swansont

For the Nth time, we aren't looking at dark matter, but also, while something other than particles can cause attraction, particles are typically involved. IOW, something has to have the energy that's responsible. You seem to be invoking the argument from ignorance fallacy If the space is flat there is no gravitational attraction. I have made no claims outside of mainstream physics. Any evidence at all.

OK. Good point.

Why is that a reasonable assumption? Especially when we know that conditions would have to be different, depending on what period of time you are looking at? And why does it matter? We're looking at evidence left behind. OTOH, most species eventually go extinct. But it doesn't really matter why.

The first case wasn't a response to you and concerned the fact that QM and GR haven't been reconciled at the smallest scales. Since I'm pretty sure you were not involved in the development of either theory, it has nothing to do with you. Bogus ≠ wrong. Bogus in this case means pull-it-out-of-your-ass unsupported assertion. And in the absence of any science to support your position, the default position is that you are wrong, until such time that you present evidence and a model that support you. Mainstream physics has had many years and countless experiments that back it up. No, I don't think I need to re-hash all that. It's kind of assumed that you are already familiar with it. It's a little less about physics and a little more about the rules of this site. It's about not wasting time with people who refuse (or are unable) to back up their claims with science, on a science site. Without falsifiability you can make any claim you want. But we've chosen to not waste time on "Black holes are really invisible pink unicorns. Prove me wrong."

Species tend to last hundreds of thousands to millions of years, and we find only a few fossils.

My answer is "I don't know."

! Moderator Note Please use the quote function rather than colored text (especially gaudy colors, which are difficult to read) to respond. ! Moderator Note We have rules about what is allowed in speculation: it must be supported with some combination of: a model, some kind of evidence, testable predictions.

And none of that actually supports the claim that the BH is not made of SM particles. You have a combination of a false dichotomy and argument from incredulity here (it's either SM particles or nothing, and since you can't believe it's SM particles, you must be right) From your link, on quark degeneracy: "At densities greater than those supported by neutron degeneracy"

Stop deflecting the discussion. What is the evidence for it not being SM particles? There has been no evidence presented to support that contention. The assertion that neutron stars are the densest form of matter is simply wrong, since quark degeneracy would represent a denser material. I haven't seen any evidence presented that suggests a new particle is necessary, or, if it existed, that it would not count as matter.

That's a bit of a pivot. You were complaining of plot holes. Science that agrees with experiment is what matters. Physicists are always trying to develop new theories. That doesn't mean that they will succeed. Why does it have to be explained this way? What's wrong with the wave-derived formula, which works quite well? You have not explained why. Only insisted that it be so. So you link to a blog post about all the limitations on what could happen if photons have mass, and the very strict experimental limits on the value? That all points toward zero being correct.

Those are virtual photons. They are not "moving parts" that let you solve this issue.

How does that work?

We've only been at this a few hundred years. A smaller society that had longer, and/or where industrialization was more widespread, might have the same or greater impact.

That's a generous summary. They work. They've been tested countless times as part of a well-established theory. The standard model didn't just fall off the turnip truck yesterday. As Strange has said, that's not how it works. But our best theories/models show this. If you think otherwise, you need a model of your own and evidence to support it.

Yes. I have made no secret of this. I have only argued that you were wrong, or at least, that you have no physics to back up your contention. And I have targeted specific claims of yours. You need to do more than that, though. You own the burden of proof. When you make a claim, you have to convince people that you are right. And you aren't presenting yourself in a "show me where I'm wrong" style. The holes in your position have been pointed out, and you have largely ignored that.