pywakit

To put this in perspective for me klaynos ...

When I was a kid in the 50s, black holes probably did not exist per Einstein. ( mainstream science )

In the mid-60s we decided that they do exist. And are maybe a few sols in mass.

In the 70s, Cygnus x-1 is deemed a likely candidate.

In the 80s, we discover more and more candidates. But they are still just stellar, or massive black holes.

In the 90s, supermassive black hole candidates are being discovered.

In the 00s, ultramassive candidates.

In the 10s, researchers are attempting to arbitrarily limit mass to 50 billion sols.

During this progression, starting in the 60s, we, the general public, were being told that all that mass was fitting into a space smaller than an atom. Infinitely smaller than an atom. GR predicted it. And the astrophysicists were very confident that this was the case.

I sense a growing doubt as we start this decade. Am I incorrect?

Merged post follows:

klaynos writes:

 

I'm not sure you could have a dense enough star set to form a 50B solar mass black hole before it evaporates. Once you are outside the event horizon black holes do not gravitationally look any different to any other object of that mass.

No disrespect intended, but what research I have done says that 10 billion sols is extremely likely. 18 billion is very likely. 50 billion is quite possible ( but no more ) based on new findings about black hole formation in the early universe.

So let's just go with 10 billion. Do you think a 10 billion sol black hole could have zero volume? Is this still 'mainstream' science's working model?

And klaynos ... there is a problem with your statement. We don't have any evidence they evaporate. I can find references that call it to this day ... extremely speculative. Yes, I understand it is based on 'sound' theory, but it still has not been observed. And if I'm not incorrect, there was a telescope that went up in 08 that was supposed to measure it. But didn't.

And the other problem, is that Dr. Tyson told me last year a 50 million sol black hole would take ...and I quote ... 10^140 years to evaporate. Several quadrillions of times the life expectancy of our local universe. So why would you think one would evaporate before accumulating 50 billion sols worth of mass?

Why do you assume black holes can't move toward other black holes? We just discoveed 33 pairs of merging SMBHs last year. It would appear they are 'actually' merging way faster than they are 'hypothetically' ( or even theoretically ) evaporating. Am I missing something here?

This is not sounding very convincing.

The current understanding of black holes (which we know to be incomplete) clearly shows that the singularity of the black hole is both infinitely small and infinitely dense, this should be resolved by a quantum theory of gravity.

Hmm. Ok. But I see a problem. Maybe you can clear this up. Your statement seems rather contradictory.

GR is incomplete as it breaks down. True? And QM which has shown to be extremely accurate experimentally does not allow for a 'singularity' at all in a black hole. So 'clearly' isn't so clear. Not only do we have a math problem with a singularity, but we have an observational problem in that we are finding more and more massive black holes ... stretching the limits of rational deduction/logic ... and making it harder and harder to hold to the 'theory' that so many suns ... like several billion suns worth, could fit into an area 'infinitely small' or 'infinitely dense'. And it couldn't be both infinitely dense ...yet still have an actual 3d structure, as all the mass would have to be inside that singularity, continuing to get smaller and smaller and smaller ....

From Wiki:

The appearance of singularities in general relativity is commonly perceived as signaling the breakdown of the theory. This breakdown, however, is expected; it occurs in a situation where quantum mechanical effects should describe these actions due to the extremely high density and therefore particle interactions. To date it has not been possible to combine quantum and gravitational effects into a single theory. It is generally expected that a theory of quantum gravity will feature black holes without singularities.

So where are we really? Is the prevously accepted belief that black holes could be infinitely small about to fall by the wayside? It appears we are running out of options, doesn't it? I think Hawking lost that bet over information gone forever. Meaning we know longer accept the 'theory' that black holes divert their mass through worm holes to other dimensions, or elsewhere in our universe.

So what goes in ... for now ...stays there, in our universe .... perhaps leaking out by Hawking radiation. But otherwise ( currently ) always gaining more mass than it is losing.

Do you think the universe will allow a 50B sol black hole to have zero dimensions? Can that much matter actually be compressed by gravity down to zero?

It seems only yesterday that we thought black holes ... with masses maxxed out at around 2 or 3 million sols were probably shunting their mass somewhere else. Even then we were having trouble with the concept of that much mass occupying zero volume.

Just trying to visualize this. Anyway, your thoughts?

vuquta writes:

 

OK, advice, if you back down with your theory, and do not stand up to me, then you are not confident in it.

 

You should have sucked down my data and then used it to support your "true" theory.

Well, of course I disagree with Moo ... Lol. In principle anyway. Obviously I don't like being belittled, or otherwise abused.

But in the interest of fairness, why don't you show me the 'data' you are referring to. I looked at the links you provided, and ... surprise ... I would have to be a mathematician to follow it. So that avenue is not going to be much help.

Since I am going to need a serious mathemetician to provide a theoretical model in the academic manner .... If you would care to provide mathematical theorems/models that either support, or falsify my model, that would be a great help.

Then I can run them past other physicists who have offered support in one fashion or another, and see how they feel about your mathematical constructs.

Who knows? Maybe we can share a Nobel. Lol. Or maybe we will just become friends in the process. In either case, there would be an improvement.

Thank you. And sorry for any perceived insults.

Merged post follows:

Alright. Not hearing back from Vuquta.

So Moo wants me to discuss science. Ok.

Let's start with this. As you all know, my model's most basic tenet is that the critical mass point of a black hole is equal to all the matter/energy in the v/l universe.

And you also know that I have not stated specifically in the model the exact mechanism for release of energy ie; the BB.

However, per Einstein's math, I assume it was probably angular momentum ( spin ) finally overcoming gravity with the final boost to angular momentum accomplished by the collapse of space.

I also do not address in the model, the actual physical construction of the mass contained in that last ( or any ) black hole, other than assuming that the mass is in the form of particles in their most reduced and homogeneous form.

However, you may know that I tend to accept QM's prediction of infinitely small, or dense not being possible in our physical unverse. So I assume therefore that a black hole containing 40^21 sols mass ( at minimum ) would have a very large physical construction ... the actual flattened sphere ( due to spin ) that could be many light years in diameter.

What I have not discussed here is what may have actually happened at the BB. So I will now give you my version of events. This is, after all ... speculations.

I actually expected one of you to bring this up but I don't recall anyone doing so on this forum. If you have already, my apology.

I think it is entirely possible that the BB was not a complete BB. Particularly if the mechanism was spin, then when the BB happened, the spin would have slowed very rapidly as the material was thrown off. Enough was cast out ( in those first microseconds ) to form the universe as we know it ( the finite visible/local one ) but once the spin slowed, gravity took over again.

As I posted recently, we have just discovered evidence that black holes have formed much sooner in our history than we had thought. This is in keeping with my model, of course, as ( however the material was released ) the overall density of matter would have decreased the farther away from the BB you got.

Anyway, it had occured to me that ( as in the possibility of Hawking Radiation ) that there could, or even should have been a remnant left over from the BB. In this case a vey large remnant.

I don't know, obviously, enough about gravity to calculate such things, but I think it is entirely possible that after the BB, just like our sun, the vast majority of the black hole remained behind. There could still be a black hole at the center of our universe that contains 98% plus or minus of the total mass of our visible/local universe.

Maybe our universe could not be expanding if this were the case. Or maybe there would be gravitational waves propagating from such a monster through space right now that we should detect ... unless ... as I have mentioned before, the spin is so fast we have nothing capable of detecting such a high frequency.

Maybe there would BE NO plasma that we can't look through if this were the case. Again, I am not qualified to answer such questions.

But the reality is, our view beyond about 700 million light years after the BB is still obscured, and it is only through mathematics, and GR that we can 'see' back to the earliest moments after the BB.

So there could be a pretty massive ( in all probability non-feeding ) black hole ( likely still gravitationally 'tethered' to it's plasma/matter accretion disc ) that we just can't see, and it is spinning very rapidly dragging plasma ( and space ) around with it.

The nice thing about this possibility, is that it doesn't change my model one bit. That uber black hole is still part of the total mass/energy of our v/l universe.

But nonetheless, it is interesting to speculate about this possibility.

Perhaps one of you geniuses ( and I am sincere in this ) would know whether this scenario is possible based on observational evidence. I am fairly confident it would fit within the parameters of GR.

And the other scenario I wanted to hypothesize is the Spin/HR scenario. This is where we ( obviously ) have a combination of spin, and rapid 'evaporation' whereby the sudden release through spin is augmented by Hawking radiation, allowing for a more 'homogenized' ( and potentially complete ) dispersal of mass than through spin alone.

I would be curious to see which of these 4 possibilities would best describe the universe as we know it today.

Recap:

1. CMP Model ( spin alone ) with total ( or near total ) release of energy.

2. CMP Model ( spin + HR ) with total ( or near total ) release of energy.

3. CMP Model ( spin alone ) with minimal release ( 2% ) of energy.

4. CMP Model ( spin + HR ) with minimal release ( 2% ) of energy.

I think you are confused with models and axioms. They are different.

No doubt. I will look them up.

And if you have found others that support your "thinking" good. I am providing you the modern way of operating with theories and models.

You have provided me with nothing. I am not a mathemetician, and will never be one. Your assistance to this point is useless.

I am quite certain you can find many dark age thinkers that have yet to evolve to the modern methods of mathematical logic.

Congrats. In one sentence, you have managed to strongly imply that my model has no more validity than a geocentric universe, and insult the credentials and reputation of one of America's most respected astrophysicists.

Personally, I would never present anything new without my list of axioms and then a model to prove its logical consistency.

 

Hey, that is just me.

You work with what you got.

Then, if you are going to toss out names and some human concensus logic as some replacement for mathematical logic, go for it. There were many flat earthers at some time but that concensus is not a replacement for the rules and discipline of logic.

I have said this before. In science there is no safety in numbers. There is safety in truth.

Clearly, you are not in the mainstream thought for mathematical logic.

Considering I am not a mathemetician, that would be axiomatic. ( Did I use that word correctly?)

If you want to debate concensus and democracy, I will take you to a political site and we can operate on that style there.

If I was interested in consensus, I wouldn't be here taking your abuse.

If you want to debate mathematical theories (physics is a sub-branch) and the models that satisfy them, then we will talk logic.

I have no desire to communicate any further with you ... on any subject.

You choose.

There is no need to choose. You have already proven to be incapable of correctly assessing the situation, and understanding my limitations, offered reasoned arguments against the model. ( as many others here have patiently done ) Instead, you prefer to belittle me, and my model, thereby showing the world your obvious superiority over me.

I concede. You are a fantastic person. As I said before, I wish you luck in your chosen field.

OK, I read your stuff.

 

You do not have a list of axioms such that your system can construct deductions based on your axioms.

 

Here,

 

theory (set of sentences)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_theory

 

This definition is primitive though but will start this discussion.

 

In reality, a theory is a set of L formulas.

 

Now, when you develop a theory, then you must find a model so you can prove your theory is consistent.

 

"Gödel's completeness theorem (not to be confused with his incompleteness theorems) says that a theory has a model if and only if it is consistent,"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_theory

 

If you cannot produce this model, it is on you, then your theory is useless. It is not on others to prove your theory is consistent.

 

That is the deal.

I always love comments like yours. You may have read it. But it would appear you have failed to grasp it. And with that apparent failure, you have made several assertions that are flawed simply because the underlying assumptions are wrong.

So let me spell it out for you.

My model is a MODIFIED BBT. It removes the hypothetical inflation addendum, and replaces it with a reasoned, and logical solution that does not appear to conflict with accepted physics, or our current level of understanding of QM.

I say it does not APPEAR to, because I have had discussions with scientists from all over the world, and none of them were able to point to any contradictions with GR, QM, or physics in general.

Several ( from very prestigious universities ... like Columbia, and MIT ) DID however make such well thought out arguments as "Black holes don't merge, you idiot!" Or "Everyone know the universe is going to expand forever!" Or by far the most popular ... "Your model is in conflict with generally accepted string theory, and Hawking radiation."

Good grief.

I conversed for about a month early last year by e-mail with Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson. We discussed several aspects of the model. ( I must assume he is fairly knowledgable about the universe, GR, QM, physics, and black holes ) His only real issue was that it needed to be experimentally tested, and at that time he could not think of a way to do this.

I countered this with the fact that Hawking radiation ( also based on accepted physics ) could not be experimentally tested either ... yet it was still considered a viable theory.

He either chose to ignore this reality, or was unable to rationally address this apparent contradiction. But the fact remains ... after 30 plus years, Hawking radiation is still experimentally untestable. I have paid close attention to the LHC website, and I have seen nothing on the subject of Hawking radiation ... yet.

Unlike you, Tyson understood that since the model closely follows BBT, there was no need for new math, or new physics to allow the model to function.

The model ( when I first proposed it one year ago ) relied on all known observations to date. Since that time there have been a few discoveries that were/are 'predicted' by my model. There have been NONE that contradicted it. This does not lend strength/credibility to your assertion that it is 'useless'.

I am not a mathemetician. All I did was derive a better solution than the BBT for the workings of our universe on the large scale. In case you have not noticed, there is a small disparity between pure mathematics, and the actual observations of the universe.

You can claim it's useless. You can insist anything you want. That does not make you correct. Please forgive me if I don't throw in the towel based on your assessment of the model, or my inability to express it mathematically.

As I have said many times ... I have studied virtually every other publicly available model in existence. I don't pretend to understand the math, so I research other opinions of those models from respected, and learned men from all over the world.

I feel very confident that my model correctly describes, in terms we all can understand, how our universe operates on the very large scale. I have had more than one offer to put a mathematical theorem to the model. For various reasons, I have yet to accept any of these offers. I will soon, though.

My goal ( as I have also stated repeatedly ) is to get the scientific community exposed to this model. To get them to consider it's validity, or to falsify it.

As several respected scientists have said ... it's a good model. Again, sorry you think it's useless. You are welcome to your opinion. But I suspect you will find that you are on the wrong team.

I wish you luck in your career.

By the way, I am currently working on reconstructing my model ( using the list of axioms ) with the help of a very bright cosmologist. I am looking forward to posting this new version soon.

I already proved this.obvious,you havent been paying attention.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

Do you not study your human body everyday?

What is knowledge and wisdom.Where does it come from?

How can you any words without letters?

Do you know the evolution of language?

do you know the value of alphabets?

I mean if you took any knowledge of anykind and if you actually earned it.You would know.

Like i shown with a math grid to a person other day.I used math.If thats yours,i shown you it.

I used Language,If thats yours,i shown you it.

What is it that you study?

Is it art?

does not a line,triangle,square,circle created all images?

it also does in my method too.

What you truelly want me to tell you,your brain wouldnt able to handle without you earning something yourself first.

From what I read, everyone gave you ample opportunity to explain yourself. I doubt you are on drugs. But I don't think you have much of a grasp on reality.

You have said nothing. I'm done.

and not to sound cocky or something but whose fault would it be that you dont understand even just by me outlining answers for you in a different form or language?

That would be your fault. I am not, nor is anyone else, clairvoyant, or otherwise able to decypher anything at all from the 'language' you have chosen to use in imparting your wisdom.

I mean,lets face it,isnt English the greatest value?

Wouldnt that then mean,you should be able to understand such language as sign language?

Not if I haven't studied it. And I am not about to just to try to figure out what the hell you are talking about.

Hmmm

Is it my fault you dont understand,is it the governments fault,is it the peoples fault,is it your parents fault,is it G0ds fault,is it jesus fault,Muhammed,David,lucifer,babylion,?

So far ... it's all on you.

I mean,whose fault is it that a person wouldnt understand simple sign language?

Why would you need a working knowledge of sign language, when that is nothing more than a non-verbal means of expressing thoughts, or concepts that can just as easily be conveyed through written, or spoken language?

My method is all paths....

Beginning to End

Isnt that transformation 13-1

Not if you can't communicate what ever concepts you are trying to convey in a manner understood by other human beings. So far, it appears you may be the only living human to have a firm grasp on this method you keep referring to.

I don't think any more real progress can be made on this concept without a good knowledge of quantum gravity, which we don't have. Once that exists mathematical predictions can be made about whether this is even feasible.

Well there you are. Case closed.

But before I leave forever, perhaps you might explain why you think it necessary to have a good knowledge of quantum gravity.

Is it because you think all black holes can't merge to one?

Is it because you think 'infinitely small' or 'infinitely dense' is possible? ( which would then preclude my last remaining black hole containing the mass ... and then some ... of 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 sols from ever releasing it's energy )

Or do you have some other reason?

Of course, if this is true ... this creates a host of problems. Which have already been addressed, or are trying to be addressed through the use of hypothetical mathematical constructs such as SST/M-theory.

Perhaps you might also explain why mathematics can't simply use GR to make predictions on the scale of which my model addresses.

py ( one foot out the door ... lol )

Since I am clueless as to what method you are referring to, it seems highly unlikely I will be following your method.

Really, Crowned. I read the whole thread. I can't recall one instance where you actually, rationally, explained anything.

Why don't you take a moment and put your theory into sentences that the average human has a even a glimmer of hope of understanding.

So far, all you have done is spout nonsense.

I am honestly willing to listen to your 'message'. If we can't agree on a common language however, ( such as english ) your message will remain incomprehensible long after my death.

Which I must assume is not your intent.

pywakit KNOCK IT OFF!!!

 

Good lawrd, my friend, enough. Okay, you had your say, and we're not giong to beg you to believe us that we don't mean anything bad. You asked why I say we are walking on eggs -- it's becuse you nitpick our answers, DECIDE that we're against you, and choose to get all offended.

 

I am not going to have a discussion with you if you choose to pluck my emotional string every time you disagree with me or vise versa. Knock it off.

 

ENOUGH with the melodrama. ENOUGH.

 

We don't mean to order you around, we actually mean to LISTEN to your theory and see if it is valid, but to be fair here, this is a science forum, in which we are staff. We actually *can* "order around". When a debate goes awry, it's our job to bring it back on the right track or CLOSE IT.

 

Enough with the personal stuff, enough. It's time to debate your theory or move on.

 

 

~moo

Yes. You are correct. I apologise again.

Now if someone will actually initiate further debate with the theory ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher%27s_stone

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_of_life

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rejuvenation_(aging)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortality

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Work#In_alchemy

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies#Newton.27s_alchemical_research_and_writings

 

Tell me,how all these i just posted arent from my method?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

Dont we all look for the TRUTH?

What is an illusion? is it Chaos,confusion or is it the same exact and a Great Understanding?

 

A Father and Mother created a Child,Do they not?

Sun And Moon conjoined would create what?

Life an illusion?Ocourse,like all answers in a human body that a light uncovers from whats dark.As how the universe was created,wasnt it ?

 

Is whats above,not below?

Some want to know all,some dont.

Some want to be good,some dont.

I always said,if one would combine them both,a higher understanding would have to be there also.

 

Its why i laugh at those of great knowledge fighting with another of those with great knowledge.When all in fact,theyre just viewing it from a different point of view of illusions....

 

We all try to find the goal in whatever it is we search.

My method cant be proven wrong .

No matter what,one has to use my method in order to acheive great goals.or one can just believe as i did.

Just dont hate those who want to learn this way as it is the same as any other way,just a different point of view.

 

and give me a second and ill prove what my method does....

I am sorry for teasing you. Crowned, I don't hate anyone. I also don't have a belief system of any kind. Philosophy just isn't my bag.

You are entitled to your opinion. You may say that you have a greater understanding of the universe than anyone else. This does not make it so, nor does that assertion carry any weight with me, or motivate me to want to delve further into your theories.

However, I wish you well in your quest.

I don't have to explain when you ADMIT YOURSELF that it is not mainstream.

 

 

Now please get back on topic and drop the melodrama.

The 'melodrama' as you tactfully put it, was not intentional. I'm human. A situation arose that I found personally disturbing. I dealt with it in the most rational, and logical way I knew how.

I have not acted irrationally, and you know it.

Don't order me around. I am a 57 year old man who has worked his ass off his entire life. I have earned the respect of my peers ... whether or not you are aware of this.

Try asking nicely. Or better yet, if you can't facilitate a constructive and positive outcome, just leave me alone.

Like anyone else, I do not respond well to poor treatment.

I apologised to all concerned. You should have the decency to acknowledge that apology. Not fan the flames further.

If you find my attitude intolerable, ban me.

That said ...

I have been wating for weeks for someone to make additional intelligent arguments against my model. Until that happens, all I can do is post 3rd party referenced material to either support, or undermine my theory.

I continue to keep an open mind, and welcome any further arguments.

whats the problem, he merely said that you answered your own question as to why it belongs in speculations. he wasn't rude condecending or disdainful about it.

Let me ask you a question.

Have I proven to be an erratic, easily ruffled, scientifically obtuse, rude, unapologetic, insensitve, uncaring, disrespectful, unappreciative, inconsiderate, and/or irrational jerk?

No. I don't think I have. And I don't appreciate someone repaying my thoughtful behavior by blowing smoke up my a--.

It's all about perception, insane ...

From MY perspective, he WAS rude, condescending, and disdainful of both my feelings, and level of intelligence.

It was entirely unecessary for him to post what he did. He was ... as they say ... a day late and a dollar short. Moo had already handled the situation more than adequately.

What was his purpose, or intent in that post? What benefit did it achieve? All it did was piss me off unecessarily. If he had any grasp of human nature, he would have weighed in with some consideration, and tact.

He hides behind his 'authority' implying that it was 'necessary' for him to come off as 'heavy handed, or impersonal'. Clearly, I was an out-of-control, loose cannon needing to be reigned in.

And now he has the audacity to complain about my 'lack of civility'.

His last post just further illustrates his poor understanding of the original situation, his lack of tact, and his capacity to use irrational/ridiculous justifications/arguments for his actions.

ajb was/is quite capable of discerning my model didn't conform with 'established mainstream theory', regardless of his 'official' title.

sisyphus doesn't need to be a physics expert to have some vague inkling of the current, accepted standard model.

swansont's insistence to the contrary is disingenuous, and insulting.

What an odd coincidence that my model was moved within minutes of my posting 20 scientifically valid ways in which my model could be falsified.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ... it's a duck.

Until proven otherwise. And swansont makes a very weak case against it being a duck.

So I am 'expected to know the rules'. Fine. Got it. My sincere apology for straying. It won't happen again.

I have had my say. Swansont has had his. Now let's drop it. Unless swansont chooses to either escalate the situation, or ban me for 'lack of civility'.

I'm sure he has that right under 'strict adherence to the rules'.

Merged post follows:

pywakit, if you can't handle people talking to you, then seriously, take a breather, take a breath, and come back when you're calmer.

 

The fact your theory is not mainstream - a fact you conceded to - doesn't mean people offend you. I'm getting a bit weary from your insistence to take everything so personally. I feel like there's a need to walk on eggs when a point is presented to you, and that's never good in debates.

 

Chill. No one has their lifetime mission to beat you down or offend you, and swasont's note was *explanatory* not rude.

 

He came here to post a note because I asked him to. He is a physics expert, and I wanted someone who participated in the debate to tell you why the theory is not mainstream, seeing as I *didn't* participate in the debate and could only give you general explanation.

 

Stop having us walk on eggshells when we debate you. Always assume people mean GOOD before you are offended, that's a good rule for life in general, not just a science forums.

 

~moo

Thank you for your advice. I have somehow managed to stumble through life unaware of my incapacity to 'handle people talking to me'.

I never heard the sound of cracking eggshells during my month of debating here on your forum. I'm sorry you have that perception. I think it is unfounded.

I have treated people here with respect in general, and have been sincere in my apology when I was in the wrong.

I am also sorry you grow weary of my 'antics'.

He did NOT explain WHY my theory was not mainstream. That is an inaccurate statement. He just stated catagorically that is 'wasn't mainstream'.

"Alternative theories go in Speculations. The main science forums are for discussing accepted science."

My model strictly adheres to 'accepted science'. It uses that 'accepted science' to draw a more rational conclusion from the known evidence.

There were/are many areas of reasoned debate that could have arisen from this. Nothing in my model is 'out in left field' and/or an inarguable assertion.

You gave me a reasonable, and considerate explanation. I had already accepted it, and was appreciative of it.

He insulted my intelligence. I called him on it. End of story.

If none of you are willing to, or able to see this, then that's how it stays.

You want me to go away. Fine. I'm gone.

Merged post follows:

I have a short science question. Up there^^^^ somewhere you draw an analogy to the solar system and say something like "when the protostar exploded it left the larger mass near the centre" this causes two issues with me, protostars do not exploded, they are the start of stars and contract leaving a disk of non-star material behind, most of the lightest elements (hydrogen and helium) are in the centre of the solar system, this is undeniably true as the sun is mostly hydrogen and is very massive indeed.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The above break down explanation of your idea seems down to 5 to fit, and be consistent with mainstream ideas.

 

But I have some problems with the points past that, how do you get the superluminal spinning? That seems like a serious issue. You also need some method to go from that to another big bang type event.

 

It should also be noted that bang - collapse - bang - collapse - bang... etc... is accepted as one of the possible universe cycles...

Klaynos, I will stick long enough to answer your question.

You're memory may be faulty. I was referring to the process of our solar system's formation, where the denser materials ( rocky planets ) remained closer to the sun, while the lighter elements that formed the gas giants were blown farther away.

In fact, the sun contains over 98% of the mass of our entire solar system, if I am not mistaken. Again, it was just for visualisation purposes. The BB started with different materials than our sun did in achieveing this current incarnation.

The recent evidence of near c rotational velocity of SMBHs, Einstein's math that predicted extreme rotational velocities of collapsing stars, the evidence/predictions of collapsed space through GR, all combine to lead to a not-irrational hypothesis that black holes could achieve superliminal spin.

But it is not necessary for the model to function. If QM is correct, and infinitely small, or infinitely dense is not possible, then a black hole with the mass of 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 sols will have a monstrously large physical volume. Rotating at, or near c could easily have produced the universe we see today if that mass let go from angular momentum overcoming the gravitational attraction.

Hope this is a satisfactory explanation.

And Moo is correct in one sense. Even if I am in the right, it was also unecessary for me to speak my mind.

I apologise to all. Including swansont.

Merged post follows:

Hey, they're talking about me! I actually thought it was in Speculations. I navigate mostly through SFN spy, so I don't always pay attention to what subforums things are in. As a moderator, I should have.

Sisyphus, I am not, nor was I ever offended by anything you said. Nor was I offended by anything ajb said. I appreciated his input.

Sorry to drag you, and ajb into it. I was out of line in doing so.

Merged post follows:

PS:

I was pretty sure my post in "One World System" was adequate evidence of my ability to find humor in my situation. And my acceptance of it.

I'm sorry Moo didn't see this. I genuinely like her. But then, I genuinely like most everyone. A character flaw, I suppose ....

But yes, I do take things personally at times. Like you all do. It's a flaw we all share.

(emphasis added)

 

You have answered your own question. Alternative theories go in Speculations. The main science forums are for discussing accepted science. Note that the forum is called Speculations and not Crackpot Science. Being in Speculations just means that it is not mainstream, accepted science.

 

As for the delay, I can only say this: we volunteer our time (mods and experts, both of whom have the power to move threads). Personally, I don't always notice where a discussion is, or it may take some time to realize that the poster is presenting an alternative hypothesis.

Couldn't just leave it alone could you? Moo gave a reasonable explanation that I was clearly comfortable with. But you had to come along and spoil the good feeling.

I don't appreciate you insulting my intelligence.

I don't appreciate your disingenuous remarks.

I don't appreciate your dismissive, rude demeanor.

I am disturbed by your apparent inability to grasp that I would have had every reasonable expectation of staying on mains after 33 days, and successfully rebutting all arguments against the model.

I am disappointed that you don't acknowledge your ( the forum's ) failure to provide an explanation ( as Moo did ) but irrationally assume that I would just 'know'.

ajb is a physics expert. sisyphus is a moderator. They were both well aware as early as ONE day after I posted my model. Are you going to suggest that neither one of these experts was capable of grasping that I was presenting a model that was NOT mainstream?

I have treated you decently. I expect the same in return.

ajb (Physics Expert) December 22nd, 2009, 2:06 AM #4

 

Physics ExpertA model is a mathematical construct. You have presented a list of ideas etc. Great. Now can you write out your model a bit more explicitly please?

 

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.)

 

Then can you calculate anything interesting that can (lets say at least in principle) be measured?

______________

Sisyphus (Trickster Archetype) December 23rd, 2009, 11:55 AM #20

 

ModeratorIn addition to looking for reasons why it isn't true, you should reexamine the reasons for why you think it might be.

 

For example, your reasoning seems to be that because there are other things that can be too large to be stabile, black holes can be too large to be stabile. But that doesn't logically follow. There are specific reasons why stars go nova (i.e., the physical laws in play are not "some things are too big to live"), and those reasons don't apply to black holes. There is no known mechanism that might make an upper size limit on black hole stability, and you're not proposing one, either. Just asserting that one exists.

 

And that's just one hypothesis. You've made several others, and I don't see how each follows from the next. Black holes will "merge," the proposed "upper limit" on mass just happens to be the same as the combined mass of the observable universe, etc. You're offering not one hypothesis, but many unrelated ones (or at least you don't offer a relationship), and don't really support any of them. Because you don't give reasons, there is no reasoning to evaluate.

______________

Merged post follows:

(edit)

Unlikely as it would seem, you may have been unaware of Moo's adequate handling of the situation. If so, this only excuses part of what you said. Barely. You have a responsibility to be aware of a situation before you jump in.

We all have a right to respectful, courteous treatment. It matters how you treat people, and obviously, I have taken umbrage. There is a human element here swansont. You have ignored it. Or don't care.

Glad I don't share your disdain.

No. Seriously. I think I understand.

What crown is saying with all his graphics is that all conscious reality is an illusion, and this offers the only reasonable explanation of the pyramids 'standing the test of time', for they should have been long gone by now.

Furthermore, our consciousness is only a figment of our imagination, so therefore we do not actually exist in physical reality ... so logically we can only get sick, or die if we believe it to be true.

Am I there crown? In basic terms?

**contemplating the 'reality' that his model sits a hairsbreadth away from this thread, pywakit draws comfort from the new knowledge that suicide need be no more difficult than believing one has committed it**

Lol. Cool dude! Thanks!

I think I am beginning to understand.

In the interest of clarification, I provide this interim up-date on the model. I am grateful to Ed Hill from Florida for his assistance.

This is my reply to his summary of the model. He goes by quantum_wave.

Hopefully this will answer questions/common misconceptions about the model in a more concise, and clear manner.

Originally Posted by quantum_wave

It has been interesting communicating with you and getting down to what your model really is about . I think the next step is for me to post what I have learned from our PMs to test my understanding. I have left out any axiomatic statements you might or might not want to include. You can address, confirm or correct my understanding of your model. ”

Nice job. Just a couple errors, and omissions.

“ 1) You have multiple big bangs fueled by the energy of space but your model proposes that the occurrences of those big bangs are spaced far enough apart to allow all of them to be separate systems in themselves; bang, collapse, bang, collapse without out losing any energy, and without any physical or inertial connection between them, i.e. each is a closed system. ”

Yes. And I base this on the very low energy density of space. I do not use hypothetical alternate dimensions ( or any metaphysical incarnation ) as a source for the energy, so it would take a great deal of space to equal the energy content of a universe like ours. I think we will find that in a sense, the macro universe operates much as the micro universe. Quantum fluctuations on an infinite scale. Each universe is comparable to a materializing particle. Flashing into existence, it is annihilated instantly by the anti-particle.

To an infinite-in-volume, and eternal-in-age universe, our BB universe would seem little more than a quick, and faint flash.

Furthermore, By virtue of GR, and all known observations going back over 13 billion light years, I feel we now have adequate evidence ( notwithstanding chaos theory ) that all space is indeed uniform**, and we can safely assume ( as a reasonable working model ) that the same laws of physics, chemistry, EM ... and GR ... will apply at any location throughout the infinite universe. ( ** This aspect of the model is hypothesis. It is hoped that new observations, and measurements currently being performed by the Planck Telescope, and others will establish this to a reasonable assumption shortly.)

Because of this we can also assume ** that all universes will have formed originally in exactly the same manner ... energy robbed from the fabric of space. And once established they will repeat forever.

We can be assured ** that they all operate under the same laws, and are all closed systems by our measurements of CMBR. There is no evidence of CMBR coming from outside our expanding bubble of matter/energy.

“ 2) You have the black holes at the center of galaxies growing by capturing the galactic stars and energy. In addition you have some black holes no longer gravity bound to galaxies, roaming free. Of course they will become bound again as the merging proceeds. ”

Yes.

“ 3) You have those enlarged black holes increasing their spin as they grow. ”

Yes. Recent observational evidence from Chandra suggests supermassive black holes ( 9 ) all apparently spinning at close to c. If this is accurate, then we already have black holes with a spin far beyond the previously accepted theoretical limit of 1,150 spins per second.

“ 4) You have those same black holes attracted to each other to form one huge spinning black hole; overcoming expansion momentum through angular momentum, which itself does not have to be conserved under the developing conditions of black holes free of their galactic constituents. ”

Angular momentum, AND Newtonian gravity. The black holes will alter trajectory eventually to move toward the strongest gravitational field.

“ 5) You have that huge merged black hole spinning faster and faster approaching the speed of light and beyond on the basis that “normal” space limits mass to less than the speed of light but space becomes compromised or broken at the “singularity”. ”

Possibly faster than c. It may be limited. However, either way, the model will function.

“ 6) You have that spinning black hole capturing every last photon that has ever been emitted from the arena along with any energy contained in the space that collapses into the BH. This final clean up is accomplished when space 'snaps back' and carries the lighter elements and CMBR with it. Heavier elements are not completely dragged back so you think we will find that the core of our universe now has a plethora of black holes, some really, really massive ones, perhaps trillions, or quadrillions of solar masses. ”

No. The final 'clean-up' is accomplished when the gravitational waves of the last remaining black hole ... containing all the mass/energy of 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 sols ( 200 billion galaxies times 200 billion stars ... and this is a conservative estimate ), all dark matter, all dark energy ( if it exists ) ... causes all space containing gravitons ( any remaining mass/energy ) to collapse into the black hole.

“ 7) You have that spinning black hole then throwing off plasma and gas to feed the birth of the next cycle. ”

Not yet.

“ 8) As a result of that superluminal spinning you have that black hole substantially disbursed but leaving some remnants that would be currently undetectable, but you believe this will change shortly to reveal many 'remnants'. ”

Yes and no. Out of order.

“ 9) You speculate that the final BH (that will be the accumulated sum of all matter and energy in the closed system that is our arena) will spin so fast that it will throw off the hot plasma and gases that will then reconstruct our expanding universe which would then over time again succumb to the collapse and merger, cyclically, time and time again. ”

Otherwise known as the BB. The final collapse of space will be the trigger. The added boost in spin to cause the black hole to fly apart. Angular momentum finally overcomes gravity.

Now we can incorporate #7, and #8. When the black hole releases it's stored energy, the lines of space 'snap back' to normal, at speeds exceeding c, in conformance with GR. When this happens, when space returns to near uniformity, it drags lighter elements with it. Heavier elements remain closer. Although currently obscured, new telescopes should be able to peer deeper into the earliest epoch of our universe, where I believe they will find a much denser region than expected.

“ 10) You proclaim that it is a cosmology that differs from all other cyclical cosmologies in that all mechanisms are supported by known physics, Newtonian gravity, GR, and QM. Further, you explain that GR does not place an upper limit on BH mass. QM does not allow infinitely small, so the BH will have a physical 3-D structure at the scales involved. ”

Correct.

“ Waa la, a cyclical cosmology (with a few problems I and others may point out ). ”

Please do.

“ To my knowledge that is it. You don’t have reams of written pages supporting or justifying your theory but you base it on years of study and feel good that none of those to whom you have distributed it to (in its former version) have falsified it. ”

Not quite. True, it has not been falsified ... yet. But 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.

Thank you very much q. Sure you don't want to re-write it for me? Lol.

Merged post follows:

Lol. Well, I guess I should be grateful it lasted exactly one month on the main forum.

I have not received an explanation ( yet ) for being moved to 'speculations' so I must assume you all just got tired of looking at it, I just broke some law/rule, or you have decided it is 'speculative' after all.

Thank you for the previous consideration you afforded me.

James

Merged post follows:

The following was my attempt to determine why my model was moved. I contacted Moo. One of her suggestions was to post my messages to her ... and presumably her replies.

Originally Posted by mooeypoo

Originally Posted by pywakit

 

Moo. Please don't tell me you did this! Lol. How sad.

 

Moo: Did what?

 

Py: Moved my model to specs. But you obviously didn't. The reason I thought it might be you was because you were the only mod listed when it happened about 20 minutes ago. No explanation was given. I was fairly certain after surviving a full month, it would stick to main. Just a little shock is all. I will recover.

 

Don't worry about it. I think you are great.

 

Moo: Resident experts can move threads to speculations too, so it might have been one of them. But you know, your thread should be in speculation, since it's not mainstream science. You shouldn't take it as a bad thing, though... it's just its rightful place. We try to leave the mainstream forums to actual mainstream theories and not speculative ones.

 

The move to speculations isn't meant to say anything bad at you, it's just for organization purposes. Some people are getting confused by the distinction between a not-yet-completely-proven speculative theory and mainstream science.

Merged post follows:

More on this. Moo didn't post my full PM to her, and I don't know how to retrieve it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by pywakit

I'm not going to rake you over the coals, but please allow me a short defense.

It's true my model doesn't conform to mainstream. However, it is really nothing more than a modified BBM, without inflationary theory. Crudely stated, to be sure. But ...

Moo: Then when you show it in the thread and provide evidence for it being mainstream, it'll go back to the mainstream forum

We removed the "Pseudoscience" from the forum title, it's not *ONLY* "Speculation" so there's nothing to be 'stained' anymore. It's a speculation for now, and if and when it becomes mainstream, it will come back to the appropriate forum.

There's not much use arguing about this in PVTMSG, btw... if you would need to convince anyone, it wouldn't be the singular me.. the staff debate such things.

But anyways, there's not much need to be offended -- a speculation is a perfectly valid first scientific step.

Since we switch the name to Speculation and removed 'pseudoscience' from it, it's no longer 'crackpotville'. I have a few threads there with myown speculations.. it's just the rightful place of things that are nonmainstream.

~moo

Merged post follows:

More ...

Originally Posted by pywakit

Sorry Moo.

It's not my intent to put you in an uncomfortable position.

As a non-learned man, I felt I had earned my place on the mains ... the hard way.

I still believe my model is sufficiently meets all necessary criteria to qualify for 'mainstream science'.

Mine is the first model this forum has had ( at least in recent history ... to my knowledge, based on my thread searches ) that provides a reasoned alternative to the standard cosmological model without resorting to 'magical' fixes.

It is not contradicted by physics, or GR, and it is falsifiable. There is nothing 'crack-pot' about it.

Furthermore, two very recent observations/discoveries lend even more support. ( 33 merging pairs, apparent near c rotational velocities of 9 SMBHs far exceeding accepted theoretical maximum rotational velocity of 1,150 spins per second. )

The issues I address beyond the basic model ( such as infinite space ) are not germane to the main function of the model, and I take care to keep them seperate.

The standard model ignores such issues as infinity, and what came before the BB. My addendums can also be ignored without removing any legs of support.

The goal is not to answer all questions flawlessly. The goal is to improve substantially on the standard model. My model does this.

In Occam's Razor fashion, the most elegant solution is the simplest.

Someone told me that it is rare to have a decision like this overturned. But it can be done. It requires a strong case.

I don't know how a stronger case could be made, without actually 'blowing up' a black hole.

I will stop bothering you now.

Either way, I appreciate your efforts in trying to make me feel welcome, and valued.

Hope your day goes well.

Moo: pywakit, even if you convince me, I can't do anything on my own accord, you will need to convince all the moderators. If you want, I will post this in a mod-only forum, and see what the others say (I don't usually share private messages, seeing as they're.. private -- there's just not a lot of use debating this here..

If you aren't comfortable with me sharing the PMs, then you can perhaps post that in the public thread and see what people answer;

I would tell you this, though: The moving (or not moving) of your thread to speculation (or from it) has nothing to do with whether or not the theory (and you) are valued here.

The theory is not mainstream, not yet. Until you get it into textbooks, or win a nobel prize on it, or get the math SO tight that it's unquestionable, you won't change it. Therefore it will not be in the mainstream forum.

You should convince people of its validity as an attempt for a peer-review. If ti passes us, think about going to publish it somewhere for a real peer-review. That's how things work.

That doesn't mean, though, that you're not welcome here or that you're not valued. The threads are not just abandoned in the speculation forum, we debate them. Just be patient and see where problems pop up in your theory so you can either fix them to make an even stronger theory or see how to formulate a new approach.

Don't take it personally

Merged post follows:

More ...

Originally Posted by pywakit

Dear Moo.

You force me to respond. I really don't want to do this.

Originally Posted by pywakit

I'm not going to rake you over the coals, but please allow me a short defense.

It's true my model doesn't conform to mainstream. However, it is really nothing more than a modified BBM, without inflationary theory. Crudely stated, to be sure. But ...

Moo writes: Then when you show it in the thread and provide evidence for it being mainstream, it'll go back to the mainstream forum

Py: Define 'it'. What must I show? That my model conforms to GR? That is axiomatic.

Define 'mainstream'. Are you suggesting that a reasonable alternative to the 'mainstream' BBM falls outside mainstream? This would not make sense. The BBM has problems. The inherent function of my model addresses those problems, following Newtonian gravity, GR, and QM.

Moo: We removed the "Pseudoscience" from the forum title, it's not *ONLY* "Speculation" so there's nothing to be 'stained' anymore. It's a speculation for now, and if and when it becomes mainstream, it will come back to the appropriate forum.

Py: You didn't remove the sub-title. My model shares space with "God is dead!". There is a vast difference between pure, unfalsifiable speculation, and theory backed by every bit of scientific evidence we have.

Moo: There's not much use arguing about this in PVTMSG, btw... if you would need to convince anyone, it wouldn't be the singular me.. the staff debate such things.

Py: It wasn't an argument. And I was simply going by the rules your forum has posted where you are allowed to defend your position directly to a moderator, or administrator. Since I already have some small relationship with you ... and there was no explanation forthcoming from whoever moved me, along with his/her name ... it seemed reasonable to ask you about it.

Moo: But anyways, there's not much need to be offended -- a speculation is a perfectly valid first scientific step.

Py: *sigh*. This is an inaccurate characterisation. This is a theory based on the evidence/observations, the math, accepted physics, GR, QM ... and nothing else.

Moo: Since we switch the name to Speculation and removed 'pseudoscience' from it, it's no longer 'crackpotville'. I have a few threads there with myown speculations.. it's just the rightful place of things that are nonmainstream.

Py: Maybe not 'crackpotville' to you Moo, but to anyone familiar with these forums, anything posted here has no more ( or less ) validity than ...

"Telekinesis Fire Question"

"We know essentially nothing - Expanding the mind with philosophy."

"Does our consciousness exist in a higher dimension?"

"Science Proves God Is Dead!!!"

"One World System."

Can you honestly claim my model belongs with this nonsense?

Moo, I understand this is not a democracy. Or a republic, for that matter. I can't force you to do anything you don't want.

Somebody had to come along with a better model. Eventually. It just happens that I am the one who did. The problem seems to be no one BELIEVES a layman could have 'cracked the code'. Or at least have gotten much closer than the SCIENTISTS have. This possibility is unthinkable.

Therefore ... in your mind ... all I have done ( at best ) is come up with a kernel of an idea that may ... by some miracle ... have some truth to it. But only after many, many years of rigorous testing, and experiments.

What you are not grasping, is that the model FITS. Fits known science. Fits known physics.

I don't need to come up with 'tight' math. It's already been done. If mine needs tight math, the BBM needs tighter math.

MY model doesn't create new problems. It solves old ones. With our existing understanding of gravity, and physics.

If you don't understand this, then you do not understand the model.

If you wish to share this with others, I have no problem at all.

I am respectfully asking for fair, objective, and reasonable treatment.

Now I will address your other note.

Moo: James, I didn't mean for you to start a debate over this in private messags. If you want to ask why your thread was moved to speculation and argue against the decision, please do that on the thread. I won't be arguing this on pvtmsg, specially since it's not my decision alone to make.

Merged post follows:

Ok. Last post on this. No guys, I am not naive enough to think anything is going to change.

It's just the principle.

Re: Solution

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Py: Tell you what Moo.

Just post all the PMs I sent you on my thread, and on your mod-only thread. I don't know how to retrieve them all. It says I haven't sent any messages.

Then you are out of the loop.

Thanks.

Moo: I'll tell you what, James -- you do it by the book and keep PERSONAL conversations to PM and "professional" conversations to the open forum. I set your request up to the mod team, but since your theory is NOT mainstream science (don't argue, please, it isn't. It's nice, it might one day be proven, it isn't YET) then it has no place in the mainstream board.

If you want to make your case, make it publically, please.

Py: Ok. Done. I disagree that it is not mainstream science. It is not mainstream 'theory'.

Moo: Whoa! There you go! that's it, my dear Not mainstream theory. It's not about mainstream science -- you might be using all science in there, that doesn't matter. It's NOT an accepted mainstream theory.

Quite frankjly, I'm not sure I understand the big deal. You know how many posts I have in speculation? So *what* if it's a speculation? that's how scientific theories *start* and that's fine.

You are taking this waaaaay too personally.

But your mind is clearly made up.

Py: Sorry for ever putting a human face out there for all to see. I fully understand nobody is interested. I fully understand the critical nature of keeping science discussions scientific at all times. It won't happen again.

Moo: Oh, come on now. So, what, I disagree with you and you go sulk in the corner? Lighten up, relax, continue arguing your point on the thread and debate, there's no need to stop being a human being or to apologize for sharing. I don't think anything bad of you or of your theory, even if the theory isn't mainstream science.

I like non-mainstream science theories, which is why I am *usually* answering more posts in the Speculation forum than I do in the mainstream physics forum even though Physics is my profession.

Chill, James.. this is a science forum, and we go by the (yes, strict) science method rules. A move to the "Speculation" forum is not a death sentence and it's not a spit in your face. The theory isn't mainstream science. Not yet. When it will be, we would have something to discuss. It's like you'd argue with me why an engineering project moved from Math to Engineering. It moves because we keep things organized.

Stop taking things so personally... I really don't see the urgency of "fixing" this. Nothing BAD was done, what is there to fix?

~moo

Py: Moo. It is impossible not to like you. Lol. Don't worry. I'm not sulking. Not freaking. Just was making my case for keeping it on main as forcefully as a keyboard will allow. That's all.

Even when I get offended, or hurt, it passes in about 5 minutes.

To my perspective Moo, it IS bad. We all have our own motivations and agendas.

Keep it where you want to. Or where you feel it belongs.

But I will point out ... you all kept it on main for over a month. And it's not like you didn't know what the model was.

It did not take you guys 33 days to figure out it wasn't mainstream. You were under no obligation to keep it there ... from day one.

Just telling it like it is Moo. To allow it to be there for 33 days, then arbitrarily move it claiming 'non-mainstream' is the flimsiest of rationalizations.

Now if you will excuse me ... I have a corner to sulk in for 5 minutes. Lol.

Love ya Moo.

Merged post follows:

Ok. THIS is the last post on the issue. Lol.

Moo. It is impossible not to like you. Lol. Don't worry. I'm not sulking. Not freaking. Just was making my case for keeping it on main as forcefully as a keyboard will allow. That's all.

 

Even when I get offended' date=' or hurt, it passes in about 5 minutes.[/quote']

 

 

Moo: Yeah, I know, it happens to me too.. just try not to take it personally

 

To my perspective Moo, it IS bad. We all have our own motivations and agendas.

 

Keep it where you want to. Or where you feel it belongs.

 

But I will point out ... you all kept it on main for over a month. And it's not like you didn't know what the model was.

 

 

Moo:Take into account that the moderators aren't "all seeing". We only see what we happen to debate in (and I didn't debate that thread) and/or what is reported. No one reported the thread and the mods that did participate didn't notice - or perhaps felt that some of the concepts still could remain in the mainstream forum one, until the experts decided that the theory - though interesting - isn't yet mainstream.

 

We're human beings. We miss stuff, we change our minds, it's not done to hurt you or belittle your ideas.

 

 

Just telling it like it is Moo. To allow it to be there for 33 days, then arbitrarily move it claiming 'non-mainstream' is the flimsiest of rationalizations.

 

 

Moo: It's not arbitrarily. Whoever moved it (not sure how) should have put a note on it, in that I agree with you (and it was reported, by myself, to the experts and moderators so it won't happen again). But.. it isn't a mainstream theory.

 

Again, I'm not sure I understand the big deal.

 

If someone was to post that you are COMPLETELY wrong, or that the theory had no merit at all -- I'd understand the frustration. But all that was done was move the thread from mainstream science into speculation, I have a feeling it was done because the 'less-mainstream' pionts started to be more prevalent than the mainstream ones.

 

Take into account that (name deleted) isn't too "mainstream" either.. So.. it was done.. big deal... you still have a thread, it's not closed or anything. We had a few woowoo people on board that took the attention of a lot of the moderators and the experts, so that might've been the reason why your thread recieved less attention. In the speculation forum, btw, it might actually get more attention.

 

Take a few minutes, calm down, cheer up, and continue debating

 

good night!

 

~moo

 

 

Thanks Moo. That was thoughtful. I am going to post this, too. Maybe it will help remind readers that you ( all ) are very human. You have reminded me.

 

Good night to you.

ajb writes:

 

Now as a Schwarzchild black hole is a particular example of curved space-time you could say that the entire space is the black hole.

Thanks ajb. I will think about the rest of your comments for a while before I respond.

As for the above, would it not be more technically accurate to say we exist in 'multiple' black holes 'simultaneously' as opposed to one?

All I meant was there is three different answers to the question of the size of a black hole in the context of the Schwarzschild metric.

 

1) The singularity at the centre is a point. So it is infinity small.

2) The event horizon could also be used to define the size, thus the Schwartzchild radius come into play. This gives a finite size for a finite mass.

3) As the Schwarzchild metric is asymptotically flat we could say that a black hole is infinite in extent. That is we need to be infinitely far away to be in flat space-time.

 

In the context of general relativity there seems to be no bounds on the mass. Again, thinking of the mass as a parameter in the Schwartzchild metric (to avoid worrying about masses more generally) we are free to consider any positive and finite mass. (Positive we maybe able to relax if we are happy to violate classical energy theorems).

 

However, when the Schwarzchild radius becomes comparable to Compton wave length of mass we expect to be outside the domain of applicability of classical general relativity. We expect quantum effects to become important.

 

Similarly, when the curvature of a space-time becomes comparable to Planck length quantum effects must play a role. In fact, the scale at which quantum gravity kicks in could be a lot larger than the Planck length.

 

So it is expected that quantum gravity will stop infinite mass densities.

Alright. I think I understand. So short answer is ... you are saying a hypothetical BH of this mass will have a physical volume. An actual 3d structure.

As far as the gravitational influence ... I think you mean a BH will have a potential for infinite boundries, propogating out from the BH at c.

The physical structure can be no larger in diameter than the event horizon. Is this correct?

And ( obtuse fellow that I am ) you are also agreeing? that GR allows for a mass this large ( 4^22 SM ).

But I am confused by ... " if we are happy to violate classical energy theorems."

Would this mass violate those theorems?

Lastly, this confused me too ... "However, when the Schwarzchild radius becomes comparable to Compton wave length of mass we expect to be outside the domain of applicability of classical general relativity."

Should I enroll in a university?

Hello,

 

I made public my opinion, including this subject, on January 04, 2010 in the article from:

http://searchwarp.com/swa562857-One-Way-To-Explain-The-Universe.htm

 

Quotation:

 

The accelerated expansion of the Universe can be due to the "gravitational glue" becoming weaker while the distances between galaxies increases, and some possible huge black holes from other "close enough" Universes around our Universe, attract the matter from the margins (along the borders) of our Universe (therefore we may not need any "dark energy" to explain the accelerated expansion of our Universe, like the today's astrophysicists are supposing).

Wouldn't this require that ( based on observations ) those 'huge black holes' from other close-enough universes be rather evenly spaced around OUR universe? Not only that, but what is stopping these behemoths from just 'barging in' to our universe?

I assume you are the author of the article. I read it with interest. Especially the last paragraph. Care to elaborate?

But I am in agreement that dark energy may not exist in the manner described/hypothesized by mainstream science.

And nice to meet you Mihail.

I have not been following the thread closely, just your misconception about what people mean by the size of a black hole was clear.

Language barrier? Could you re-state your comment ajb? I'm not certain I follow.

You didn't actually address the question I asked. Defining the size of a BH by the Schw. radius alone does not address the possibility ( if not likelihood ) that a BH containing the mass I hypothesized would have an actual volume.

If it did not have actual volume, then we are back, to all intents and purposes, to an infinitismally small point ... or almost equally small 'smear'. And essentially near-infinite density.

This would seem to defy reason. It's hard enough to swallow that the mass of a 2 million sol BH would have zero volume. Do you really think the universe's ( space ) physical constraints would allow a BH with a mass of 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 sols to have NO volume?

In classical general relativity the singularity (not quite so easy to define) at the centre of a black hole is a point- infinitesimally small. This is not usually taken to the the "extent" of a black hole. (Again, extent is not so easy to define). The "size" or "extent" is taken to be the Schwarzschild radius (x2 for a diameter etc). For sure it is the Schwarzschild radius that seems to be the interesting thing for the physics.

 

Now, quantum mechanics presumably smears the singularity inside a black hole. This would then regulate the divergence in the curvature/matter density.

Yes. Thank you. Do you think a BH with the mass I have described would NOT have physical dimensions? An actual physical object ( spherical if non-rotating, flattened sphere if rotating ) diameter bordered by the Schw. radius?

Nice to converse again ajb!

Misleading. The singularity AND the event horizon with its Schwarzschild radius have always been parts of the classical description. There has been no shift by "more scientists considering" some possibility. The Schw. radius has been with us since the 1918 work of Karl Schw. The event horizon was already a big deal in the 1970s with Bekenstein entropy and Hawking radiation.

Never argue with a man smarter than you. Lol. And you are certainly smarter. But you are speaking of purely mathematical constructs. Please correct me on this Martin. Classical GR says a BH is infinitely small. QM says it CAN'T be infinitely small. Just very tiny.

Researchers have continued to push the arbitrary 'theroetical' mass limit. The latest is 50 billion solar masses. But GR puts no such upper limits on mass. ( to my knowledge )

If QM is correct, and infinitely small is not possible, then how large a structure would a BH be that contained 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 solar masses?

This is 200 billion galaxies times 200 billion solar mass average per galaxy.

I can't find the research paper I read from one of the universities. I'm sorry. I should have copied it. But in it the astrophysicist speculated on extreme ultra BHs having rather large physical dimensions.

I will continue the search for the paper.

Misinformation.

 

Already with a stellar BH, like the 30 solarmass one in Andy Hamilton's graphic illustrations, looking in the direction of the BH you see something HUGELY DIFFERENT from an ordinary patch of starry sky.

 

This assumes the BH is not "feeding" but is completely quiet. A quiet BH still reveals its presence by gross optical distortion of whatever is behind it.

Sure won't argue this one. Thank you for correcting me Martin. I am not up to speed on gravitational lensing. I should have known better, and I am more than embarrassed by my mistake. My apology Michel. Typical layman ...

Beautiful shots, BTW Martin. Hubble pics, I mean. Glad I have high resolution screen!

I'll probably get thrown off for this .... Lol.

Michel, it can't be a 'block'. That is a 'cube'. Although it is still unclear how to describe the physical properties of a BH, until fairly recently, it was considered an infinitely dense object with ZERO dimensions. An infinitely small point. It has also been described as a 'ring' with ZERO thickness if the BH is rotating. That is how the math, and GR characterized it to my knowledge.

Now it seems that more scientists are considering the possibility that it has actual dimensions.

Describing a BH by it's 'radius' means the Schwarzschild Radius.

 

From Wiki:

 

The Schwarzschild radius of an object is proportional to the mass. Accordingly, the Sun has a Schwarzschild radius of approximately 3 km[3], while the Earth's is only about 9 mm, the size of a peanut. That is, if all the mass of the Sun (or Earth) were contained in a sphere with a radius of 3 km (or 9 mm for the Earth), then the volume of the Sun (or Earth) would continue to collapse into a singularity, due to the force of gravity.

 

An object smaller than its Schwarzschild radius is called a black hole. The surface at the Schwarzschild radius acts as an event horizon in a non-rotating body. (A rotating black hole operates slightly differently.) Neither light nor particles can escape through this surface from the region inside, hence the name "black hole". The Schwarzschild radius of the (currently hypothesized) supermassive black hole at our Galactic Center would be approximately 7.8 million km.

I'm sure I have mentioned this before, but if we could park our space ship a few hundred miles outside the event horizon of a BH with an ACTUAL physical diameter of a MILLION kilometers and stare directly at it ... we would see nothing. The light coming from the stars BEHIND the BH would bend around the gravitational well, so it would no different than looking at any starry section of space. ( This assumes it is not 'feeding' ... no jets of radiation coming from the poles ... and that there is no accretion disc to give away the location.)

Hope this answer is helpful.

Let me ask the question a different way. ( sorry about the english ) I have talked about this before on another thread.

Could dark energy be a PROPERTY of space rather than a seperate force acting upon space? Is it possible that space is PULLING galaxies apart, rather than PUSHING them apart?

I think it could be possible. I also think that space does not like energy in the form of mass/gravity. The 'lines' of space work toward being perfectly straight, while mass bends the lines.

I also think it is very possible that space's energy is the mechanism that 'artificially' creates a limit to the velocity of matter, and photons.

Are there NEW measurements being made that will ( or could possibly ) correctly quantify space's energy quotient, if any?

Thank you.