pywakit

Moo, I can appreciate your point of view. There is a world of difference between being 'defensive' and 'defending'. I am undoubtably guilty of getting defensive, but overall, I am just ( to the best of my ability ) rationally defending the model ... which would make some sense. On the face of it, you are correct in that just because a model may need to be replaced does not make mine 'valid'. I never suggested it did. My model DOES stand on it's own two legs. Or more accurately, a plethora of legs. I would prefer not to have to argue about strings anymore. You can massage the math any way you choose. The reality is that it is highly questionable, and still quite controversial. My bad for using it as an example. You seem to be having trouble grasping that the model does not stand 'seperately' from the current BBT. It relies on everything already proven to support that model. I am not proposing some off-the-wall solution. I have just taken the time to correlate all the available, and pertinent evidence into a reasoned, and rational scenario for the functions, and processes of the macro universe. I did not say you disrespected me. And if you find me tedious, then stop posting. I'm not going to allow you to make statements in my thread that I believe are in error, or are lacking material support, without challenging them. There is nothing irrational in my doing so. If my stance on this point is in defiance of some rule, then fine. I'll just leave. I do not mean to be disrespectful of you. I appreciate your high level of intelligence, and all the work you have put into you field. However, that does not make you exempt from making errors. You have shown ... by your posts ... that you apparently have not read all of mine. You apparently have not followed the arguments against, and my rebuttals. You do not seem to have a comprehensive grasp of the model. You are quite incorrect in that I 'may' think that the only options are the current theory, or my theory. You can't seem to accept that I have considered many other theories by very respected scientists. Just because I find fault, or discrepancies in the current, or other optional models, that are addressed in an unsatisfactory manner does not mean I did not spend time examining them further. I have posted the titles to the articles. I am not computer literate enough to display the correct link. I would appreciate a heads-up on that point. As to the 'sound mathematical model' of strings, I disagree. 10^500 equally possible mathematical outcomes does not lend credence to one. And to suggest that it is a viable unification theory seems to be in striking contrast to all the material I have read regarding the subject. If you choose to equate my model with strings ... or even having LESS validity than strings, that is your right. If you can prove that strings are falsifiable in the accepted scientific methodology, I will change my views on strings. If you can show me that Briane Greene did NOT state that strings are unfalsifiable, then I will change my views. If you can show me that Witten did NOT call M-theory magic, I will change my views. Until then ... if it's *magic* to Witten, it's *magic* to me. And has no more validity that ANY other unfalsifiable hypothesis. Good heavens Moo. Let's get real. How productive has string research REALLY been in FORTY years of intense study? Compare that to the astounding amount of information we have gathered simply from technical improvements to our observational abilities. You continue to make the assertion that there is NO math to support my model. That is incorrect. That is the same as saying there is NO math to support the BBT. But you will continue to make this assertion, because you do not understand the model. I clearly am not going to convince you, and frankly, trying to do so ALSO gets rather tedious. The model is falsifiable on many fronts. I include this partial list of ways the model can either be unequivocally falsified, or at least, show strong evidence against it. 1. If it is in conflict with any known, accepted law(s) of physics. 2. If it is in conflict with Quantum Mechanics. 3. If it is in conflict with General Relativity. 4. If it is in conflict any experimental evidence. 5. If it is in conflict with any observation to date. 6. If it is determined that SST is correct, and we make observations, or invent experiments showing our universe draws it's energy from alternate dimensions/membranes. 7. If we determine that space never existed before our BB. 8. If we determine that space itself actually expands. 9. If we determine that black holes bounce off each other ( as opposed to actually merging ). 10. If we determine that black holes shunt matter/energy somewhere outside our 3d universe, or for that matter, somewhere else within our 3d universe. 11. If we determine that black holes actually do rapidly evaporate in the manner(s) described ( IE; ever increasing release of energy as mass decreases ). 12. If we determine that black holes are infinitely dense. 13. If we determine that a singularity ( zero dimensions ) actually exists ( as opposed to a physical, 3d structure ). 14. If we determine that black holes stop growing at some arbitrary mass ( IE; like 50B sols ). 15. If we determine that observed non-feeding black holes never feed again. 16. If we determine that black holes do not gravitate toward ( IE; altering their original inertial path ... which could be determined by tracing it back to it's starting point ) other strong gravitational sources ( IE; other galaxies/black holes ). 17. If we determine that black hole rotational velocity is actually limited to the arbitrary 'theoretical' limit of 1,150 spins per second. 18. If we observe a black hole blowing up. 19. If it is determined that the curvature of space is not flat ( currently 2% margin of error ). 20. If it is determined that space ( the actual, total universe ) is finite. 21. If it is determined that there is extreme red shifted CMBR co-existing with that already observed. 22. If any other model is proved to be ( more ) correct. All ( or most ) of these falsification tests can either be done right now, or will be determined ( in all likelihood ) in the near future. I'm sure there are many more ways the model could be falsified. My model inherently predicts certain black hole behaviors. When I first proposed the model one year ago, many of the new discoveries that lend support to my model ( that I have posted in this forum ) were as yet unknown, or not yet 'common' knowledge. Don't think for a second that I have uncovered evidence that refuted/contradicted my model, and I just ignored it. That would mean I am insane. For me to think I could force my model down the collective throats of the scientific community when there is clear evidence against it would be beyond irrational. Moo, as I have said many times, at some point ( if it is not already occurring ) there will be curious, intrigued scientists who will produce a complete mathematical model describing it in the manner to which academia can better relate. If for no other reason than to 'prove' it wrong. In the meantime, I will just struggle along using english. What is missing from all of your comments Moo is any attempt to prove my model has insurmountable flaws. You just keep hammering the same theme. I am not qualified. My reference material is not qualified. You continue to put words in my mouth. You continue to make false assumptions about me, and my model. You continue to try to make it personal while I continue to try and focus your ( and other's ) attention on the model itself. Don't like it? Fine. If you are unwilling to address any of it's salient features, then just ignore it ... and ignore me. I'm not going to stop defending it. I am not going to just drop it. I am not going to just 'take your word' for anything regarding my model. Even Einstein was wrong. That human failing has not been eradicated. I think you are wrong in the manner in which you address my model. I don't see any constructive help. I am not going to become a mathematician. But I may be the one who is wrong. Time ... and more research is going to answer this question. I accept the possibility that I may have the whole universe wrong. So far, though, every new discovery fits flawlessly into my 'universe' view. Maybe I'm just stupidly lucky. But I have been stupidly lucky for 50 years. Never been wrong, Moo. Never. My track record outweighs your objections, in my opinion. And it's my opinion that matters. Whether you want to believe me or not, I have a 'talent' it would seem, for looking at the bigger picture. I will change that viewpoint the day a discovery is made that blows my theories out of the water. Until then ... with all due respect ... I will continue to trust my observational abilities, and my ability to reason. Any other stance would be totally illogical. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI have to add a couple more points. It almost seems as if many of you expect my model to predict things OTHER than those we have observed in the past, what we are observing right now, and what we will observe in the future. "If your model just describes the universe as we have observed it, you have NOTHING." That, of course, ignores the fact that there is NO model in existence that DOES fully describe our local universe. Well here is a news flash. If my model is the CORRECT one, it will ALWAYS describe the universe as we have observed it ... how we observe it now ... and what we will observe in the future. If it didn't do this ... it would be WRONG. Yes. I understand. NOBODY can come up with the CORRECT one. Only a better one. Right? And furthermore, no one with a 'superficial knowledge' of physics, or math can POSSIBLY understand the universe well enough to add ANYTHING to our understanding. Only a trained mathematician/physicist is 'qualified'. If I lack the ability to mathematically describe my model, and make mathematical predictions, my model is 'worthless'. Ok. If you say so. Second point. Yes there are MANY MANY models out there. They would be at least on par with mine, or even superior except for one small detail. THEY ALL REQUIRE MAGIC. Unproven, unfalsifiable MAGIC. Mine appears to be the ONLY model in existence ... which FULLY, and rationally describes the large scale function/processes of our local universe ... without magic. Call me crazy, but I perceive this as a HUGE advantage over the many many others.

How true.

No it doesn't. There are only so many years I have to contemplate the real universe. There is way more to learn than I will ever have time for already. There are an INFINITE number of POSSIBILITIES. If you want to waste your time fruitlessly considering the possibility of elves ( for example ), go right ahead. I have better things to do.

You both are quite amusing. Rather than attack the reference 'source' ( which may or may not be a valid concern ) you might consider refuting the 'content' of the articles by offering contradictory evidence/observations from your 'peer reviewed' source material. I agree that 'sensationalism' sells. That does not preclude the possibility that the information in any given article may be accurate. Are you suggesting that the authors made up both these stories? Or misrepresented the information in that they 'misquoted' the ( fictitious? ) researchers? Never was a meeting in Long Beach? Long Beach doesn't exist, either? These findings were NOT presented at the American Astronomical Society's meeting? There is no such organization? NASA Science On Display At American Astronomical Society Meeting http://www.nasa.gov Meeting Services | American Astronomical Society http://www.aas.org/meetings NASA, and the AAS not adequate reference material? Don't they usually 'peer review'? Yes. You both are quite amusing. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Interesting wording, Moo. So it's just an 'idea' that the current model 'might' require adjustments. I guess we could logically say then that the current model might 'not' need any adjustments. It may be just fine after all! This is truly a remarkable assertion. Hmmm. Let's look at strings. 1. No facts 2. No evidence 3. No experimentation 4. No mathematics ( ok, that was unnecessarily rude ... let's call the mathematics 'questionable' ) 5. No way to falsify ... so far ( you forgot to mention this critical aspect ) Now explain why we are considering strings ...... ?? Incredible as it may seem, my model has ... 1. Facts supporting it 2. Evidence supporting it 3. Experimentation that can come in the form of further corroborating observations 4. Mathematics that already exist supporting the BBT ( which does not conflict with my model ) 5. Apparent conformity with General Relativity 6. Apparent conformity with Newtonian Gravity 7. It's falsifiable on many, real world levels Ok. I will be careful. No doubt you would.

I was actually going to ask about the c x 2 issue. I was thinking I was forgetting something critical. Thanks for pointing it out. Still, a collision at just under c would be pretty spectacular, would it not? Since space would be collapsed at the point of collision, the near instananeous release of angular momentum ( spin, kinetic energy ) would be in keeping with the 1st planck seconds of the BB as we understand it. My reasoning for this ( < c x 2 ) potential velocity had to do with the black holes' special relationship to space. I reasoned ... incorectly it appears ... that with no other competition, the time available for acceleration, and the masses involved ... that although from a specific frame ( each back hole's frame of reference ) it would APPEAR that c was not exceeded, both individual BHs would have had the potential to achieve near c on it's own. Essentially, a reversal of the recession we appear to be currently measuring at cumulative velocities exceeeding c. As with every scenario I have hypothesized, achieving c ( in any regard ) does not appear to be necessary for the model to function. It only affects the length of time involved for the entire process to unfold. I'm sure I must have made a dozen other errors, too. I don't know what you mean by 'time is the restraint'. Your time? Or are you referring to the universe? Link to article? Which article? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHmmm. Well, as long as I'm waiting for arguments ...... My thoughts on Dark Matter: It is interesting that DM has been 'discovered' about 50 times in the last 5 years. Yet it never quite seems to stick. Just heard last month, once again, that it has been 'proved' to exist. Which we already knew. Just can't find it! I think that, once again, we have been looking at things the wrong way, based on incorrect assumptions. We cant see DM directly since it is 'dark'. But we are certain of it's gravitational effect. I think ... that our assumptions about galaxy formation are a little skewed by preconceptions. We base our conclusions about the existence of dark matter on the motion of galaxies. They rotate much too fast around a central point than can be explained by what we 'believe' to be the mass of the central black hole, and the mass of the orbiting galaxy ( based on luminosity ). But it seems to me that the likeliest solution is the most obvious. And the most simple. Dark Matter is nothing more than ( additional ) black hole mass. And the black hole must have formed long before we think it did. This easily explains why there is no luminosity. The mass was in the black hole way before the galaxies formed. In fact, it is quite likely that the black hole's mass was instrumental in the formation of the visible galaxy. If the black hole formed very very early ... from the sudden expansion of matter/energy from the BB, it seems this expansion might not have been all that uniform. Lots of plasma, lots of dense areas, and everything in between right from the start. So ultramassive black holes might have been the norm rather than the exception in our early universe. You see, DM has 2 choices. It can either be part of the mass ( all mixed together ) orbiting a larger central mass ... and helping to drive angular momentum ... Or it can be part of the central mass. And in all probability, spinning rapidly. As in the black hole spinning rapidly. It seems we have yet to find a non-rotating BH. We can find galaxies that have non-feeding black holes ... like ours ... but how do we know they are not spinning? Certainly, stars are orbiting the central mass at enormous velocities. But because we don't see the accretion disc, and there are apparently no visible jets emanating from the poles, we just assume it must not be rotating. So what do you suppose is causing the extreme orbital velocities of the stars at the Milky Way's core? Lately we have discovered a lot of black holes. We can verify that most are spinning. Very fast. The ones we can't verify as spinning from jets, we can still see that the stars orbit close to the core at extreme velocities. Anyway,as I said, DM already IN the BH seems to be the far simplest solution. And if DM was already a part of the BH, it wasn't really dark at all. Just plain old ordinary matter. Again, the process of black hole formation simply happened significantly earlier than we thought. This solution ( I think ) does not conflict with observed motion of galaxy clusters. And I think this also can explain the observations of the Bullet Cluster. Couldn't ultramassive non-feeding black holes at the the cores of these clusters cause the same effect? We are quite sure, at this point, that all galaxies all have massive ( stellar, SM, UM ... at least ) black holes. I think the reason we may have gotten their masses wrong is because we have been using the wrong measuring sticks ... luminosity ( visible light, microwaves ) to determine their mass, instead of just going with the velocity of the visible stars in orbit. Again, if the mass has been there in the BH long before the luminous galaxies formed, then we would not expect to see any radiation from that ( extra ) mass. And they would exert a uniform gravitational effect ( which is observed ) on the orbiting matter/energy, and additionally would be an excellent mechanism for the evolution of luminous matter ( star formation ) by stirring up the gasses and matter. This solution would still be in keeping with observed gravitational lensing, I believe, and it could also explain the lack of EM interaction. And, of course, it would explain why we can't actually 'find' dark matter. All that 'extra' mass ( or at least the majority of it ) that our observations tell us must exist ... the extra 23%? ( WMAP 2005 ) ... could just as easily already reside in black holes. But I acknowledge the reality that I could be missing some important issue here. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHere is a good example of what I mean. This article makes the assumption that the dark matter is 'outside' the black hole. There seems to be no objective reason to make such an assumption, other than 'guessing' the SMBH was a function of stellar collapse AFTER the formation of the galaxy, as opposed to the black hole having existed long before the galaxy formed. As you can see, he makes a lot of asumptions here, that are not supported by the facts in evidence. We are now becoming aware that black holes can evolve/grow through several different mechanisms. ( collapsing gas/dust, stellar collapse, sporadic feeding by matter in orbit being perturbed, merges, etc.) And of course, the real possibility that SMBHs/UMBHs were formed shortly after the BB. And as I have stated before, we continue to make observations that indicate BH formation happened much earlier than previously thought. Naturally, my hypothesis regarding dark matter fits flawlessly into my model. What else could you expect? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWhich came first: galaxies or black holes? From Cosmos Wednesday, 7 January 2009 by Katie Lee http://www.cosmosmagazine.com An exerpt : It seems that each new discovery challenges our preconceptions about galaxy formation ... and the formation and behaviors of black holes. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMore .... Which came first - black holes or galaxies? Scientists solve cosmic riddle Last updated at 10:13 AM on 07th January 2009 http://www.dailymail.co.uk

I'm sorry. You missed my point entirely. But don't worry about it. I should have kept my views to myself. Ok? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You also missed my point entirely. But that too, is ok. Please accept my apology for disturbing you all. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes, Moo. I am in the wrong. My apology.

Trouble reading? The quote of mine says INTELLIGENT life. You just don't get it. You can't see through the statement. This is a very carefully, craftily worded statement designed to make you believe he said something other than what he actually said. So allow me to clear it up. You can believe anything you want. It won't be 'opposed' to Church Doctrine because the Church Doctrine doesn't address it. No 'official' word from God ... through His messenger ( the Pope ) on this, or any issue relating to extra-terrestrial life, or intelligent extra-terrestrial life. Technically, he wasn't lying. Got it? Yes technically, he is 100% correct. And you ..... are not cognizant of the deficiencies in his communication. Your bad. I'm gonna say 'no'. Now the Church 'spokesmen' ... being forced to address 'evolution' ... go about it in the prescribed manner that has worked so well for so many years. These guys aren't dummies. Suddenly ... it's 'old' news. Good Heavens, they cry. It's been in the Bible all along. Look! It even says in the Holy Bible that "we evolved from the slime" and then they reference the following 'quote' from Genesis 2:7. Rather slippery little fellas, aren't they? Of course, that isn't what Genesis 2:7 says. Or is it? Hmmm. Maybe it is ... New International Version (©1984) the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. New Living Translation (©2007) Then the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life into the man's nostrils, and the man became a living person. English Standard Version (©2001) then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. New American Standard Bible (©1995) Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) Then the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the earth and blew the breath of life into his nostrils. The man became a living being. King James Bible And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. American King James Version And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. American Standard Version And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Bible in Basic English And the Lord God made man from the dust of the earth, breathing into him the breath of life: and man became a living soul. Douay-Rheims Bible And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Oh LOOK!!! Here's one! Lol. Of course, this is not the one used by most English speaking Catholics. But that's cool. So here we are ... the human form 'possibly evolved' from slime. Just like the Catholics are now claiming they have known all along. It's really quite remarkable. Who knew??? Mmm. Don't think so. According to this, God just used the MATERIALS in the slime to *magically* make a fully formed human. Darby Bible Translation And Jehovah Elohim formed Man, dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul. English Revised Version And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Webster's Bible Translation And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. World English Bible Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Young's Literal Translation And Jehovah God formeth the man -- dust from the ground, and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, and the man becometh a living creature. And to be perfectly objective here, I also read the info available on your astronomer. How un-enlightening. This gets so tiresome. If you can't honestly and rationally discuss this, then what's the point? And by the way, what does other human bad behavior have to do with your assertions about the Church? Nothing. Why doesn't the Church have an 'official' position? What are they teaching the kids in school? That there 'might' be intelligent life elsewhere in the universe? That it is 'possible'? I think not. Meaning, by virtue of refusing to address the issue, it was assumed that the Church 'probably' wasn't going to try to deny the 'possibility' of evolution ( in general ) anymore. Funny. They said exactly the same thing about their 'misunderstanding' with Galileo in 1992. In other words, God won't tell them. That's what 'infallible' declarations are, you know. God speaking directly to the Pope. You blithely ignore the atrocities of 1000 plus years. You blithely ignore what they are ACTUALLY saying right now. This is untenable. You can show me one example of the Church ALMOST admitting that 'evolution' is possible ... thus apparently 'proving' your assertion that the Church will not let their 'faith get in the way of the facts. And I can show you a plethora of examples of the Church consistently ( and violently ) 'allowing their faith to get in the way of the facts'. Right up to today. Go ahead and 'stand by your assertions'. You are are obviously incapable of rational observation ... or rational discussion. I will stand by my assertions, too. The difference is ... I can back them up. I am not 'picking' on the Catholic Church. I am stating the facts/events as recorded. If you don't like reality, you don't have to participate in it. (edit) Just want to say that it appears most Catholics do not follow strict Church Doctrine anymore. Well over 50% of self-professed Catholics believe in Evolution. Good for them. Buddhist, Hindu, and Jewish top the list of religions believing in evolution. I think I took more offense to the ... .... quote more than anything else. There is no basis for such a claim. The facts say otherwise. The facts make it quite clear that the Catholic Church's real focus ... much like any religion ... was to control people and amass more power. It's a sad part of our world's history. And it still hasn't changed. Religion has done much good for our species. That is undeniable. But the fact is ... every religion that has ever existed has been conceived by Man. No exceptions. And every religion shares the same failing. They are FANTASY. Nothing more. It makes no difference if ONE human being believes the fantasy ... or a BILLION. There is simply NO rational, logical, objective reason to believe in fantasies. No matter how complex you make them. No matter how long the fantasy has been believed. No matter how many humans claim to "know it to be true in their heart of hearts". It will never change the reality. It's made up. By us. End ( or should be ) of story. It's like living in a planet-sized madhouse. When does humanity finally become rational? When will humanity learn to distinguish fantasy from reality? Soon I hope. Ok. Ban me if you feel you must. And my sincere apology to the OP.

You might want to ask Bruce Lee that question.

You are correct in that I should have kept my 'views' to myself. But characterizing it as a 'rant' is inappropriate. I stated verifiable facts. And ... "What does that say? That they don't let their faith blind them to what can be seen. Unlike other religions." is a fallacious argument unsupported by the facts. I'm not 'anti-Catholic'. I am anti-stupidity. Anti-irrationality. Which covers ANY religion. They haven't 'learned' anything. No 'lesson taught'. Your comments are woefully out of touch with reality. That 'historical blockheadedness' is a quaint euphemism for the terror these people ( and other religions, too ) perpetrated on those in disagreement with the doctrines. And there is nothing 'historical' about it. The attitudes have not changed. Think the Church is cool with other intelligent life in the universe? I don't think so. Ask any priest if God 'created' any other 'intelligent life' ... let alone any life at all ... anywhere else but here. Sorry if the facts are inappropriate. Like I said ... I happen to care. I felt I had a right to 'set the record straight'. His comments about the church were INACCURATE. And easily proven to be inaccurate. Feel free to admonish me for telling the truth. You might do well however, to study the issues before you lend support to gross falsehoods. In addition, I am not the one who brought up religions. Several of you had made comments already. You can call my comments 'unwelcome' ... but I also felt that the comments were 'unwelcome'. Are you suggesting I have no right to weigh in with facts? Or is it only ok if it's 'generally accepted falsehoods'? Apparently I am supposed to be concerned with the 'feelings' of everyone ... but my own. Well, sorry. Mine count too. Stop telling lies, ( intentional or not ) and I won't feel the need to rebutt them. Have a nice day. Oh. One more thing. About that other comment ... "Even the Catholic Church accepts evolution". Are you serious? Check your facts. Again. The Church has grudgingly accepted that evolution exists. They do NOT accept that Man came from the 'primordial ooze' ... and they also claim that God 'spoke' or 'willed' everything into existence. The evolution you speak of was just God setting things in motion. Man, however, was formed seperately and fully complete. Get your facts straight. This may be an alien concept to you, but why don't you try admitting when you are wrong ... like I do. You might be surprised how 'liberating' it can feel to admit being human. Or is doing so an admission of 'weakness' that is intolerable to you?

Yep. I am. Particularly when the horrors perpetrated by institutions like the Church are ignored, glossed over, or otherwise mischaracterized so as to make them appear solely in a positive light. When nothing could be farther from the truth. The Church did more than probably any other entity to stifle freedom of thought ... and were instrumental in stunting, and retarding the growth of human knowledge. If not for their 'ministrations' we would probably have human colonization of both the Moon, and Mars by now. I will never understand how a man ( or woman ) could spend their ENTIRE lives studying a book of conjecture, unsupported opinions and heresay. How much intrinsic value could there possibly be in receiving a doctorate in FANTASY? Call me crazy, but I happen to care about people like Bruno. Even though he is long dead, I am still ashamed and disgusted at the actions of these people who claimed ( and still do ) 'moral superiority' over others. I have no problem imagining the agony he suffered physically, and mentally as he was burned at the stake for suggesting there might be other actual suns, with planets orbiting them ... Not to mention the horror his surviving family members must have suffered having to live with the knowledge of his pain. Yes, I am sensitive. Something wrong about caring for strangers? Isn't that what Jesus did? I may not believe he had any connection to some supernatural being ... but he had a good message. Too bad it became perverted by his 'followers'.

Not to in any way put down the families in question, but after looking at those pictures, I would have to say that 'beauty' couldn't be more subjective. After hearing all those gushing and overly descriptive comments, I was rather stunned to see the actual pics. They all look rather ordinary to me. Adonis? Perfect figure? Wow! Not even close.

Did you not notice the 'disclaimer' where I said I might have confused you with another poster? Lol. So sensitive! Anyway, I was just teasing the science community. The material I was reading by Davies was still stuck in my head. Here is a guy who is rather adamant about the way the universe functions. I apologize for annoying you. Doesn't anyone here have a sense of the absurd? What does it take to make someone laugh at themselves around here? Too unseemly? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged OK! Now I am ticked off! Are you joking? They tortured Galileo. Forced him to sign a 'confession' repudiating his theories. Placed him under house arrest for the remainder of his life. The only reason he wasn't tortured to DEATH like so many other heretics of the day ( the Church felt compelled to 'protect' the HOLY RELIGION ) was because Galileo had enjoyed a long friendship with the ( then ) current pope in prior days. Plus, Galileo was a respected teacher, mathemetician, and very popular. It took the Church about 100 years to 'grudgingly accept' that we 'might' live in a heliocentric universe. Get real. It was in 1992 that the pope 'apologized' to the descendants of Galileo. Fat lot of good that did the poor man. And that apology? Yea, right. The pope apologized for a 'misunderstanding'. What BULL. I read that apology. Not once did the pope say flatly ... " We were wrong. Galileo was right." It took these 'forward thinking' nutcases THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY YEARS to admit anything at ALL. Give me a break! So what does THAT say about those psychopaths? Never heard of the Inquisition? Know much about it? Did you know that Inquisitors paid people to 'rat out' heretics? Do you know the various ways the Church tortured their victims? Know how they killed them? Know how long this insanity lasted? Did you know the Office of the Inquistion still exists, and still feels exactly as they did all those years ago? The Church, and it's dogma MUST be protected. The only thing holding these jerks back today is the LAWS of MAN. If they had their way, it would be a ONE WORLD ORDER. THEIRS! Maybe I misunderstood your comments. if so, I am sorry. But anyone suggesting the Church is finally in touch with reality is bereft of the facts. PS: That sex scandal ... the one that the individual diocese are still declaring bankruptcy over. Think it was just a 50 year cover-up? Guess again. That BS has lasted as long as the Church has lasted. Over 1000 years. You really should take the time to research the Church. Oh yes ... these are people who won't let themselves be 'blinded by faith'. The lives these people ruined. The families they tore apart. It was stunning in it's breadth, and scope. There is no defending these people. Truly sick. I'm sorry for the 'off-topic' remarks. I need to keep my outrage to myself. Blood pardon is correct in that certain individual members of the Church have made contributions to science. But it is a rare thing indeed.

Hey there. Got a few questions. If the above is true, and space and time did not exist before the BB ( I was just reading some Paul Davies ), then why are respected cosmologists, and astrophysicists theorizing cycling universes? Did you not just say ( in an earlier post ... maybe I am confusing you with someone else ) that nothing, not space ... not time ... not ANYTHING existed before the BB? The second law of thermodynamics can NOT be violated. Right? And the universe is on a one way trip ... It is going to expand into nothing. So how can all these guys ignore this? I'm curious. What's going to happen to all that 'left-over' space when our universe has decayed and dissolved back to nothing? That space that only came into existence for the pleasure of our universe? What is it going to do? Turn back to 'never was'? Seems to me with all that 'expanding space' so many are ( nearly ) certain sprang out of the ( whatever ) .... that was 'manufactured' to give our matter/energy a location to hang out in ... you are going to have a pretty big area of space left over when that last atom decays into nothing. Like a few gazillion cubic lightyears worth. Time going to stop, too? I guess it must, because there will be no more atoms to decay. So all that space .... all 10^1,000,000 plus cubic kilometers of it will just sit there. Frozen in time. Empty space. For eternity. How sad. Pretty nice though, for the universe to go to all this trouble. Wait! I get it. It's going to shrink back to 'never was' as the matter/energy decays into nothing. Great! No space left over. Hmmmm. But what about that theorized space that just keeps expanding on it's own? I'm so confused. I mean, inflationary theory, which seems pretty mainstream now, just has space/matter/energy constantly filling in the gaps ... so to speak. What's going to turn THAT spigot off? So is it going to go on forever, then? New matter materializing ... always filling in ... sort of a 'steady state' universe. Eternal, but with a beginning. Interesting. Point is, we don't have conclusive proof that either time, or space started with our universe. All we can say with certainty, is the physical structure we call the visible/local universe had a beginning. And we exist in this universe that we think is about 13.7 billion years old. And that 'our' visible/local universe is going to end ... at some point, and in some fashion that ALSO don't know for certain. In fact, to be perfectly accurate about this, there are a whole lot of respected scientists with a whole lot of different scenarios hypothesized for not just the end of our universe, but the beginning, and what came before. I am not on board with blood pardon on this god thing, but in the interest of accuracy, I feel it important to take care not to speak in absolutes. Unless it really IS an absolute. Not just accepted theory. The people reading this may just assume you are absolutely correct without checking the facts for themselves. Even though you have suggested they do. You sound so authoritative. Paul Davies even more so. I would just take your word for it.

I can't answer your question, but I am very sorry. The reality is that he may, or may not have felt pain. There is probabaly no way to know either way anymore. Most certainly, his suffering is now past. And you are left behind to suffer the pain of loss. Having lost my son by drowning, I can tell you that I have spent decades coping with the certainty that he suffered greatly, and that he suffered, and he died alone. Last Father's Day, my father finally drowned in his own fluids ... this after suffering a massive stroke one week prior. I spent the last 4 days holding his hand, and talking to him. The last 36 hours, he was gone from me, no longer responsive to questions. But he clearly was still suffering, even with massive doses of morphine. I can feel your helplessness. I'm so sorry. But I took something good from this experience. Hard to believe, I suppose. Please try to take comfort from having been there with your partner. He may have suffered, but you were there to hold his hand. I am willing to bet, that even in a coma, somewhere in his brain was the awareness that he was not alone. You did all that was humanly possible at the time. Don't let yourself believe you could have done more. You couldn't. I'm sure on some level, he was grateful. I know my Dad was. Your pain will pass ... eventually. I hope it is soon. It sounds so pointless to repeat something you have already heard, but .... He would not want you to suffer. Best of luck to you. James

I am sorry to hear that. I am also sorry I said .... "You are ignoring ..... " I should have said .... "It appears to me as IF you are ignoring ...." No offense was intended ajb. I'm just defending my model to the best of my ability. If my arguments are irrational, illogical, or ignore evidence to the contrary, then someone needs to speak up and show me where I am in error. Isn't this what scientific debate is supposed to be about? Well, whatever you ultimately decide, you are a worthy adversary. Take care. By the way ... Great webpage, and I notice you are a junior member of the Isaac Newton Institute. What do you think his stance would be right now .... based on all the evidence we have accumulated? What would he be researching? Strings? Or black holes? I think we both can surmise the answer to that one. I didn't sign your guestbook because I assumed you would prefer I did not. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Making The Case For Overcoming Accelerating Expansion/Recession Ok. Now you get a chance to really tear my logic apart. Rather than delve into matters we can't begin to prove ... like the existence of Dark Energy, let's just go with what we are pretty confident of. We can say with confidence that the large gravitational structures in the universe within our purview are receding from us, and from each other at accelerating rates proportional to time and distance. We have no evidence ( to my knowledge ) that this mechanism ( force ) involved pushes/pulls less massive gravitational sources at higher ( or lower ) velocities ( rate of acceleration ) than the large masses, since the smaller masses do not seem to be driven/pulled apart at different rates, but instead remain gravitationally bound to the large mass. ( ie; local group of galaxies ) Even mass-less photons do not seem to be affected by this force at a different rate than the large masses. The properties of Space limit a photon's velocity to 300,000 k/s. But clearly they ( CMBR ) move in tandem ( essentially ) with the large masses, when it comes to measuring their recession. So we at least can feel confident that this process seems to only affect the largest masses in the universe in any material way. Predicted by General Relativity, and Newton ... and born out by observation, we can say with certainty that all mass has gravity, and that gravity is propagated in all directions at c. What this means is ... that all bits of mass are in communication with each other gravitationally. Because ( thankfully ) gravity is such a weak force, and propagates throughout the universe subject only to the inverse squared law, matter in the macro universe is only affected in any significant way by the strongest of competing gravitational fields. Making The Case : Ok, first, we have to remember that we do not know if the force is pushing the galaxies apart, or pulling them apart. But for our purposes it does not matter. We just have to deal with the reality. To better understand the big picture let's do 2 things. Reduce the universe down to a 2 dimensional object we can easily see. Like the surface of a round 4' diameter kitchen table. This will work fine for now. And lets make a circle in the center of the table that's 1' in diameter. This represents the outer boundary of our 'expanding' universe. The 2nd thing we need to do is wind the clock far into the hypothetical future. Once we understand what happens at the 'end' it will be much easier to grasp what happens before the end. Far, far into the future, we are down to the last 2 black holes. They have eaten everything they could find, and there is nothing left ... except these 2. They have no more accretion discs, stellar companions, or orbiting galaxies. They also happen to be as far away from each other as the accelerating recession allows. Essentially on 'opposite' ends of the universe, and receding from each other at velocities far outpacing c. Let's put down 2 quarters just inside the circumference of our little circle, equidistant from the center, as far apart as we can put them. Start sliding them farther apart, slowly ... Because there are no longer any other competing gravitational waves, we can say with certainty that the 2 quarters are going to be in direct gravitational communication with each other. This per GR, predicting that gravitational waves are infinite in scope. Yet, from what we are observing, Dark Energy is still pushing our quarters apart faster and faster, or space is pulling them apart ( it doesn't matter which ) faster and faster. Or is it now? Can the gravitational bond ever be broken? Not according to Newton, or Einstein. Gravity has won every small battle with DE/Space to this point. We see this in our everyday universe. But Space DEFINITELY isn't going to lose this last battle. Right? They are just too far apart from each other. Wrong. I think it is not going to win this one either. I hypothesize that since there are no longer any competing waves, the rate of acceleration will slow. Another way to say this is ... DE/Space has won these battles so far, due to all the competing gravitational fields ( waves ). As already stated, we know that all of the galaxies that are currently receding from us and from each other are within the purview of our mutual gravitational fields. They must be or we couldn't see them. And so far, the cumulative effect of DE/Space has been to take advantage of the galaxies' gravitational 'confusion'. But now these last 2 quarters will be 'tugging' directly on each other. And because there are no other competing gravitational waves this 'tug' should now overcome the weak ( but to this point, cumulative ) force that has been pushing/pulling them apart. The strength of this direct, unadulterated 'communication' should be so far beyond the 'force' acting against them that even as they continue to recede from each other, and their mutual attraction diminishes, it will still be strong enough to cause them to begin to 'fall' toward each other, eventually slowing each other's rate of recession to zero, and then reversing it. Our 2 quarters slow ... stop ... and reverse direction. And we already know what I predict will happen when those last 2 quarters 'merge'. So even if our 'quarters' are subject to the laws of 'normal' space, ( all velocities relative to CMBR limited to c ) we can apparently, hypothetically, solve this recession dilemma with just Newton, and Einstein. But it gets potentially more interesting. Our evidence appears to support Einstein's prediction that Space itself is not limited to c. ( BB's initial expansion, and current recession.) We know that the existence of tachyons is predicted. ( Don't we? ) These hypothesized particles also do not follow the laws of 'normal' Space. They have NO hypothesized/theorized limit to their velocity. Well, because of GR's prediction of curved Space, we can hypothesize also that the laws of Space do not apply if Space is collapsed. Broken. In support of this assertion, our latest measurements on super-massive black hole spin have them dangerously close to c already. If this is found to be true, then there just might be a 3rd structure NOT limited to c. Black holes. If this is the case, then the above process is ramped up dramatically. Assuming again, if the black holes are no longer tethered to structures occupying 'normal' Space, they hypothetically could also achieve velocities far beyond c. Just like Space itself. And not just rotational velocities, but inertial velocities. But back to our kitchen table. If this mechanism/process is what would happen at the very end of our local universe, then every possible variation ( with a big pocket full of change thrown into the circle ) of this process must have occurred before this point in time. And it is because of the 'pocket full of change' that the universe allows this process to begin. All those coins are a different mass. No 2 are alike. If we had 500 pennies situated around the circumference of our arbitrary circle, equidistant from each other ... Space would win. They would all get pulled apart forever. Sure is nice that there are no 2 black holes alike. And at the end? The last 2? No problem. Doesn't matter if they are exactly the same or not. We are already seeing evidence of this process in it's beginning stages in the astounding numbers of black hole 'candidates' we are discovering ... of the ever-increasing and varied masses of these candidates ... and we have evidence too, in the new realization that these black holes are already merging at rates far beyond anything we expected. Would this take a long time? Of course. But I bet if someone were to calculate the time required for this process to happen, we would find it takes far less time than waiting for a 10 billion sol black hole to evaporate. It also seems to me that this offers a far superior mechanism to 'solve' the accelerating recession than Turok's 'time reversal' which offers no explanation other than physics says it's mathematically 'possible'. And this mechanism would not be unduly affected by current inflationary 'theories' as even if it were proven that 'Space itself' expands, this would still not 'break the gravitational bond' of our last 2 black holes. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have probably forgotten half of what I intended to say, and I likely have made many logical errors here, so please feel free to point them out. Lol. I AM brain-dead. I forgot the most important potential benefit of this scenario. If it DID end up 2 black holes of near, or equal mass, this would be a great ( possible ) catalyst for the BB. Imagine what would happen if these 2 behemoths each achieved near c velocities 'falling' toward each other. Dragging space with them. Colliding at near 2 times c would be an interesting collision. It would most certainly be a 'head-on' collision. Absolutely dead center. Wonder what kind of 'bang' that could produce? Initial faster-than-light expansion? Flat universe? Boggles the mind. I suppose it's a good thing to have 2 ways for the BB to happen, that are not in conflict with GR, or physics. But however the catalyst happens, angular momentum is going to play a big role. So ... I also forgot to make the most important point! Lol. Which is ... That this scenario works at any and all variables. From one monster black hole 'cleaning up' all the smaller black holes, to the simplified version above. At either extreme, the same process is in play. Less and less gravitational confusion means stronger and stronger gravitational attractions between any 2 remaining gravitational bodies. Too speculative?

Sorry to repeat myself. I insert comments along the way ... This latest from Universe Today http://www.universetoday.com 1/4/10 Astronomers have discovered 33 pairs of merging black holes in cosmic dances around each other, a finding that was predicted or 'choreographed' by Isaac Newton. "These results are significant because we now know that these 'waltzing' black holes are much more common than previously known," said Dr. Julia Comerford of the University of California, Berkeley, at the American Astronomical Society meeting in Washington, DC. "Galaxy mergers are causing the waltzing, can use this finding to determine how often mergers occur. The black holes dancing towards us are shifted towards blue light, and those moving away from us are shifted toward the red. So it is like a cosmic disco ball showing us where the black holes are dancing." ScienceDaily (Sep. 10, 2008) There appears to be an upper limit to how big the Universe's most massive black holes can get, according to new research led by a Yale University astrophysicist and published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Once considered rare and exotic objects, black holes are now known to exist throughout the Universe, with the largest and most massive found at the centres of the largest galaxies. These "ultra-massive" black holes have been shown to have masses upwards of one billion times that of our own Sun. Now, Priyamvada Natarajan, an associate professor of astronomy and physics at Yale University and a fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, has shown that even the biggest of these gravitational monsters can't keep growing forever. Instead, they appear to curb their own growth - once they accumulate about 10 billion times the mass of the Sun. Galactic gluttony can overstuff black holes By Helen Altonn haltonn@starbulletin.com Overeating has consequences even for ultramassive black holes that feed on material from gas, dust and stars, University of Hawaii and Yale University astrophysicists have discovered. "Evidence has been mounting for the key role that black holes play in the process of galaxy formation, but it now appears that they are likely the prima donnas of this space opera." Priyamvada Natarajan - Yale astronomy researcher "Ultimately, they stunt their own growth," says Ezequiel Treister at the UH Institute for Astronomy. Monster black holes appear to stop growing when they are about 10 billion to 20 billion times the mass of the sun, Treister and Yale Astronomy researcher Priyamvada Natarajan found in a recent study. "They get too big," Treister said in an interview, explaining an ultramassive black hole "keeps eating material, and when it's doing that - we call it a 'self-regulation method' - material is falling out. All this radiation is blowing away material so it cannot keep eating." Evidence for an upper limit on the biggest objects in the universe is being reported by Treister and Natarajan in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. They studied existing optical and X-ray data of ultramassive black holes and found "they shut off at every epoch in the universe," Natarajan said in an Institute for Astronomy news release. Once thought to be rare, black holes are known now to exist throughout the universe and can grow to super-large masses. Black holes termed "ultramassive" have masses a billion or more times that of the sun, the astrophysicists said. Natarajan said their findings could have implications for galaxy formation since many of the largest galaxies appear to develop with black holes at their centers. Every galaxy, including the Milky Way, appears to have a black hole "tightly coupled to the mass of stars in the central region," Treister said. The Milky Way's black hole, called Sagittarius A, contains about 4 million times the mass of the sun, according to astronomy studies. Black holes start out as "small seeds and grow with time by feeding on gas" that is eventually replenished as galaxies merge, Treister said. A collision of two big galaxies with black holes also can create one super-huge black hole, he said. "But that is very rare. It can only happen two or three times over the lifetime of black holes." Other growth control mechanisms have been suggested for black holes, including one by Natarajan during doctorate work at the University of Cambridge. She said black holes might reach a point where they radiate so much energy as they consume everything around them that they end up interfering with the gas supply feeding them, and that might interfere with star formation in the region. "Evidence has been mounting for the key role that black holes play in the process of galaxy formation," Natarajan said, "but it now appears that they are likely the prima donnas of this space opera." Treister said black holes could play "the starring role in galaxy formation by providing the switch that turns all the action off and, as a consequence, stunt their own growth. "The next frontier is to understand better the physics of the formation of the earliest black hole seeds in the universe in order to figure out who came first, the first stars or the first black hole seeds." Space.com 1/9/08 AUSTIN, Texas — The most massive black hole in the universe tips the cosmic scales at 18 billion times more massive than the sun, astronomers suggest today at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society. Even though researchers suggested black holes up to this mass might exist in quasars, this is the first direct confirmation of such a behemoth. The hefty gravity well is six times more massive than the previous record and is orbited by a smaller black hole, which allowed the measurement of the giant's mass. Black holes can't be seen, but astronomers detect them by noting how other objects are affected by the tremendous gravity created in tremendously small sphere of space. The binary black hole system powers a quasar known as OJ287, which is located 3.5 billion light-years from us in the constellation Cancer. The quasar — an overwhelming beacon of light associated with a developing galaxy — has been studied in .... NewScientist http://www.newscientist.com September 3, 2008 by David Shiga Just how big can a black hole grow? Two astronomers reckon they have worked out the answer: colossal black holes with a mass of up to 50 billion suns could be lurking out there - but that's the limit. Giant black holes sit at the cores of virtually all galaxies, and are thought to have grown from smaller seed black holes that swallowed lots of matter. The biggest well-measured one resides in the galaxy Messier 87 and has the mass of 3 billion suns, a measurement based on the speed of the gas swirling around it. Even bigger black holes are waiting to be found, say Priya Natarajan of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Ezequiel Treister of the European Southern Observatory in Santiago, Chile. In a study to appear in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, the pair examined the "feeding habits" and growth of black holes. They used data from surveys carried out by other teams that observed the X-rays and visible light emitted by matter as it is devoured by black holes. The properties of this radiation can be used to estimate a black hole's mass and how quickly it is gobbling up its surroundings. The team analysed how many galactic black holes of various masses were present at each stage in the universe's history. The distribution of masses they found today and in the past can only be explained if there is a limit on how fast black holes can grow, the researchers say. Previous studies have also suggested this, and it may be due to the way radiation from infalling matter blasts the black hole's neighbourhood free of additional sustenance. "They self-regulate," says Natarajan. "They never grow beyond a certain mass in any epoch." Knowing this growth rate allowed them to work out the modern-day size of the biggest known black holes that existed in the early universe. Back then, they are estimated to have had the mass of about a billion suns. According to Natarajan and Treister, a few black holes of this size may have bloated to "ultramassive" size by now, with between 5 and 50 billion times the sun's mass, at the most. Even a black hole at the lower end of this range would be gargantuan - more than 3 times as wide as our solar system. One ultramassive black hole may already have been spotted 3.5 billion light years away in the galaxy OJ 287, which is thought to harbour a pair of giant black holes circling each other at its centre. The larger of the two has been estimated to be 18 billion solar masses, based on the properties of radiation outbursts from the system, but astronomers disagree on how accurate this is. .................................................................................................................................................... ajb, there seems to be a bit of a discepency here, doesn't there? So what's the limit? 10B? 18B? 20B? 50B? Lol. Newton would be so disturbed. Seriously ... he got it. All those years ago. And ever since, the only humans who realistically COULD have the capacity to 'think big' ( astrophysicists ) can't seem to get there. We continue to attempt arbitrary limits on black holes for at least a few reasons. 1. If we go with the 'infinite' upper limit described by Newton, and GR, we have an apparent HUGE problem. Because if infinitely small and dense is possible, then a black hole can swallow EVERYTHING. And the universe ends with us stuck ( crushed ) inside a black hole. 2. Our universe 'couldn't' expand forever like the BBT says it should. 3. 'New' inflationary theories ( ST/SST/M-theories ) contradict such possibilities. 4.. We just can't think that big! Our minds refuse to wrap around objects of this scale. They are too 'alien' to our thinking ... to our ability to visualize. 5. Sad to say ... but they conflict with 'beliefs'. Preconceived ideas of the shape and structure of our universe. So we resist accepting new observations indicating they could get much, much bigger than we ever dreamed possible. No ajb, I think you are not going to find BHs are 'limited to 10B sols'. My model predicts we will soon discover BHs in excess of 50B sols. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ajb, you make too many unsupported assumptions. You ignore the evidence that BHs merge. Big ones. You ignore emerging evidence of ultra-massive galaxies merging. You ignore emerging/new research suggesting that BHs formed much earlier in our universe than we ever believed possible. You ignore Newton. You ignore GR. You ignore QM. You assume that because a BH has stopped feeding, that it will never start feeding again. You assume that all material in orbit around a BH will remain tidally locked forever, while at the same time ask BHs to 'evaporate'. What happens to those galaxies that were orbiting the BH if the BH just evaporates away? You ignore that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Where do you have all this energy going? Absorbed into some mythical alternate dimension with an insatiable appetite for our energy? And presumably all the other 10^500 'alternate dimensional universes' are nice enough not to dump THEIR energy into OUR universe? Very convenient. And totally out in left field. *MAGIC* Most importantly, you ignore the reality that our universe ( when compared to a human life span ) is about .00000000000000000000000000000001 seconds old. ( I just made up that number for purposes of illustration.) How can you base the entire future ( strucure, processes ) of our universe on such a tiny time frame? We know for certain that the universe evolves through 'stages'. What in the world would make you believe that our universe is in it's 'final' stage'? There is nothing 'magical' in my theory. It follows Newtonian gravity. It follows GR. It follows Einstein's ( admittedly incorrect ) assumptions about angular momentum causing a star to fly apart before totally collapsing. In this regard, Einstein could not accept his own calculations on maximum upper limits to mass, or angular momentum's relationship to the behaviors of objects with extreme mass/gravity. I assert that Einstein was right ... and wrong. They DO fly apart. Just not when he thought they did. No magic required. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedPS : ajb .... Make that .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds old if we make the 'total' lfe span of our local universe the number of years required to make the VERY LAST PARTICLE of the VERY LAST BLACK HOLE decay/dissolve back into the 'fabric' of space. ( Number made up for illustration only.)

Ok. Ok. Ok. Lol. No problem. Thanks. Use the same ones. That will work fine for now. Absolutely. The point was ... even extremely intelligent scientists can't accept evidence that conflicts with their world view, or belief system. This is very common, and is part of the human condition. Because I recognise this, I am not disturbed greatly when someone ( like you ) expresses an opinion. You are very intelligent ajb. But I think you, and others who have embarked on the 'string' universe may be interpreting the evidence incorrectly, or are so immersed in your specific discipline that you simply are unaware of the latest in BH research. Yes. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Ok. Yes. You have made that point several times. My model takes us back to the BBT. It differs from BBT only in that it takes all currently available germane evidence/observations to produce a reasoned 'beginning' including the mechanism for the BB itself, plus what came before ... and what comes at the end of our local universe. No to all the above. I don't stray from acepted physics. The model functions on the large scale ( just like GR ) without a need to produce a quantum theory of gravity. QM, and particle research just lend support to my contention that black holes are an actual physical structure as opposed to an infinitely small/dense, zero dimensional object. ( of which there is no evidence after 40 years of intense research.) Again, I am not proposing a new QGT. I'm sure this will be an exciting field of research for many more years. I have assumed that every bit of energy that makes up our local universe is exactly equal to the total mass of the black hole when it released it's energy in the event we call the BB. I have assumed energy can neither be created nor destroyed. I have assumed that our local universe is finite. I have assumed that it had a beginning. I have assumed that GR is correct in that space is uniform unless disturbed by mass/gravity. I have assumed that space is collapsed at the black hole ( whether or not it is an infinitely small, dense singularity ... and the degree of collapse is in direct relation to the mass of the black hole ). I have assumed that black holes beyond local galaxy groups will eventually merge. I have assumed that black hole merges will far outstrip any 'evaporation'. I have assumed that black holes will 'forever' move toward any gravitational source ( per Newton ), subject only to 'temporary' angular momentum. I have assumed that if the black hole undergoes critical mass point ... it will throw off a portion, if not all of that mass within planck seconds, and that all the collapsed space contained within the black hole will also uncollapse suddenly. I have assumed that a black hole can achieve either sufficient angular momentum ( per Einstein ) to overcome it's gravitational attraction, or ( and less likely ) that the black hole can reach a critical density that would cause a sudden and extreme expansion through unkown mechanisms. ( as in a 'chemical' reaction ) From what I understand about CMBR and redshift, it fits perfectly. It also fits very well with observed H2. As those observations fit ... to my knowledge ... with the BBT. ( without inflation ) Yes to the first question. It does not address Guth inflationary theories. These theories, if I am not mistaken allow for an infinite local universe, always expanding, always materializing matter/energy/space from some unknown, unproven, alternate dimension. It completes the picture. Provides a beginning and an end. On the macro scales only. It does not attempt to address the actual form the universe allows for the smallest constituent particles. It does not attempt to explain the 'graviton'. It does not attempt to unify GR, and QM. It allows the universe to cycle without a need to explain the finer details of matter/energy. What inertial limits, if any, are black holes subject to if not tethered to an object in normal space. What is the actual maximum rotational speed of a black hole. In normal space, it would be c. Does a black hole have actual, physical, 3 dimensional volume. Is there an upper mass limit ( below the theoretical limit of infinity predicted in GR ) for the mass of a black hole. Is it well below the estimated total mass of the known, local universe. ( such as the 50 billion sol upper limit recently hypothesized.) Yes, you have said this before. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged How very kind. Thank you.

Lol. Yes ajb ... I have a lot of work to do. But, my friend, I have already enjoyed much success. Because my goal was to expose science minded people to my model. Good or bad ... right or wrong ... primitively expressed ... I have accomplished this goal. I have defended major ( perceived ) issues/contradictions successfully. Overall, I could not be more pleased. Once a new idea is in your head ... such as my theory ... you can't make it go away. Your mind is going to work on it. ( Maybe not 'yours' in particular ... but you get the point.) You are going to try to tear it down ... falsify it, so you can drop it. Otherwise it will just keep knawing at you. ( Could that nutcase be right?) One thing for sure ajb. It won't get published until I find some intrigued ( and genuine ) mathematician to put the proper equations to the model. It will happen. I'm not worried, nor should you be. It's an excellent description of the very large universe we live in ajb. It doesn't require magical solutions. Which reminds me ... I didn't say the BBT required magic. It, to my knowledge, does not address the moments just before, during, or just after the BB. It's the 'inflation' addendums that try to address those moments, and yes. They do require something other than known, accepted physics. I call it magic because Witten calls it magic. I am not making any irrational, or false statements here. Just reporting my observations. Now that you both have exhausted me, I think I may wait until tomorrow to give the 'rational and logical' solution to the accelerating 'recession'. ( This is a more accurate description than 'expansion'.) Anybody enjoy my pics? No?

Klaynos, ajb, and any others who are interested: I apologise for my lack of clarity. I am still working on the restatement of my model ( using english ). Rather than continually and repeatedly trying to address your misconceptions about the model, perhaps you might just wait until I have posted the updated version. I want to thank everyone who has participated in this, and I am appreciative of the advice, and general good naturedness of the arguments. All of the input to date will help me better address issues where there seems to be mass confusion. My only complaint ... and it was not unexpected ... is the frequent attacks on me personally rather than taking specific issue with the model. It serves no purpose, and only tends to cloud the relevant issues pertaining to the function of the model. Please try to be more patient. I will try to do the same in return. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOMG. Lol. Ok. ajb, a total of 13 people have posted comments on my 'ideas'. So far there have been over 2,000 views. Unless you 13 are looking at it over and over, there are a boatload of people who have NOT weighed in. ajb, you are a nice guy I'm sure. But your opinion is just that. An opinion. Yes. I would fault a model that requires magic. I would not consider it 'incomplete'. I would say it's unfalsifiable. On that note, Witten, and Greene ... to name 2 ... have stated publicly that SST/M-theory ... is unfalsifiable. For inflationary theories to utilize imaginary mechanisms and then claim they 'fit' the known universe is sheer madness. Science was unable to solve the universe with known physics, and math. So it resorted to simply 'making up stuff' and then tried ( and is still trying ) to make the math fit the *magic*. You are right, ajb. I DON'T have a 'working knowledge' of physics. I have a general understanding of how physics apply to our universe. That level of understanding appears to be sufficient to allow me to consider the larger functions of our known universe. Insulting me may make you feel superior, and it does make me angry. So if those were your goals, you have succeeded. Fortunately, I don't stay angry very long. The BBT described ... in general ... our best understanding of how the universe operated in the large scale. It is a model. Mine ALSO describes ... in general ... how the universe operates on the large scale. Using the same laws of physics the BBT does. ( Excluding the *magic*.) If you want to insist it is not a model, go ahead. There is nothing 'philosophical' about my model. That would be because I am not a philosopher. I am an observer. Just that. Surely you would concede the fact that science has MISinterpreted evidence countless times. Surely you would concede the fact that many scientists, with excellent credentials, can look at the same evidence and come up with wildly different conclusions. Not a bad thing in itself, as it provides inspiration for a wide and varied approach to the problems we face. But you need to face the corollary. If one respected scientist ends up being correct, that ( by definition ) means all the other interpretations were WRONG. How many years went by before the Steady State universe died? Lol. It isn't dead yet! Einstein ... arguably one of the most intelligent, gifted geniuses to ever live ... went to his grave convinced black holes were a myth. This ... in total denial of Newtonian gravity, and his own GR. I can appreciate your viewpoint ajb. But I suspect that eventually, you are going to find that my 'model' sticks. Later.

Like my model. My model fits beautifully with nature. I was just being polite. I am not really sorry. The basic tenents of the model are ridiculously simple. You do not understand them. It seems unlikely that further explanation would make it any clearer for you. The following was your second comment after reading my model. "You talk about black-holes, strain on space etc... So your model is based on General Relativity or similar? Plus what? (Not higher dimensions and strings and branes as you clearly state.)" You didn't grasp the model then. You don't grasp it now. You made the incorrect assumption that the model required something 'special' beyond GR. Understandable that you would jump to this erroneous conclusion since ALL models being promoted in the last 40 years have required something 'beyond' GR. Except mine. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedLook guys. I'm going to say this just once. If you don't get it ... not my problem. You have assumed from the start that I was clueless about the universe. About math. About physics. About everything. I'm a LAYMAN. What could I possibly know? You are incapable of acknowledging that I obviously DO have an understanding about many things. How do you think I created my model to begin with? You can defend inflationary models all you want. Sure. They work great. As long as you turn a blind eye to the lack of evidence supporting them, and to the fact that they all start with *magic*. Show me the evidence of space, matter, and energy spontaneously and continuously materialising in our universe. There is none. Show me the physical mechanism(s) that allow for such spontaneity that are supported by GR, or QM. You can't. Prove *magic* exists, and I will give serious consideration to those models. Until then, they have little more validity than 'God did it'.

Correction. ( Assuming we are talking Guth.) That is one possible mechanism. It does not exclude others. I am sorry you can not grasp my model. Your statements have already made this fact clear. You have repeatedly mischaracterized the features of the model. I am not going to repeat myself. If it makes you feel better to say I have no theory, fine. It does not live or die by your assessment.

ajb, I will cover your issues later. First I am going to respond to Klaynos. Klaynos, it is with misgivings that I point out the irrationality of your statements. But I am going to do so, one by one. Then I must ask respectfully that you not post to my thread anymore, unless you want to address some specific point or feature of my model ( as in falsifying it ). Your statements make it clear that you do not have a full understanding of the situation. I do not have an 'opinion' about math. What I 'do' have is a great appreciation for all that it can do, and has done, and will do in the future. I also realistically accept it has limitations. Then you can't use it in certain situations. What point are you trying to make with this statement? This is an irrational, defensive statement at odds with my assessments of mathematics. You apparently don't read what I have written. Your bad. Another irrational statement. You are not up to speed on black holes. I will not discuss black holes with you if you can't/won't take the time to be current in your knowledge. ( As it pertains to my model. I do not claim to know everything about them, either.) Since I am one of the few people I have ever met WITHOUT belief systems, I think I can safely claim I understand the difference between beliefs, and science. Let me ask you a question. Do you 'believe' people can be indoctrinated/imbued/conditioned with false information? Irrational again. You made the claim that God, and magic were possibilities. My statement was in rebuttal. I just logically, and rationally pointed out that those 'possibilities' had no more validity than fairy dust. And they don't. If you can't see that .... ! God, and magic are not 'empirically testable' either. So they are all on equal footing. Sorry I got frustrated with you and used the word 'silly'. I meant irrational. At the time, we in fact had a lot of evidence ( as I already stated ) from our studies of photons. You are ignoring this reality to defend an irrational assertion. Of course the universe doesn't care. Science ( which is overseen by humans ) needs to take a hard look at 'rational'. That is a statement in total denial of the facts. We COULD state with a high degree of probability. 'Certainty' was not necessary. Another irrational statement. I never said it didn't. You are not listening to, or comprehending what I have said. My model closely follows the BBT. So it's mathematical predictions would mirror mine. Really Klaynos. If you can't bring yourself to read all the posts, you shouldn't be weighing in. Again, my 'mathematical predictions' would be the same as the BBT. I just posted 20 ways my model can be falsified. Please read them. Far more accurate than what? *sigh* How many times must I say this? There is nothing 'unbelievable' about math. It's a great tool. It has a few serious limitations under certain conditions. That's all. Defensive, irrational, and in ignorance of my statements regarding the usefulness of math. As I said at the beginning of this post ... I don't have an opinion. I just make observations. Science is great. Math is great. Neither one are perfect. (edit) Before someone screams that I just gave an 'opinion', I better clarify. By 'great' I mean I fully understand the usefulness of both, and have a deep appreciation for all they have accomplished, and what they will accomplish in the future. ______________ Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No, we have already been down that road, haven't we? Lol. ajb, I don't want to annoy you, but I am not going to re-state everything I have already posted, including every argument, and my rebuttals to date. Your questions can mostly be answered by reviewing the thread. There is only one main topic I have yet to address, and I intend to do that this evening. That is the topic of the accelerating recession. If you are referring to any Guth-derived inflation theories, I do not need to address any of those, as there is little, if any evidence that any of those theories/models have any basis in fact. There is zero evidence that space, or matter/energy, is spontaneously and continuously materializing in our universe and staying. All we know ... for the hundreth time ... is that distant galaxies are receding from us, and from each other at rates proportional to time/distance, and that those galaxies show little relative motion to CMBR. Logically, some mechanism is at work here, but we do not have a clear ... or even UN-clear idea of what that mechanism might be. We have guesses. That's all. So far. (edit) To anyone who would care to put a face to this 'crackpot' ... lol ... I have finally added some pics to my page. You are welcome to take a peek into my little world.

QM is not my only evidence. It is one piece of the evidence. And if the only evidence you have is 'not' evidence because it breaks down, you have no evidence at all. Which is by definition a human conceptual construction. And may, or may not relate to the real universe. Mathematics are a tool. Nothing more. I doubt very much I don't know about how science works, or don't understand mathematical probability. I repectfully submit you don't understand the real universe. You have already shown to be ill-informed about the current status of black hole research. For anyone to have 'proposed' the theory that our star was the only one in the entire universe with planets shows a total lack of objectivity, an inability to reason, and an inherent belief system. Not good. No more than our universe was the result of fairies sprinkling dust around that formed the planets. No. Again, this is irrational, illogical, egotisical belief systems. Nothing more. I was generalizing based on 200 billion galaxies with an average of 200 billion stars each. Don't be silly. Please. Ok. Fine. Reduce the odds to 40^10 against the possibility. They are still stupid odds. Irrational odds. Against everything we already knew about our physical universe based on our studies of photons and the chemical composition of the ( at the time ) visible universe. A specious argument Klaynos. Only if the BBT does. I am thinking the BBT DOES make mathematical predictions. Therefore, so does mine. It's a BBT minus *magic*. Minus new physics. So I guess it is a theory. (edit) Klaynos, I am going to say this one more time. Math is a tool. A Man-made tool that is very precise, and very effective in most situations. However, by your own admission it is a flawed tool. If you choose to rely solely on a flawed tool, to the exclusion of all other verifiable and germane evidence, you are not being rational. I hate to be so blunt, but this is the fact. Please don't take offense. I'm only reporting the facts. Objectively. Rationally. Logically. I'm sorry it does not sit well with you. ______________

You can be excused for this comment. I can't expect you to remember the many times I have agreed that Hawking radiation had/has sound physics behind it. So now we have evidence that SST/M-theory is real! I don't think so. I'm sorry. Actually, ajb, to the best of my knowledge, it doesn't matter if either do exist. My model still works either way. But your last comment is quite over-reaching. It's a long way from black holes 'leak' to this is how they end their existence. And the same applies to strings. If you read my previous post ( The Case For 3 Dimensional Black Holes ) you would see the difficulties ahead even of they do exist. It doesn't matter to my model if QFT or TD are right, or wrong. Which new model. Mine? Right. Does my model predict something other than what we have observed? No. See ajb? Another example of me acknowledging the physics behind Hawking radiation. Yes, indeed it is. It doesn't stop my model from functioning either way. ajb. My model is a modified BBM without the *magic*. How would mine NOT be based on well established stepping stones? Yes it is. And on that point, I have rather bad news for you, and Hawking. The Fermi telescope went up in 08, fully expecting to 'prove' HR, and to date, this has not happened. Nor has the LHC announced Hawking radiation ... and Hawking's imminent Nobel. Yet. We shall see. I hope he gets it. Lol. Ok. Thankfully, I am able to conceptualize the universe without the need of mathematical constructs. ajb, I have read many articles written by PHDs that lament the dearth of funding for non-stringy research. They believe strings have had their chance, and have been found lacking in substance. Others advocate for young people still in high school to NOT be recruited and/or indoctrinated by advocates for strings. They want these young people to come to the table with open minds. These scientists are also questioning ANY further research into such controversial theories, and have expressed the hope that the next generation of researchers might come up with some theories that DON'T need 'bizarre' or metaphysical solutions. As far as I know ajb, my model is the only one in existence ( and I have looked at many, many models ) that does not appear to require anything but GR, and QM to function. You are right though. Most will ignore my model. Some will not. You forget that I knew from the outset I was facing a huge struggle to get my model out there. I am a LAYMAN. Not a fool. Lol. My job is to get people to look at it. Why do you think I send it to individual grad students? Because they haven't invested their entire career already. Because they tend to be the mavericks. Because they tend to be open to new ideas. Because they are more inclined to believe in the principle of being RIGHT even if it puts them at risk. I have had 3 offers to put math to my model so far. I do not feel comfortable with either the people involved for their credentials, or their motivation. I have already had one nice cosmologist try to sabotage my model. Unsuccessfully, of course. I am promoting a new idea ajb. It will take time. But the right person will come along ... and my model will have the math behind it. It's understandable that you want to warn me that failure is my likeliest fate. But you do have a vested interest in my model being incorrect. So forgive me if I do not follow your advice, or take it too strongly to heart. I am a determined man. I have overcome many obstacles in life to reach this point. I am very confident my model is correct. I am not going to back down now. Not even close. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I respectfully submit you are entirely incorrect. You do not seem to be aware of the evidence to support the assertion that infinitely small does not exist. Like QM. It isn't just a matter of my 'logic'. My logic is based entirely on the evidence. This is spoken like a true mathematician. No offense intended. No Klaynos. There WASN'T a 'chance' in hades of our star having the only planets in the universe. This assertion is, and was ... as I said before ... borderline insanity. You simply stating otherwise does not make the assertion valid. Unless you want to count God, or magic as possible, valid reasons why our star would be the only one in the entire universe to have planets. Or I suppose some other as yet unknown physical mechanism that would have allowed planets to form here, but nowhere else in the universe. 40^21 stars. And only one has planets. Hmmmm. Wouldn't that make the mathematical odds 40^21 to one against that possibility? This is against nature Klaynos. That is being out of touch with the real universe. This is where math REALLY fails. Yes we do have a 'better' theory. Mine. If you take some time to consider it .... maybe a few years ... lol ... I think you will finally accept the validity of it. Take care Klaynos.