inflationary cosmology is correct." Once again, this assertion was easily rebutted, with reference material. In virtually all cases, any assertions made by the experts were not accompanied by 3rd party, peer-reviewed reference material supporting their claims. Lastly, it has been asserted that since I have no ( current ) mathematical full expression of my model ( and accompanying mathematical predictions ) I have "nothing". Since I am confident ( based on conversations with such luminaries as Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson ) that all aspects of my model fall within the guidelines, and laws of physics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, I think it is not irrational to assume this issue will be remedied in the near future. Hopefully I have not left out any salient issues.

Moo. The emotion stems from frustration. You all three lack current knowledge of cosmological theories. You all three lack the most rudimentary understanding of the current state of astrophysics. And you all three seem to think that alternate dimensions equals known physics. It doesn't matter how much you insist it does. It doesn't. My 'sponsor' will be a mathematician. This person will create a mathematical structure for my model. So when it is published it will be in the correct format. Again, this is very short-sighted of you. I wish it WAS a rational debate. The better theory is the one that extends the current one to cover areas previously not addressed. Claiming the BBT is better because it describes LESS is not rational. Both theories use the same physics. Moo. I'm very sorry. And yes you ARE amazing. But you are looking at this the wrong way. My model is able to expand significantly on the BBT while using the same laws of physics. My model will be ( and currently is by recent observations ) experimentally SUPPORTED. The only way to PROVE it is to wait until the actual end of the universe. The BBT addresses a very narrow portion of the total processes of our universe. Because it did not have the facts that exist today, it was unable to address anything further. I am filling in the blanks. Nobody else seems to be paying attention to all the evidence. I have gathered all the information together into a cohesive, all inclusive ( in the macro universe, anyway ) theory. You say the BBT is expansive enough. This is irrational. On several levels. If you think it is, then why are we trying to improve it? Seems to me that making the theory complete might qualify as a good reason to replace it. You could say ... well it's really just the BBT then. So you have nothing. We would have figured it out ourselves. Maybe so. In fact PROBABLY so. But you didn't. I did. Onward ... You are so incorrect Moo. You insist I was shown problems. I was not. I was shown string theory. I was shown poor construction of arguments ignoring obvious facts in evidence. Easily rebutted. You can't show one case of circular logic in my model, or my arguments in support of it. If you are going to accuse me of that, you need to back it up with the evidence. Like I do ( as needed ) with every argument I make. Here is another reason why you anger me. I have posted my list 2 times. Last one was at your request ... #130. You didn't look very hard. Moo, I don't have to do some lab experiment to prove that physics is real. As you should know, much of the evidence we rely on for our our 'proofs' is observational. Like CMBR. A good mathematician will be able to work out a complete set of equations for my model. Especially since it will not require magic. Right one hasn't presented himself/herself yet. Someone will. My oh my. You continue to stun me. Now why would I need that when the evidence for the BB supports my model? Once again, you just prove you do NOT understand the model. MY MODEL HAS A BIG BANG. My model better FOLLOW the evidence or it's INCORRECT. I don't have the 'math'. The physics already exists. I can NOT give a mathematical expression. But a mathematician with brain damage could do it, because it is existing physics. They want mathematical predictions. Like ones that make predictions contradicting accepted physics? That won't happen. My model doesn't contradict accepted physics. This is why it's ridiculous to use that argument to claim my model fails. They are not comprehending. Your posts are long, too. So what? Rather waste hours chatting about unattractive people? I don't want to be condescending either, but again, you don't know very much about cosmology. Insisting I have to know mathematics is absurd. You know math, and I can talk rings around you when it comes to cosmology. Sorry, but it's true. You simply have very little knowledge in this field. And so do your experts, as I have proven repeatedly. And your physics experts have yet to show me where physics *doesn't* fit my model. This is nonsense. Just one more unsubstantiated claim. Funding? What is it you aren't getting? Knock off the crap about emotional black mail. Nobody is blackmailing you. That is your trip. Not mine. I've already said I have accomplished more than I expected. I'm just irritated that you force me to repeat arguments unnecessarily. I'm irritated that you won't acknowledge errors. Yours, or your compatriots. I just proved ajb incorrect. Me, a layman. You ignored it. Please acknowledge this. Continued refusal to do so borders on a pathological inability to admit error. And that is a fact, too. You threatened me before ( 'CLOSE' in caps ) when I was defending my postion on being moved. Just like you told me to do. I didn't care for swansont's BS, and I reacted to it. Well, I don't like being threatened, either. It was totally uncalled for. That's why I have dared you to do so. YOU started it. Irrational. Look Moo. Just because you think I have to have a mathematical backround to understand the major functions of the universe doesn't make it true. I DO understand them. Way better than you, or ajb, or Klaynos. You can't accept that. And because you can't accept it, you are making a problem where none should exist. You need to back off. You are not accomplishing anything by continuing this stance. It is unnecessary. And it doesn't make you appear very credible. I asked you to explain why you are doing this, and you ignored the question. Again. Not rational. I will ask again. What's your point? What are you trying to accomplish here? Just trying to justify your assertion I have NOTHING? Good luck on that. You already lost that battle a while ago. As many viewers already know. Do us both a favor and STOP reading my posts. Nobody is forcing you to. Nobody is making you post these irrational arguments. I really don't care if you answer the questions. I get your position. You don't need to explain any further. I don't care what your reasons are. Since none of you know a thing about cosmology, stop trying to pretend you do. I have studied it for 50 years and I will win every argument. Guaranteed. I already have. Without math. Sorry you can't, or won't face it. And this is what is so stupid about this argument. None of you claim to be cosmologists. Yet you think you can argue cosmology intelligently. But the only weapon you really have is to harp over and over " You can't know cosmology cuz you don't know the math." By the way, I never claimed the model was 'ready'. Those are your words. I claimed it was simple to understand, and that it followed known science. Both claims are accurate. I have always understood it would need to be expressed mathematically before it was published. You obviously don't understand why I posted here to begin with, even though I have said why several times. ajb, and Klaynos got tired of being proven FACTUALLY wrong ... with documentation/reference material. That's a cop-out argument. THAT'S why they 'gave up'. That's the reality. Too bad. And I will do it again. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedA couple of years ago two cosmologists are in their respective homes. Feet propped up on their desks, they are both half asleep. At the exact same moment they have that 'EUREKA!' moment, nearly falling out of their chairs. They have each 'solved the universe'. The first one ( who has years of extensive study backing him, not to mention a PHD in both math and physics ) calls his buddy up to excitedly describe the universe. Here's what happens! The universe continues to expand until the very last atom decays into nothing. NOW HERE IS WHERE IT GETS INTERESTING! When the last atom is gone, the 'empty packet' of space SPRINGS FORTH A NEW UNIVERSE!! As do ALL the other empty packets. THAT'S THE KEY! he shouts to his friend. It has to be AN EMPTY PACKET! I'll send you the math. But it's really simple. All it requires is kubla khan manigolds! AND 26 DIMENSIONS! In fact, it turns out that this is how OUR universe started. IT'S ETERNAL! OMG!!!! The second man ( forget about him? ) calls up his friend. I think I might have solved it! It's pretty simple. Here's how it happens. All it requires is for black holes to merge. And it explains, just using known physics, how our universe began. What made our Big Bang ... bang! First man is Frampton. He gets peer-reviewed and published. Second man gets ignored because he can't express it mathematically. 'True' story. You call this science? Yes. You do.

Ok. Fine. I'll do it tomorrow when I'm not ticked off. Good night. PS : ajb posted 23 times, Klaynos 11. I'm not going to go through each one. Please post the specific posts ( and highlight the specific comments ) you feel I have not addressed satisfactorily. Until then, I will just address the points you have already brought up on their behalf. Thank you

I'm not refuting YOUR points. I'm refuting the points you brought up that were made by ajb, and Klaynos. Just like you want me to. You could have just told me where to publish. But no. You have to add your uninformed commentary instead. I will GET the math. You continue to be obtuse about this. I WILL GET THE MATH. You don't know that at all. You are amazing. And I am going to plow through ALL the reminders. Just to prove you wrong. I repeat, you are ill-informed. Anyway, I just dismantled ajb's CMBR assertion. Get real. Or are you going to ignore that, too? I haven't 'excused' anything, and I am extremely offended by this. I have stated I am neither mathematician, nor physicist. That's not an excuse. It's a fact. Doesn't change the fact that the model does not appear to need MAGIC. Once and for all .... my model will get publshed when it is READY to be published. With FULL math. Because I don't have a sponsor now doesn't mean I won't get one. I don't have to accomplish this by tomorrow. Again ... get real. You are accomplishing nothing but irritating me. And since I happen to like you, I don't care for the feeling. Please stop. I will cover the other points in a while. Right now I'm hungry and tired.

Does the BBT make mathematical predictions that can be tested against reality? Great. Use the same math. And Penrose's. All it lacks Moo ( again ) is a full mathematical expression that covers the features/processes beyond what the BBT already describes. There is nothing magical, or contrary to accepted physics about it. That's two.

Ok, Moo. I am going to take each one of your statements. Then I'm done with this argument. They will not be in order, but I'll address each one. The following is not dated, but as it refers to the Planck mission I will assume it's recent. Sorry, Moo. It seems your resident expert overreached just a bit. CMBR supports the BBT. CMBR 'might' support one of many inflation models. Not clear yet which. Seems they have a bit of 'tweaking' to do. This is a far cry from ajb's assertion. Inflation models 'predict' a flat universe. But inflation models require brand new math, brand new physics, to explain how it all began, or it's pure conjecture. My model 'predicts' the same flat universe. I would use the Penrose Weyl curvature hypothesis, and the ( presumed ) accompanying math. I would suggest he is off on the early universe entropy issue, but it doesn't matter to my model. Anyway, my model DOESN'T require brand new math, or brand new physics to explain how it began. From my understanding, Penrose's hypothesis uses standard physics. Feel free to correct me. That's one.

That would be because I am not affiliated with a respected university, or observatory. And I am not sponsored by a member ( yet ) of the Union, or any of the Societies. So those periodicals won't allow it. As I have said several times before. And as you already know. But if you are aware of one, please let me know.

No they didn't share some 'problems' my theory has. They shared some 'perceived' problems which I successfully dismantled. And no, my model doesn't suggest 'other effects that need to be demonstrated first'. And that's not opinion. You are ill-informed. And getting very annoying. I am quite aware of the difference between opinion, and fact. I am also fully capable of assessing information, and drawing reasoned assumptons from that information. The FACTS I have stated are facts. I have provided adequately referenced material in support of all those FACTS. Any OPINIONS I gave were also based on FACTS, and none of those OPINONS had any bearing on the basic tenets of the model. My model is missing a mathematical expression. That's it. It's not going to require 'new math or 'new physics' to accomplish this. Please drop it.

Thanks Moo. Current theory suggests A. My theory suggests A+. No more. You just don't get it. My model doesn't require magic because you have decided to redefine the word. There is nothing 'metaphysical' in my model. There is though, in every stringy model out there. There are many ways to 'verify' or 'test' my model. Observations can verify it to a reasoned certainty. Observations can falsify it, too. You claim my model relies on things "we don't know yet". Sorry Moo. YOU may not know them. But other ( apparently 'peer-reviewed' ) researchers do. My model makes predictions about black hole behaviors. I'm not clairvoyant, Moo. The predictions are entirely reliant on known science. Known observations. Experiments already performed. And my predictions are at odds with 'mainstream theories'. Tough luck for them. So far, I'm batting 1000. Haven't been wrong yet. They have. I was told I need mathematics by the 'experts'. ( That was the only 'problems' they could come up with. Every other 'problem' was addressed. Successfully. In all cases they were ill-informed.) It's not my fault they couldn't grasp that the same mathematics that supports the BBT, supports mine. This will make it 'stand on it's own', they said. They said this, even as they failed to understand the model. They were/are still thinking ( apparently ) the model is GR PLUS. Like all other models ( and I say all, meaning every model reasonably accessible for public view ) that are floating around the science community. Yes, Moo. They 'all' do require magic. Or they invoke God. Or they deny observational evidence ... like 'black holes'. I'm sorry you are not familiar with them. Even though my model was 'worthless' ... even though I had 'nothing' ... these 'experts' still made several attempts to falsify the model. Every attempt failed. That is the reality. I didn't just go 'irrational' on them, and refuse to address their concerns. I addressed every single one, showing these 'experts' where they had gone wrong. Sorry. Not my fault they didn't think their arguments through before trying to defeat my model with them. Bottom line ... They are entitled to their 'expert' opinion(s). Moo, what is the purpose of these communications? What is your goal? Make me quit? Make me 'understand' I have nothing? Make me understand that my model can't be verified? Convince me I am not qualified? Convince me I have just made a few 'wild guesses' without any supporting evidence? You are wasting your time. Well intentioned, intelligent people have been telling me my entire life how 'wrong' I am. In every case, THEY were the ones who ended up being wrong. Do you really think I would just 'fold' because 'experts' ( who have made many errors in our communications already ) tell me I should? If you want to trashcan my model, do it. I have already accomplished far more than I expected to on this forum. My theory is out there. It's not going away. You can close the barn doors. The horses are long gone. PS : If I am willing to take the time to address any of the MEANINGFUL, salient, and INFORMED comments you have made ... If I am willing to take the time to read EVERYTHING you have written, but YOU don't have the time to do the same in RETURN, then there is nothing more to be said between us. All you have done is imply that what I had to say wasn't worth reading, let alone worth responding to. That's pretty arrogant. Finally, you requested of me ways in which my model could be falsified. I complied. You apparently saw no need to address them. Don't ask me for anything again. I will ignore the request. You clearly are not willing to debate any of this rationally. On another thread I asked you several times how your space-farers could survive high energy particles. You repeatedly ignored the question. That's BS. How many times have I heard you demand that some poster answer the reasonable questions posed to them? And then s/c'd their thread because they refused to? You need to take a hard look in the mirror. Seriously. Now go ahead. Ban me. It won't change a thing.