pywakit

Mr. Skeptic writes :

 

Lots of watts creates lots of heat... does that make you a hothead?

Lol. Yes. Sometimes.

Well, you got one model. Where's the other 999 models you made?

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 ...

You came to us, pywakit, not the other way around. If you want us to leave tyou alone, you can simply leave. Don't expect us to absorb your model and not raise problems (yeah, there are problems, deal with it) just because you get personal about it.

 

You want out? leave. Otherwise, follow the rules and stop being personal about things that aren't meant to be personal.

 

 

They were not, but since you're also neither of the above, it's impossible to argue with you logically.

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.

How conclusive was the evidence in Einstein's time of the expanding universe? How conclusive was the evidence for Hubble's idea over Doyle's in his day? If the evidence wasn't conclusive (as it is today with the better measuring methods), then it is perfectly reasonable to judge one idea wrong if the available evidence fits multiple theories. However, once the evidence was solidified, no actual scientist "scoffs" at it any more.

 

There are plenty of open questions today where the evidence to date isn't decisive one way or the other. That doesn't mean that the people who support the side that will end up being wrong aren't scientists, or that they will end up being worthless. The argument stimulates the need to find the better, more conclusive, more objective, more significant evidence.

 

So, maybe I didn't make my request clear. Can you cite any specific examples when there was clear, conclusive, significant evidence that once side was right, and that evidence was ignored or "scoffed" at by other scientists?

 

Also, please don't insult me. I didn't insult you.

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 :

No -- re-read this thread. The first mention of your model is post number 3 where you say "my model". Moo's response in post #2 is completely written about generalities. Neither post has the edited tag on them, so they haven't been changed. pywakit you are the first one to mention your model in this thread.

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 :

There's a reason physicists and mathematicians study the basics thoroughly (including where things came from historically *and* practically, by mathematical derivations). Knowing your history indeed helps you change the future, but you need to *know* the history, and be willing to find out that your belief systems are wrong when empirical evidence show them as such.

 

If a model is strictly philosophical and does not follow, or has problems explaining current observations, or has problems fitting the current working mathematical models, or is shown to contradict principles that are evident, then it's not a good model.

 

While it's true that scientists must keep an open mind, the people/person behind a certain model must follow his own advice and keep and open mind allowing for the possibility that his model has mistakes.

 

Specially when the model is not based on mathematical information and came up without actual studying of our current knowledge which has *WORKING* theories.

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.

Keeping an open mind is great as long as you don't let your brain fall out.

 

There's a reason physicists and mathematicians study the basics thoroughly (including where things came from historically *and* practically, by mathematical derivations). Knowing your history indeed helps you change the future, but you need to *know* the history, and be willing to find out that your belief systems are wrong when empirical evidence show them as such.

 

If a model is strictly philosophical and does not follow, or has problems explaining current observations, or has problems fitting the current working mathematical models, or is shown to contradict principles that are evident, then it's not a good model.

 

While it's true that scientists must keep an open mind, the people/person behind a certain model must follow his own advice and keep and open mind allowing for the possibility that his model has mistakes.

 

Specially when the model is not based on mathematical information and came up without actual studying of our current knowledge which has *WORKING* theories.

 

~moo

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.

That wasn't the point of the original poster.

 

We are dealing with classical physics and in a very PARTICULAR context in classical physics. And in classical physics, what I said in post #14 and onwards is true. It was before I was answering YOUR point which takes us out of classical physics and out of the thread's topic.

 

~moo

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.

If at any point you reduce their velocity to zero, then yes, they'll fall directly into one another, because there's nothing else in the universe to influence them.

Yes.

In our universe, of course, they won't, for at least two reasons:

 

1) The universe is the pretty much the same in every direction, so there is no net pull except for nearby objects.

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'.

2) Space is expanding too fast for objects 1 septillion light years away to ever meet.

'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:

I don't know if this was posted before,but the latest is that Gravity is not what pulls us down,rather that Gravity is space time pushing us down. to a central point in space.As far as space being a void,well it is to a point ,but space can be manipulated to the point where it bends,and has flexibility

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 :

If the universe is empty and there are no other forces on those black holes then you can have twenty three and merge them, and you don't even need the hydrogen atoms; if NO OTHER FORCE exists on those objects their gravities would attract them together.

 

All items with mass attract one another, so you don't need a hydrogen atom; in fact, if there were ONLY three massive black holes and a hydrogen atom in space, then the force exerted by the tiny atom would be overcome a billion-billion-billion times by the force from each of the black holes, which means that for all intents and purposes, you can ignore it.

 

If there were no other items in the universe, that is.

 

But in reality, forces DO exist, and do COUNTER this force. We see it observationally as well as mathematically.

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."

That's kind of a screwy scenario to begin with, with three equal bodies. What is the point of having three and not two?

 

Anyway, no, they don't fall into one another. They just have very very very slightly modified orbits. If you take a circular orbit and reduce its velocity at some point, it becomes an elliptical orbit with its apogee at the point where you reduced the velocity.

 

If you think about it, it's equivalent to just using more or less charge in Newton's cannon.

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:

Moo writes :

Yes. It would.

 

The entire point is that we expected the universe to slow down the expansion, and yet it doesn't. That's why there was a need for "dark energy" - the universe continues its expansion away and stronger from the forces of gravity.

 

So, no, two black holes will not swallow the entire universe.

Two massive black holes would exert force on one another even from "septillion" light years away, but - as was pointed out before in this thread and others - that force will be countered, and likely cancelled and overcome, by gravitational pulls from closer (even if smaller) stars and by the acceleration already existing on the object by the expansion of the universe.

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.

Well, if one takes into account GR, any orbiting bodies will radiate gravitational waves and the orbits will decay over time. No need for any external perturbation.

At last swansont and I agree on something.

Merged post follows:

Assuming no cosmic expansion we would have to assume that at the moment of creation these 2 planets simply came into being. In this case, they would not initially affect one another.

 

The instant they appear, each one would send out gravity waves in all directions at the speed of light, so neither one would move at all for the first 100,000,000 years and would then start moving towards one another.

 

The point about 2 objects a septillion light years apart is a bit shaky as it would take a septillion years for gravity waves from these objects to reach each other. This is almost certainly longer than the lifetime of our universe and so no, these hypothetical objects would not interact.

 

Also, Hi, cool forum!

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:

So the question is why is there motion in the universe? Because the initial conditions of the universe were not in a stabile configuration. Why not? Because it was not completely uniform. Why not? Good question. Presumably because of random quantum effects.

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.

The moon is constantly falling towards the Earth' date=' but because of its initial velocity it continues to miss us. That's what an orbit is.QUOTE']

 

What is the "initial velocity"? The one we got from the Big Bang?

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 :

 

Now researchers have harnessed the latest in computing power to provide the most detailed model ever made of the cosmic scene that supposedly created the Moon. The result, a 3-D animation of the blast and subsequent chaos, is comforting. It shows that the Moon could have formed when a Mars-sized object hit a fully formed Earth.

 

The collision would have given Earth its spin, defined what we now call an equator, and put enough material into orbit at the right distance from Earth to allow the formation of a satellite that generations would later swoon over.

 

24 hours of chaos

 

Robin Canup of the Southwest Research Institute has been modeling the Moon's formation for eight years. On previous studies, she has worked with William Ward and Alastair Cameron, who represent one of two separate research groups that developed the original impact theory back in the mid-70s. (William K. Hartmann and Donald R. Davis were the other team.)

 

As Canup knows, all ideas about how the Moon formed must contend with one important fact: The Moon contains very little iron. Earth, on the other hand, is loaded with iron, the bulk of it tied up in the planet's core.

 

So the Moon is thought to have been pieced together by the bits that got blown off the upper layers of Earth, as well as the outer portions of the object that hit Earth.

 

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 :

 

Scientists believe that the moon formed as a result of a collision known as the Giant Impact or the "Big Whack." According to this idea, Earth collided with a planet-sized object 4.6 billion years ago. As a result of the impact, a cloud of vaporized rock shot off Earth's surface and went into orbit around Earth. The cloud cooled and condensed into a ring of small, solid bodies, which then gathered together, forming the moon.

 

The rapid joining together of the small bodies released much energy as heat. Consequently, the moon melted, creating an "ocean" of magma (melted rock).

 

The magma ocean slowly cooled and solidified. As it cooled, dense, iron-rich materials sank deep into the moon. Those materials also cooled and solidified, forming the mantle, the layer of rock beneath the crust.

 

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

 

The moon was formed from fragments of Earth after a collision with a giant asteroid relatively late in our planet's formation, new tests of moon rocks show.

 

The finding upends many of the prior theories for how the moon came to be, researchers say.

 

Moon Derives From Earth, Space Object, Study Says (August 11, 2003)

Moon Formed Volcanoes Early, Rock Study Shows (December 5, 2007)

Scientists have long believed that the moon was formed by a collision between our planet and a Mars-size object.

 

Computer models have shown that in this scenario 80 percent of the moon's material should have come from the asteroid, with only 20 percent from Earth.

 

But the new study of moon rocks collected three decades ago by Apollo astronauts, however, found that Earth and the rocks were too similar for that to be the case.

 

Earthly Material

 

The most likely explanation is that the moon was formed primarily of Earthly material, the authors say.

 

Lead author Mathieu Touboul of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich said there is another theory that may explain its formation.

 

"Alternatively, the material from which the moon eventually formed was a magma disk, connected to the Earth by a common atmosphere," he said in a statement.

 

Material from Earth and the nascent moon could then be exchanged via a shared metal-vapor atmosphere.

 

By the time the two worlds had settled back down and begun drifting apart, their compositions would have been virtually identical.

 

"New simulations of such a process have recently shown that such exchange is possible," Touboul said.

 

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 :

 

One of the leading theories for how our Moon formed is the Giant Impactor Theory, which proposes a small planet about the size of Mars struck Earth early in our solar system's formation, ejecting large volumes of heated material from the outer layers of both objects. This formed a disk of orbiting material which eventually stuck together to form the Moon. Until now there's been no way to actually test this theory. But a new instrument that closely examines iron isotopes could possibly shed insight into the origin of the moon, as well as how Earth and the other terrestrial planets formed.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It gets better, Baby!* Within an empty universe, a tiny flea's own gravity can pull on a HUGE PLANET a trillion light years away.

 

 

Of course, the planet would pull it too, but so would another flea. So there.

 

 

 

 

* Your nickname was just WAITING to be (ab)used this way at some point, mah friend

 

 

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 merged

Ok. 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.

Ahem, debate is two-ways

 

Also, just a reminder, there's no room for 'opinion' in science, only for empirical evidence.

 

You might want to take that into account before looking for a "good mathematician".

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:

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:

When 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:

Now 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:

A 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 DARK AGE: According to current science, space, time and matter originated 13.7 billion years ago in a tremendous explosion called the Big Bang. A few hundred million years later, the first stars formed, ending the "dark age" of the universe. Astronomers believe the objects observed by the Spitzer telescope are either the first stars -- hundreds of times more massive than our sun -- or voracious black holes that are consuming gas and spilling out tons of energy. If they turn out to be stars, then the clusters might be the first mini-galaxies. Our own Milky Way was probably created when mini-galaxies like these merged.

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.

Bender then offers a “Membrane Theory of Gravity.” A modification of M-theory, this new theory unifies all forces, predicts dark matter and energy, and explains the reasons behind the laws of physics such as E=MC2. It also theorizes how "dark matter" membrane vibrations (left over from the creation of our universe) will be converted into dark energy (which accelerates our universe's expansion) as those vibrations relax and dissipate over time. This prediction, along with others, could prove modified M-theory correct observationally—a feat cosmology has yet to achieve. SlipString Drive not only explains all recent observational evidence of Dark Matter and Energy, but is also supported by every observational study yet conducted. Studies such as the recent detection of "interference" in gravity wave detectors and why quantum entanglement is linked to gravity. It also predicts that space will appear smooth the further back in time you look, which quantum gravity has failed to do. Additionally, the laws of physics never break down in this model as they do in the Big Bang model. Finally, Bender hypothesizes how our universe will end, and answers the question: Must life in our universe be extinguished when our universe ends?

Still, the webpage is interesting reading .... and of course, I may be misinterpreting this prediction.

And with this, I'm out, but by no means does this mean you have a working theory, or that I concede. I am just not quite seeing where we're going with this other than (again) in circles.

 

Good luck in the future, pywakit. I hope you will come back here and post a link when your theory is ready for publication.

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.

1. No string theory is currently accepted as a physical theory, mathematical theories yes, hence the term string theory. Some string theories have presented methods which might allow them to be falsified. They are very much a work in progress.

 

2. Your post 130 does list a list of criteria that would make it, without observational evidence, fail, unfortunately for most of not all of the criteria you list you need some numerical (mathematical) way of comparing your idea with the others/observational evidence. And number 8 is already the accepted reality.

 

3. We don't currently have the physical understanding to comment on this, our knowledge of gravity at the microscopic level is not well understood by a long shot.

 

4. Again I would say it is difficult for us to comment without a knowledge of what dark energy actually is.

 

5/6. To comment on this kind of thing in a ground breaking way you really need to use research papers as references, not semi or wholly pop sci sources. People spend 30 years of their lives trying to understand these problems, they are not easy and can't really be picked up in your spare time. That is unfortunately due to the shear expanse of the knowledge of humans over the last 2 centuries. Even over the last 50 years. Most working physicists (i include astrophysicists within that clearly) have a superb understanding of their own field, an excellent understanding of the 'basics' by that I mean most stuff you get in undergraduate physics course (that's 3 years studying just physics all day every day), and an ok to good understanding of the work done by others in their department away from their field and an ok to poor understanding of actual groundbreaking work that is happening. And by a poor understanding I don't mean they don't know about it, I mean they are probably dimly aware of it but they don't think they fully understand the maths that is presented to them about it mainly because they haven't had the time to study it. A new docterate student for example just out of doing an undergraduate degree will spend about six months just reading mostly papers to get a grip on what is happening in their field and to get a good understanding of the maths of their physics.

 

You talk about finite sized 'centre' of black holes we, as I keep saying, cannot really comment on such things, we don't know, all we know is the predictions from GR that we presume to be wrong as they lead to questions like "how do you measure an infinity".

Your input is noted. Thank you.

Merged post follows:

Absolutely not, I didn't say that, no one said that but you.

 

I said you *shouldn't* compare to string theory. It's NOT comparable to your model.

 

 

There were a few others but these seem to be a good start.

 

 

No, it just means that you might not know everything that is involved in the phenomena you're trying to describe.

 

 

You are oversimplifying this. A trained mathematician or physicist could describe the phenomena BETTER. Not necessarily all of them. Better than someone who's not trained.

 

 

Again, your comparison to string theory is irrelevant. It's not "yours OR string theory". String theory is a separate theory that isn't yet mainstream, that has SOLID mathematical grounds and problems with falsifiability.

 

Even if string theory is wrong that doesn't make your theory right or not, it has nothing to do with your model. Totally irrelevant.

 

 

 

pywakit, here is the list you supplied:

 

 

Okay, I won't go over the other problems that might show the above is true. Fine. All three boil down to the same thing: If it doesn't follow the obervations and experiments we already have. That might be fine, but that's not a falsifiability claim.

 

 

 

How would you suggest we do that?

Is there any way to conduct an experiment or make an observation proving this true (or false) ?

 

The above two (6 and 7) are statements that are, themselves, unfalsifiable. There's no way to show what you claim in 6 physically (that's EXACTLY the problem of the unfalsifiability of string theory) and no way of finding out 7. Probably not ever. Those aren't falsifiability claims if on their own they're NEVER falsifiable!

 

Also take into account that while String theory might have unfalsifiable claims, the sheer amount of mathematical solid ground is enough to bring it up as a CONSIDERATION. It's far from being accepted mainstream science, but the fact the math just works out so beautifully in string theory makes it just a little bit more worth our attention.

 

Yours, I'm sorry to say this again, doesn't have that.

 

 

 

I don't understand this, but regardless, you are again making a claim without telling us what we need to find out in order to prove/disprove it. This isn't a falsifiable claim, in order to make it falsifiable you need to tell us what experimental result is needed for us to achieve the above conclusion.

 

Is it even possible? If the answer is "no" or "not at the moment" then the claim is not falsifiable.

 

 

Same as 8, 7 and 6. This is not falsifiable unless you bring forth a mechanism to MAKE IT falsifiable.

 

Look. What you're doing is bringing up more CONJECTURE and call it 'falsifiability', while in reality each one of those claims is a hypothesis on its own tht, on its own, requires its OWN FALSIFIABILITY.

 

Think of this: I make a claim "fairies exist, but we can't detect them". I now bring forth a falsifiable condition: "If we find that unicorns eat red berries, we know fairies don't exist"./ Ignoring the shaky logic I'm making, my own 'falsifiable claim' requires, on its own, a falsifiable condition; how do I prove that unicorns EXIST!?

 

Your falsifiable claims are the same, and as a result, you have no valid falsifiable claims.

 

Except, perhaps, this:

 

Which, judging from the fact we haven't yet actually SEEN a black hole (we've only so far detected its surroundings, predicted it through math, etc) this might take time.

 

But this is also one of the *conditions* for your theory to work. Thart is, your theory depends on black holes to NOT be infinitely dense and we don't know that one EITHER.

 

So.. you need to wait for such evidence to produce itself either here or there - either proving or disproving your theory.

 

-----

 

 

I'm sorry, but you were given an explanation from 2 members why this is not true.

 

Einstein's math didn't just come off the ether; it emerged out of PREVIOUS equations, evidence and experimentation. You don't just 'tweak it' to make it work your way; you need to show WHY you tweak it, what's the reason for the NEED to tweak it (it works just fine with no tweaks) and hwo you tweak it.

 

I know you keep saying that a 'good mathematician' will do that, but you're wrong, and other than telling you to go study at least one university-level course in special relativity(that shows you where the math came from) I am not sure what else to do to make you understand this point.

 

 

Again, what you assume is irrelevant. You're wrong.

 

[...] I need to go out, so I'm skipping the rest for now -- the above shows most ofthe big problems anyways, there's no need to continue for now. We can leave the rest for later.

 

I will say this, though:

 

I, too, spoke to Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but I *doubt* he told you the problems in your model in depth. He is a very good astrophysicist; you might have had time to graze over the interesting basics, but I am VERY VERY doubtful he actually heard your theory and accepted it.

 

That said, and again, I don't want any emotions here, but I think part of the problem is that you're confident. A scientist should always suspect something's wrong with a theory; they should always search for flaws, problems, missing stuff, they should always listen to criticism to strenghten their own theory so that the theory will emerge STRONG and impossible to shatter.

 

You tend to be overly confident. So much so, that you seem to dismiss our claims offhand. ajb and Klaynos did not "fail" pywakit, they GAVE UP. There might be potential in this theory, sure, but you have GOT to start listening to criticism. If your plan is to publish this, I guarantee that the criticism you're getting here is a gentle cuddly kind compared to what will happen after publication.

 

~moo

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.

Moo : Okay, I won't go over the other problems that might show the above is true. Fine. All three boil down to the same thing: If it doesn't follow the obervations and experiments we already have. That might be fine, but that's not a falsifiability claim.

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.

Moo : How would you suggest we do that?

Is there any way to conduct an experiment or make an observation proving this true (or false) ?

 

The above two (6 and 7) are statements that are, themselves, unfalsifiable. There's no way to show what you claim in 6 physically (that's EXACTLY the problem of the unfalsifiability of string theory) and no way of finding out 7. Probably not ever. Those aren't falsifiability claims if on their own they're NEVER falsifiable!

 

Also take into account that while String theory might have unfalsifiable claims, the sheer amount of mathematical solid ground is enough to bring it up as a CONSIDERATION. It's far from being accepted mainstream science, but the fact the math just works out so beautifully in string theory makes it just a little bit more worth our attention.

 

Yours, I'm sorry to say this again, doesn't have that.

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.

I don't understand this point... you said yourself that all we need to do is use the BBT math. But you claim that your theory *expands* on the BBT.

 

If that's the case, you can't eat the cake and leave it whole, pywakit. If your theory is expanding the BBT, you should supply math for the expanded part. The mathematics for the BBT prove the BBT, not your theory.

 

I'm not sure what there is for me to know, though I do appreciate your compliment about my amazing'ness.

 

 

You were shown where the problems exist, and you excuse them. I know it's making you angry, and I don't mean to - this isn't personal - but the answers we're looking for will not be settled by long posts or circular excuses. You need the math. No question, no doubt, no one will publish this without the math even if you had 10 published scientists backing you up for a publication.

 

You MUST have math. You *MUST* have falsifiability (I am not sure if I missed the list or if you didn't answer it, I'm just reminding you that this is a point to look for). You *MUST* have evidence for your theory *that are separate* from the evidence for the big bang.

 

Look. If your theory and the BBT have the EXACT same evidence to their favor, but your theory goes that much further to make a claim that is yet to be experimentally proven, then by definition the 'better' theory is the simpler one, which is the BBT.

 

You must supply some reason for your theory to replace the BBT, otherwise there's no reason to. The BBT is expansive enough and is well supported. You need to show that something that *doesn't* work for BBT *does* work in your theory, and provide actual evidence for it. Mathematics are crucial; they are the language that is used to describe physics. But you can start with a suggestion for an experiment to be done.

 

 

 

Stop being offended. This is the "lite" version of a peer-review process. If/when your theory is published, you'll get much worse. You might want to prepare yourself for the process.

 

I'm saying you excuse stuff not as if you're lying or cheating, I'm saying that your answers aren't good enough, and I explained why. ajb and Klaynos have also explained why. You post very long posts that are a bit tiring to go over (again, this isn't personal) but they don't have the substance that the posters are asking for. You were asked for math and you were asked for predictions, instead you posted long posts explaining why those aren't needed.

 

They are needed. Excuses as to why you think they don't serve nothing for the validity of the theory. That's what I mean about 'excusing'. I have no doubt you're not doing this intentionally. You do need to be aware that it's not enough for the scientific process, and not just for us here in scienceforums.

 

 

Right, that's fine, but I am saying that a sponsor will request the SAME THINGS WE DO.

 

You should be ready to explain them. Thoroughly.

 

I don't want to be condecending and it's absolutely not my meaning, but pywakit, there's a reason physicists spend so many years studying the mainstream basic (and advanced) theories before they go off trying to find NEW theories. You have to know the basics *EXTREMELY* well. You have to know where they came from mathematically and historically. You have to know how to derive them because that's how you know *why* things are the way they are.

 

So when a physics expert asks you about a specific aspect, it's not to offend yuo, it's because that physics expert knows the derivation and consequence of those mathematical formulas and where they *don't* fit your idea.

 

You must deal with this or you will *not* get funding. No one will pay for a theory that can't explain already occuring phenomena. I'm not syaing yours can't, I'm saying yours have problems. Go over the thread once more.

 

 

I am not the one who claimed that the theory is ready and should be 'mainstream'. You did.

 

You claimed that your theory has no more problems, and no one managed to dispute it. You are wrong.

 

I am sorry I'm irritating you, but you need to stop taking things personally when people disagree with you. And I'm getting quite annoyed and tired with your condescending manner. I am TALKING with you, we are debating, I'm putting forth my points and your emotional blackmail will not help you here.

 

Please don't ask me to ban you again, it's inappropriate. We're not having a discussion out of my power as moderator, but if you continue to beg me to kick you out, I might consider it, and it will definitely not come from my "lack of desire" to debate you.

 

I wouldn't be wasting my time posting these long replies (which I spend time thinking about before posting) if I just wanted to upset you. Believe it or not, I have better things to do in life. I post what I think and what I know, and I expect you to be as respectful to my points as I am to yours. Disagreeing with you does not equal ridiculing you. Seriously, it's getting annoying.

 

 

This is a rational debate. Drop the emotion, pywakit, or I too will give up on you, and tho it will earn you a technical "win" it will not do anything to validate your theory. Not a thing.

 

~moo

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.

"You *MUST* have evidence for your theory *that are separate* from the evidence for the big bang."

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'm saying you excuse stuff not as if you're lying or cheating, I'm saying that your answers aren't good enough, and I explained why. ajb and Klaynos have also explained why. You post very long posts that are a bit tiring to go over (again, this isn't personal) but they don't have the substance that the posters are asking for. You were asked for math and you were asked for predictions, instead you posted long posts explaining why those aren't needed."

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 condecending and it's absolutely not my meaning, but pywakit, there's a reason physicists spend so many years studying the mainstream basic (and advanced) theories before they go off trying to find NEW theories. You have to know the basics *EXTREMELY* well. You have to know where they came from mathematically and historically. You have to know how to derive them because that's how you know *why* things are the way they are.

 

So when a physics expert asks you about a specific aspect, it's not to offend yuo, it's because that physics expert knows the derivation and consequence of those mathematical formulas and where they *don't* fit your idea.

You must deal with this or you will *not* get funding. No one will pay for a theory that can't explain already occuring phenomena. I'm not syaing yours can't, I'm saying yours have problems. Go over the thread once more."

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:

A 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.

I think you should re-read THEIR points, though. I quoted a small portion for reminder, that's not fully what they said.

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

You shouldn't take my arguments, pywakit, I just showed you that your claim that the experts shared "opinions" and that you don't have a problem with your theory is just not true. You should go over the claims Klaynos and ajb made to you.

 

And about publishing -- it's true that a formal university helps, but there are ways to publish a revolutionary theory without having the backing of a university. And if you think that the peer-review you're going to go through in a mainstream publication is anywhere less than what you had here, or that you'll be able to get away with the claims like you tried to here, you are going to find out you are completely mistaken.

 

 

Your theory has a lot of problems. You managed to excuse through them, but the excuses are not good enough. That's why Klaynos and ajb stopped posting. They tried, they stopped.

 

Your theory is still lacking. You don't need my points to 'refute', you need the points made by them (they are MUCH more expansive) and you are in need of actually solving the problems, not excusing them.

 

~moo

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.

"Not good enough. Same math will prove BBT, not your expansion of it."

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.

Originally Posted by Klaynos

Does it make mathematical predictions that can be tested against reality? If not it is not a theory.

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.

From ... Theories of Inflation

 

cftp.ist.utl.pt/~bento/ research.html

 

TGSAA report of the U.S. National Research Council

 

An exerpt :

 

Fortunately, all these problems can be solved simultaneously in the context of a relatively simple scenario for the evolution of the Universe --- the Inflationary Universe scenario. The main idea is that the Universe, at very early stages of its evolution expanded quasi-exponentially (the stage of inflation) in a state with energy density dominated by the potential energy density of some scalar field. This rapid expansion made the Universe flat, homogeneous and isotropic and the density of monopoles, gravitions and domain walls vanishingly small. Later, the potential energy density of the scalar field transformed into thermal energy, and still later, the Universe is correctly described by the standard hot Universe theory predicting the existence of the CMBR. The scalar field potential should be provided by Particle Physics theories and hence the development of the inflationary Universe scenario has opened up a new and extremely promising avenue for connecting fundamental physics with experiment/observations.

 

Most importantly, inflation provides a causal mechanism for generating the primordial perturbations required for the formation of galaxies, clusters and even larger objects. Different inflationary models lead to different predictions for the power spectra of the CMBR. Many models of inflation have been suggested, but at present none is sufficiently distinguished to form a "standard" inflationary theory. However, modern observations allow us to discriminate between different inflationary models, and are already sufficient to rule out some models completely and substantially constrain the parameter space of others. Future observations will make even stronger demands on theoretical precision, and will certainly tightly constrain inflation.

 

Recent results from the BOOMerang and MAXIMA CMBR experiments confirm the flat Universe predicted by inflation and are beginning to address its second basic prediction: almost scale invariant adiabatic, Gaussian density perturbations produced by quantum fluctuations during inflation. The third prediction, a nearly scale-invariant spectrum of gravity waves will be more difficult to confirm, but is a critical probe of inflation that could be tested by the PLANCK mission.

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.

What's stopping you from publishing this in a peer-reviewed publication, then?

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.

There's a difference between opinion and stating a fact, pywakit. The experts shared some problems your theory has and what it is missing. That's not opinion.

 

And, as you were told, your theory doesn't quite offer "A+" when the current theory is "A", your theory suggests other effects that need to be demonstrated first.

 

 

 

~moo

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.

Your post is very long, pywakit, and I have no time to go through it point by point, but I will say that the experts that were on this thread told you what is needed to make your theory stand on its own.

 

It doesn't YET. It might have potential (though it does have problems too, as the posters told you and explained where and why) but it isn't there yet. You need the experimentation results -- and that those will support your claim, and ONLY then your theory will stand on its own. Your claims rely on something we *don't know* yet; the current theory suggests A, you suggest B - both suggestions are equally possible, only the current theories explain otehr things as well including math and predictions.

 

THE ONLY WAY to solve this is by getting the answer to the experiment. Then and only then will your theory stand on its own, and not a moment sooner.

 

 

And one last point: Be careful what you say about "ALL theories". Hve you read *ALL* alternative theories that you can make this claim, pywakit? I am sorry, but I doubt it. I doubt they *ALL* need some form of magic.

 

Yours require some form of magic too for now; it makes a claim on something that is untested. *WHEN* you test it, it'll become valid. Until you do, it's empty prediction that can be hopeful thinking.

 

 

~moo

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.