# pywakit

Senior Members

215

1. ## Observing a black hole's singularity

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. 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.
2. ## Dark energy, Dark matter, Fine tuning problem, Negative mass!

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.
3. ## Cosmological Model of The Universe

They are not gone. They are thinking about all this. ( too assumptive? ) I fully expect additional reasoned arguments against the model.
4. ## pywakit

Michel ... thanks. I read both, and a few links, too. I think you have a better understanding of time than I do. I tend to focus on the physical changes that occur over time. This alone is enough to give me a head-ache. Lol. But it ( time ) certainly is a fascinating subject, isn't it?

5. ## Cosmological Model of The Universe

Lol. I've never considered us 'admirable'. Fortunate would be a better description. The universe's failure ( as you amusingly put it ) is our gain. Clumpy is good! I agree ... Mankind is not, and never has been, 'long' on objectivity. I have always thought of us as extremely specialized ... but not special. I think I am in the minority in this view. Yes ... The BBM does not address anything beyond our particular existence. And just to be clear, my model doesn't either, except as an addendum. I see no intelligence at work in the construction of our visible/local/finite universe, or the infinite universe that lays beyond our expanding bubble. It just 'is'. And for no other reason than WE exist, it is quite obvious ... looking at it in a purely objective manner ... the process that allows us to exist in physical dimensions must be currently, and has been in the past, repeated an infinite number of times. It is incomprehensible to me how humans, science minded or not, can actually believe that nothing ... absolutely nothing ... existed anywhere before our universe sprang forth. And that when we are gone ... nothing will ever exist again. This is just lunacy. The laws of space are not unique 'to' or 'for' US. Why should they be unique to our visible/local/finite universe? Not to soapbox here ... but if I may make another quick observation. 51 years ago, I was desperate to be rescued. I wanted OFF this planet ( well, the island I lived on, anyway ... lol ) of totally irrational humans who kept raving about this 'supreme being' ... and who were sure if they just beat me enough times, I would become irrational, too. I KNEW there must be other planets out there with inhabitants who were not quite so insane ... and who might treat me a little better than the inhabitants of my own planet. But humanity was, at that time, being assured that it was quite impossible ( now and in the future ) to know if any other planets existed ... because we could never see a non-radiating object in close proximity to a star. Of course now we know better. Sadly, the refrain changes little in half a century. Humanity is now being assured that we will 'never' know for sure if there is anything beyond our local universe, because we will never be able to 'see' beyond it. The fact is, we didn't need to actually see exoplanets to 'know' they existed. It was ludicrous to think our star ... and our star alone ... had planets out of QUADRILLIONS of stars that we knew existed even 50 years ago. Very soon we will come to realize we don't need to 'see' an infinite number of universes to know that they exist. At this moment in our development, that realization is just difficult to adjust to. But we will get there. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMore from Space.com: If black holes can drag space, and matter/energy along with it at speeds near c, then I do not think it unreasonable to hypothesize rotational velocities of the 'singularity' ( the actual 3d structure ) exceeding c. Matter/energy is obviously limited to c or minus c in 'normal' space. But it seems the more we observe black holes, the more evidence we have that thay are not 'in' normal space.
6. ## Cosmological Model of The Universe

Michel, I may be wrong, but I think the solution is much simpler. We have no way at this moment ( to my knowledge ) to peer into the plasma cloud. I think we will drastically improve our 'vision' very soon ... this year ... and I think we will find that the intitial expansion?/inflation?/BB?/'singularity'? did not release it's energy in as nearly a homogeneous way as we have presumed. In fact, it is quite possible that an ultramassive BH remained behind after the initial expansion, along with countless other 'clumps' of matter/energy. There could have been innumerable black holes spawned immediately from this initial release of energy. I think this hypothesis is very much in line with our understanding of physics, and our current observations. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedPerhaps this is a poor analogy, but I would point to the current observations of our own solar system, and the Milky Way. When our proto-sun exploded the lightest materials on average ended up the farthest away. Denser material remained very close. The only rocky 'planets' beyond Mars, are the satellites of gas giants. And the MW is clearly denser the closer we get to the core. There just does not seem to be any evidence pointing to a nice, even release of energy ( irrespective of density ) in any structure in our visible universe, and I can't see the logic in assuming such a ( generally ) homogeneous event would have occurred with the BB model.
7. ## pywakit

Michel. You have been a great source of encouragement.

Posting here has proven to be very helpful in refining my model, allowing me to address the more common objections.

As I have mentioned before, I sent out the model to over 1,000 scientists a year ago. Even in it's crude form, it is proving to be influential. I am currently sending out the revised model to hundreds of grad students ( who do not have their entire lives and reputations riding on any given theory ), and also to hundreds of working physicists, and cosmologists.

I like to think I have an ability to see the 'obvious' ... lol ... as so many unlearned people like myself want to think. The reality is you have skills I can only dream about, and my envy runs deep. I wish you good fortune in promoting your theories, too.

As for your other comments, I agree.

And I must admit, it is gratifying to win arguments with people who clearly should ( and do ) have an advantage over me.

8. ## pywakit    michel123456

Hey Michel. You seem a sympathetic chap, so I will complain to you ... lol. I posted my model on SciForums.com last week, and successfully fended off an attack by one James R ( 19,000 plus posts ). Today, DH, who has expressed his annoyance with my model here, and who is a 'mod' on SciForums.com, moved my model to 'pseudo', claiming it is not a model at all.

Perhaps he will be successful on this forum, too. Of course I insisted he back up his claim, and I also protested to the administrators of that site ( sister site to this one ).

I wonder if it will do any good. James R made a few silly, and thoughtless arguments, which I naturally called him on. I guess he didn't like being proven wrong!

Regards ...

9. ## Cosmological Model of The Universe

More BH updates ... As expected, this new information fits nicely within the parameters of my model ... and only increases the likelihood of discovering black holes in excess of 50B sols, as my model predicts. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIrrelevant I suppose, but I just want to say that 50 years ago I couldn't wait for the 21st century to arrive. I had very high hopes that the 'predictions' I had made about our universe would be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. I have yet to be disappointed. And yes, I still could be wrong ... but either way, what an exciting time to be alive! PS: I hope the above referenced material is not considered 'hand waving'. It seems reasonable to post recent, reliable evidence to further support my model, and of course I welcome any posts referencing opposing views.
10. ## Science Proves God Is Dead!!!

Good point Michel. However, I think it is fair to say that science was giving religions around the world cause for grave concern. It was becoming painfully obvious that the Earth was not 'willed' into existence 6-9,000 years ago, as had been the Catholic Church's official position. It was already established that the universe was expanding ( Hubble ), and the 'static' universe was dead. BBT was a great 'fallback' position for the Church ... and they felt, a SAFE new stance to take. As long as it could never be proved that there was anything BEFORE the BB, the Church could now claim that God did it, setting the stage for all that followed. As always, they were a little short-sighted in this ... I think we will be able to prove very soon that THE universe ( not our local one ) is infinite, and eternal. This will be a rather large blow to most religions. And to our egotistical view that the universe was created especially for us. But I don't really care where good ideas come from. I'm just glad they come at all! Lol.
11. ## What if we could move the entire Earth like a spaceship?

Lol. No. I did not. And I don't go to the movies, so I am also unfamiliar with the specifics of Avatar. I have no need or desire to rush out to see the latest. My living room is a small theatre ... 62 inch HD, and I prefer to wait until they are available on comcast. Now if you don't mind, I am going to forget we just had this conversation. ( Since I am adamant about 'saving ALL humanity', I'm still trying to come up with a reasonable way to move Earth ... ) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedUh oh ... So much for being proud of my 'original thought'. ( Just ran across a book by Stanley Schmidt "The Sins of The Fathers" circa 1976. I haven't read it, but apparently it is set far in the future .... our galactic core is about to blow up, and somehow we get aliens to build giant rockets on the SOUTH POLE so we can move Earth to another GALAXY. Yes, I can take some small comfort knowing that my PLOT was original ... rogue planet and all. Plus utilizing current technology, etc. But I am very upset with myself for failing to find this book in 1998 when I wrote my short story. No, it would not have changed anything, but I might have been less enamored of myself ... lol. Wish I'd had the internet then. Good grief. Anyway, needless to say, I have just spent several hours searching the internet ... trying to think of any and every imaginable way to describe my model of the universe. The only thing that came close was finding a reference in one of the science periodicals to 'space itself being energy' as opposed to Dark Energy ... and that this possiblity does not conflict with particle research currently going on. Always nice to have some support for my theories .... Stupidly, in the middle of this, I cleared my browsing history, and now I can't find it. Annoying, as I was going to post an excerpt ... I'll find it again, I'm sure. But ( phew! ) it appears I don't have to slit my throat just yet.
12. ## Cosmological Model of The Universe

I don't like using wiki, as I am always a little leary .... but I will make an exception here. It fascinates me how quicky, and easily tachyons have morphed ( through popular culture ) from hypothetical to real! And this misunderstanding is not alleviated when nice scientists incorporate them in their 'theories', and speak of them as 'givens'. Yes. An interesting quirk of human cognition. Really, in many ways, no different than religion. ajb, I am not, nor have I ever been, a religious man. This allows me the freedom to question every claim ( whether religious, political, or scientific, etc. ) from an objective viewpoint. It's easy to seperate beliefs from reality ... if you don't have beliefs. I started to ( in response to your 'authoritively' stated 'we' ) dig into the types of branes ( just trying to be fair, here ) that could range in size from infinitisimally small to universe sized ... but it does not take long to re-establish firmly in my mind that all of the above are on very shaky ground ... still. I think we will ultimately discover that the universe is not all that complicated. It has very simple and obvious properties that we observe every day. And try as we might, we are never ( IMO ) going to force the universe to comply with our complex, and contorted view. Math is wonderful. Physics is wonderful. But they are imperfect, especially when they stray from our observations, and butt up against reality. Maybe I am wrong about all of this. But it appears to me that the major questions can be solved simply by using Newton, and Einstein. And figuring out how to adjust the math and physics to conform to reality, instead of trying to force reality to conform to the math. However ... all avenues need to be explored. We have brilliant people like you ajb, and Green, and so many more who have the best ( so far ) possible technological tools with which to explore these possibilities. Even Einstein could not have forseen the incredible tools Man has invented to investigate our universe. He would be so envious. As you said to me, push your ideas until they succeed or fail. Even if my model is correct, there will never be a shortage of questions needing to be answered. And we will never stop devising better and better ways to answer those questions.
13. ## Cosmological Model of The Universe

I agree. So perhaps we should stop referring to a black hole as an 'infinitely' dense, 'infinitely' small structure. (edit) ajb ... am I correct in that 'strings' are but one possible mathematical outcome among a ridiculously high number of possible outcomes? I mean, if 'strings' are a mathematical certainty to the exclusion of all other possible outcomes, then what is there left to argue about? But they are not ....
14. ## Cosmological Model of The Universe

I apologize as always for failing to express myself in an understandable way. I do not give those books equal comparative validity. Yes, they were myths ... looking back from a 2000 year ( plus or minus ) later perspective. But at the time of their creation they provided a ( reasonable? ) model for the form and function ( for what little they had observed ) of the universe. ST has much more going for it ... lol. You are absolutely right. The predictions work ... to a point. But to date ... predictions of anything being 'infinitely small' are not borne out by observations. Infinitely thin strings are not a problem mathematically in themselves, although other aspects of their 'possible' behavior have run into major difficulties. ( as has already been discussed ) Please correct me if I am wrong, but the classic 'singularity' of a finite mass with an infinite density and zero volume ( zero dimensions ) is again, a mathematical construct only. We have no direct evidence that black holes do not exist 3 dimensionally. We could 'look' directly at one a million kilometers in diameter, and we would not see it. We would only see the accretion disc if it had one, or infer the black hole's existence from observing matter in orbit around it. And of course we could see any emitted radiation from the feeding process. Extremely compact is a certainty. But 'infinitely' dense runs into problems. For one, it is a one-way street. The mass would be forever lost from our universe ... Without some 'magic' act, there does not seem to be a mechanism allowed by physics for the release of that mass. Second, it would require an infinite amount of mass to create infinite density, and there ( to our knowledge ) is not an infinite amount of mass in our visible/local universe. As far as 'shunting' mass to other dimensions ... if they exist at all ... this process also runs into problems. The black hole would lose it's gravitational mass. Once the process began, it seems likely the black hole would simply disappear from our universe. And of course we have no observational evidence of such an occurrence. At least Hawking and I are in agreement over this. I am not faulting the math. I am just saying that it appears the universe won't allow infinitely small objects. There are limits. (edit) I hate to keep stating the obvious, but we have to remember that even if one dimensional objects such as strings were proven to exist, it is still a rather gigantic leap to infer from them the existence of any other dimensions than the ones we currently observe. ______________
15. ## Black Holes

I just watched 7 minutes of that video. Would you mind explaining what ANY of that had to do with the OP's questions? Good grief.
16. ## Black Holes

To my knowledge ... no. There is no evidence of 'spewing mass', as in a black hole suddenly ejecting all it's mass. There is no evidence of 'former' black holes. Hawking has been trying to prove for over 30 years that black holes 'leak' particles, and that this leakage will eventually make the black hole 'dissipate'. You might want to check into his research. There is a wealth of new information available on black holes from many respected sites such as NASA. As far as the highlighted section goes, there are many theories on what black holes may or may not do. This is a very heated topic/debate among cosmologists, astrophysicists, and physicists. I suggest you google "cosmological models of the universe". Good luck. (edit) I should also point out ... in fairness ... that although most mainstream scientists feel that the existence of black holes has been overwhelmingly proved, there are some who do not agree and feel the evidence has been misinterpreted. In addition, I have no science degree, so perhaps you will get a more intelligent response from the actual scientists here.
17. ## Just a theoretical question

If the rotational speed was high enough, I don't think we would be able to detect/feel the waves. The frequency could be far higher than we thiink.
18. ## how big is the universe?

Michel thank you. The following is an excerpt from wiki: Really Michel, about the only thing Dr. Guth and I somewhat agree on is this last statement. And even this is suspect as there is some confusion over the definition of THE universe, and whether or not that 'false vacuum' existed eternally before our visible/local universe came along. Anyway, I had already sent him a copy of my model on 12/18/09 ... I doubt very much he found it amusing ... assuming he even read it. However, when I have a spare moment I will review the youtube material.
19. ## how big is the universe?

I wasn't. That is a seperate issue. I did however provide a general description of infinite space as an addendum following my model, so if you care to review that, you should find the answer to your questions posed above ... including the 'other' CMBR. I should point out that we still do not know that 'space expands' at all. We only know that the galaxies receding from us are doing so at a rate proportional to distance, and that they exhibit little motion relative to CMBR. Expanding space is one possible mechanism for these observations. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yikes! Lol. I was unaware that ANY of my hypotheses, or theories 'contradicted' mainstream physics. Please feel free to elucidate on the appropriate thread ... Anyway ... physics is physics. I don't think there is such a thing as non-mainstream physics, is there? Surely you are not suggesting that ST, or the Expansion of Space is 'mainstream' physics? Mainstream hypothesis, or theory ... most certainly. But 'physics' have proven neither. ( to the best of my knowledge ) But I won't argue with you on this thread. My apology to the OP.
20. ## how big is the universe?

______________I would be pleased to describe the ( theorized ) infinite universe, and our visible/local universe's relationship to it as I do have a clear 'picture' ( based on ... and not contradicted by ... known physics, Einstein's Uniformity of Space, etc ) but I am not certain this is the proper place to do this. Perhaps "The assumption of bounded/unbounded space" might be more appropriate? But if the OP would not object ... ?
21. ## how big is the universe?

Why does a 'localized' BB seem nonsensical to you? Perhaps I am not understanding you. Define what you mean by 'everywhere'. If you mean that the process we are observing currently in OUR area of infinity is currently, and/or has in the past occurred isotropically throughout infinity, then would we not see 'other' CMBR red shifted to the extreme, along with the CMBR we are observing now?
22. ## Dark energy, Dark matter, Fine tuning problem, Negative mass!

It is impossible for me to comprehend your equations. However, if I did not know better ( do I? ) it would seem you have just proved the existence of Dark Energy. Would the same equations apply if Dark Energy was actually the energy of space itself?
23. ## Cosmological Model of The Universe

Of course the above is true by definition. No, they are 'not' ruled out. However, I am reminded of another concept(s) that also cannot be 'ruled out'. You will find it in those marvelous ( and ancient ) Theoretical Cosmological Models of the Universe, "The Bible" and "The Quran". My only point is that ... so far ... we have no evidence ( to my knowledge ) to support their existence in the physical universe. Perhaps someday that will change.
24. ## Cosmological Model of The Universe

To your last statement ... yes. Before I say anything else, I want to stress once more that strings are still ( technically ) hypothetical. So they can't be used as an argument against my model. And I don't want to debate strings or spheres in this thread, as they are not germane to the model. If you want to continue, a new thread would be appropriate. ( edit ) I'm sorry. That was rude of me. I need to work harder on my tactfulness. Add the word 'please' after 'debate'. That said, I will address your previous post. First paragraph: I don't think we ARE ok. I don't think infintely small is possible in the universe, other than as a mathematical construct. There is still no evidence infinitely small is possible. It has nothing to do with my ability, or inability to conceptualize them ( strings ). I just don't think the universe allows one-dimensional objects. Second paragraph: Total agreement. Third paragraph: Without physics we would understand little of our universe. It is an awe-inspiring construct. Fifth paragraph: Since we are assuming strings 'vibrate' at different frequencies, I think the spheres must be solid, as opposed to hollow. I think they would vibrate/resonate 'better' than hollow structures. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Michel, I don't think the universe allows anything but 3 dimensional objects. So zero dimensional is ... again ... a mathematical construct unrelated to the physical universe. We just have no evidence, to my knowledge, that any physical structure has zero dimensions. ...................................................................................................................... On a personal note ... it is distressing that I can not go back and correct my factual errors. I am quite embarrassed by them. Thankfully, none of them are relevant to, or falsify, the model. Thank you all again for being so patient, and allowing me this opportunity to share my theory(s). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThis latest from Universe Today http://www.universetoday.com 1/4/10 Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged It is interesting to note that although the math/physics does not limit a black hole's mass, researchers continue to attempt to place arbitrary limits on it's size. So what is it? 10B sols? 18B? 50B? I am certain we will discover ( very soon ) black holes much more massive than those listed above. And much more massive than the arbitrary limits set by these researchers. I would also like to correct an error I made. I incorrectly stated that Einstein said black holes would not be limited to C rotational speeds. This error does not affect my model in any tangible way. However, as math and physics breakdown at the 'singularity' ... where space has collapsed, I think we will find the spin is NOT limited by the normal laws of space. This does not mean that it could have infinite spin, as an infinite spin would require an infinite amount of mass. **Can't wait to see what measurements they come up with for the combined masses of all those merging pairs ... **
25. ## What if we could move the entire Earth like a spaceship?

Thank you for you last comments. But if you will go back and read the missing pages, you will find more on the Rogue. That would be a good starting point for further debate. )
×