# pywakit

Senior Members

215

1. ## On Theoretical Mathematical Models

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 ...
2. ## On Theoretical Mathematical Models

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.
3. ## On Theoretical Mathematical Models

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.
4. ## On Theoretical Mathematical Models

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.
5. ## On Theoretical Mathematical Models

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.
6. ## On Theoretical Mathematical Models

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.

9. ## gravity, gravity

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.
10. ## gravity, gravity

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."
11. ## gravity, gravity

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.
12. ## gravity, gravity

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.
13. ## gravity, gravity

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.

15. ## Cosmological Model of The Universe

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.

17. ## Cosmological Model of The Universe

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.

19. ## Cosmological Model of The Universe

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

21. ## Cosmological Model of The Universe

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.
22. ## Cosmological Model of The Universe

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.
23. ## Cosmological Model of The Universe

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.
24. ## Cosmological Model of The Universe

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.