Jump to content

G Anthony

Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About G Anthony

  • Birthday 06/30/1948

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    Fall Creek, Wisconsin - the far side of the moon
  • Interests
    chemistry, biology, biochemistry, philosophy, photography, writing, reading
  • College Major/Degree
    M.S., Ph.D. equivalent from Illinois Institute of Technology
  • Favorite Area of Science
  • Biography
    My young friend Anthony R claims to be a red-neck and he is proud. He says I am a red-neck too. But, no. I am White Trash. And proud.
  • Occupation
    Artistic Director, Lonetree-Pictures.net; Color Chemist for new printer inks for use by LoneTree

G Anthony's Achievements


Quark (2/13)



  1. The Hyperbolic Hyper-Massive Black-Hole Universe Hawking did not buy his own pronouncements regarding the disappearance of information into black holes. Instead, he and some others invented a whole new theory of black-hole thermodynamics. So in a sense, the black-hole event horizon is a real surface. It is sometimes called a "quasi-surface". The center of a black-hole is a physically real singularity. It is constrained only by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. There is no such thing as quantum gravity (QG). How many papers are published in ArXiv on unicorns? By their standards, there should be dozens! So, any appeal to QG to put the Kibosh on black-hole singularities is therefore bogus. See The Hyperbolic Hyper-Massive Black-Hole Universe and Galactic Gravitational Field (HHBF), which is a paper written for the blog http://garyakent.wordpress.com that describes the e-Model for inflationary expansion of the universe. The hyperbolic hyper-massive black-hole gravitational field is a phenomenological postulate, that is, it is a tentative premise that should be confirmed by experiment or observation and need not wait for theoretical justification. In the case of galaxies and galactic clusters, there is already enough observational support for the galactic hyperbolic super-massive black-hole gravitational field (HSBF). The point is emphasized that Birkhoff's Theorem and other interpretive principles derived from general relativity cannot apply to any real black-holes. These rules presume that the massive bodies that are considered are always "unperturbed" and are perfectly "spherically symmetric". No real black hole meets these criteria. The rules are good only for approximate calculation, not for"precision cosmology". Besides, GR should not prohibit a gravitational field that declines as 1/r if a metric is found, similar to the Schwarzschild metric, using assumptions and boundary conditions wherein a singular black-hole is presumed at the outset. If such a gravitational field can be confirmed, the e-Model will serve as more evidence for the existence of our universe as part of a multiverse in meta-time. I appeal for collaborators to help find such a metric. Hugh Everett may one day be seen as a thinker on a par with A. Einstein. And, John Archibald Wheeler's suggestion concerning the quantum self-interference of probability density waves may be taken more seriously while Everett's declaration of the"reality of probability" as a sort of substance gains credence. Self-interference can explain the virtual absence of antimatter (AM) in our universe. AM would be confined to our virtual twin, which must exist according to the logical extension of Alan Guth's inflation hypothesis wherein a virtual particle came into existence from a hyper-excited false vacuum which came to exist precisely because of its ultra-high energy level. It would be seen as the deeper mechanism behind apparent "symmetry breaking" and unbalanced annihilation of fundamental sub-nuclear particles and antiparticles to give our universe with matter as the dominant form. The existence of an interference twin could also be helpful in explaining the hyperbolic field as the resultant of a superposition of states. As the real (to us) expression of a statistical process within the multiverse, we experience only the total sum, the superposed probability density form from which emerges probability, P --> 1. There are ways that such a superposition might affect the shape of a gravitational potential well. Gravity itself may be viewed as a probability vortex or wave in the Einstein Aether. There is much that has not been considered.
  2. Hi Forrest, Let's keep to the thread! So the ability to formulate a Null Hypothesis is the key to crafting a theory according to the rigor of the scientific method. Not all of our thoughts require this rigor. Only the ones that we intend to publish so that others can figure out what we mean and duplicate our actions and thoughts in order to come to the same conclusions (to within some tolerance, I guess). Much that passes for science today fails when we can find no evidence that a proper Null was ever cobbled together. When it is suggested that the scientific method should be suspended in order to accept Dark Energy, I get worried.
  3. Suppose you were imprisoned on Penitentiary Earth. You slipped out of the fortified walls somehow and you began to walk due West. When you encountered water, you found a boat or ship and continued on your journey being careful to compensate for seasonal changes in the position of the sun. Eventually you would wind up back at the 'Ol Pen, having traced a latitudinal great circle around the pole. The surface of a sphere has no end. To get out of, or off of, this surface, one needs to move in directions that are not properly "in" the surface. Try reading Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott. Analysis of the variations in intensities and their frequency distributions in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) shows that the pattern matches a roughly random pattern that is originally "flat" before it is projected upon the sky by various kinds of digitally equipped radio-telescopes. The statistical pattern virtually matches that expected for inflationary Hubble expansion of the universe. Deep space telescopic probes find that "SNe 1a" supernovae are more distant than their Hubble redshifts would indicate, so the Hubble constant, Ho, must be increasing for these and other kinds of very distant bright objects. But, motion is relative, so what it really means is that Ho must be increasing here and now, for US. Maybe you could say that the universe is open ended only on our end. This is "acceleration" of Hubble expansion and it is ascribed to some form of potential energy that is pouring spacetime juice into our universe from some source or else it is due to "quintessence" which is supposed to be a fundamental force that is built into the fabric of the cosmos. Now, somehow Alan Guth got transported to a completely new and different universe where he was able to view our little world in "block time". That is, he was able to see us and all that we have done and all that we will ever do from his perch in his meta-universe, outside our own. His clocks followed "meta-time" while our clocks were seen to trace a complex static path according to frozen orbital motions of the earth, the sun, our galaxy and the expansion of the entire universe (our universe, that is). Our clocks appear to him like multiple mad computer screen cursors stopped in a panoramic all-seeing time exposure photograph. We cannot join him in his world because we are frozen in "block time", so we do not even want to. Guth sees our universe from beginning to end. All the objects that move or that have ever moved in it show like the contrails of fighter jets in a crazy dog-fight. The contrails seem like they are frozen in a big block of Jell-O. He sees how our universe began, how it suddenly jumped from a mere speck to cosmic dimensions in a short distance in "block time". All the objects that move in our universe leave contrails that seem frozen in ice. Guth observes our universe with a laser pointer that acts like a cursor as he moves the beam along a contrail to see what it is and where it leads. He can examine all the contrails in our whole universe from beginning to end. He is like God. He gets bored with our puny universe and moves on to examine another one that seems to be much more interesting. When he turns off his laser pointer, nothing happens ever again in our block of frozen continuum. We are like statues in the museum of the multiverse. Let us hope that there shall never be an all consuming fire or that no clumsy janitor will ever knock us off our pedestal! You finally return home to the Penitentiary where you finally come to live in peace with yourself. You have discovered that freedom is just walking around in bigger circles, anyway.
  4. Dr R is such a wonderful delightful skeptic, I do hesitate to proffer this idea. http://www.fotothing.com/Gak/ image 96 Hyperbolic P.E. vs. Inverse Square P.E. <--- This web address points to an image of a graph of (1.) y = ln(x) compared to an equally scaled graph of (2.) the hyperbola y = -1/x + 1. These are supposed to represent the potential energies (P.E.) of the gravitational fields associated with (2.) the inverse square F = GMm/r2 and (1.) F = GMm/kr, k = the unit vector of r for dimensional integrity, where F is the hyperbolic ultra-massive black hole "inflaton" super-excited "inflaton field", the primordial hyper-excited gravitational field of Alan Guth's Inflation Hypothesis. Suppose, just for argument's sake, that (1.), as the P.E. stemming from a super-excited hyperbolic gravitational field, was the potential energy source that fueled inflation in the first place (see how much higher it, P.E. of F, is nearer the abscissa) and it was the source of potential energy that fuels "re-inflation" - acceleration of Hubble expansion seen in the latter era (see how it becomes significantly higher again to the right of x = y = 1). This P.E. of F in (1.) became available to objects in the universe which were under the influence of equation (2.) where its P.E. curve is seen to be generally significantly lower than in (1.). The mechanism of transition from (1.) to (2.) is the time dependent quantum transition of one excited state to a lower state. Such transitions release energy. This transition energy forces the expansion of space and thus the increase in kinematic properties of objects within it at an accelerating rate. There is a major objection. See the graphs here ---> http://www.fotothing.com/Gak/ image 97 Hyperbolic 1/kr versus inverse square 1/r2 gravitational fields. It is said that GR cannot tolerate a hyperbolic 1/kr gravitational field unless there are only two spatial dimensions in spacetime. Otherwise, Birkhoff's theorem applies and the inverse square gravitational field is de rigeur. But, Birkhoff and its sibling theorems and corollaries all presume that the black hole or other massive body is stationary and spherically symmetric. This is never the case. This is always grossly unreal. All Black holes rotate at great rates and they are always distorted massively by tremendous external gravitational fields. These theorems just do not apply. They are good only for approximate estimates of black hole properties, not for "precision cosmology". Furthermore, so what? If we must putatively endorse a 2-D spacetime continuum for the inflaton particle and the inflaton field, then fine. The holographic principle says that all relevant information may be stored on the 2-D surface or quasi-surface of any 3-D parcel of space. It is the basis for the black hole entropy law. So the inflaton ultra massive black hole singularity might have existed in a 2-D false vacuum continuum surface (an ultra massive black hole event horizon quasi-surface?) that began to unfold or deconvolve into our 3-D + time continuum thereby commencing inflation and fueling "re-inflation" in the current epoch. The hyperbolic field may reside comfortably on such a 2-D surface. And, such a surface need not be "flat", after all. And, there are ways to represent curvature that do not necessitate a 3rd spacial dimension. All that I am saying is that it may be worthwhile to consider the hyperbolic black hole singular gravitational field. The HBHF also explains every other phenomenon associated now with Dark Matter. It ratifies GR and Friedmann by "explaining" Dark Matter and even Dark Energy as well. DE is seen as purely a gravitational effect, not quintessence. But, Dark Matter is still real. The P.E. wrapped up in the hyperbolic gravitational field is real. It contributes to the total mass/energy of galaxies, galactic clusters and super-clusters. So, it adds to the inventory of matter and energy in the universe consistent with current formulations of the Friedmann equations according to comments under the image in (1.). What if the appearance of virtual particles, say, in a Casimir effect experiment, obeys an inverse square law too? Studies of virtual particles using particle accelerators also probe very small distances. If the Casimir effect falls off exponentially with distance or even much much faster, quantum electrodynamic extrapolation to cosmic distances would not be 10120 too large. If anything, the numbers would be too small. But, surely we could fudge that too. But, why does the continuum seethe with virtual particles in the first place? Because it CAN? This form of the anthropic principle is highly unsatisfying and physicists are loath to embrace it, Stephen Hawking notwithstanding.
  5. Let us talk about the scientific method and why it is so important. This is really a philosophical discussion pertaining to the philosophy of science. There is already a philosophy forum. So, we can avoid going off the reservation by sticking to nuts and bolts. The key to my essay is the point made about the Null Hypothesis. Most scientific results are expressed statistically and the Null Hypothesis is supposed to be an expression of how apparently positive statistical tests could have been fooled by random noise or just plain chance. Then if a major source of noise is found or if chance is confirmed, Null is true and the alternate hypothesis is false. This is just insurance against bias: looking at the other side of the coin. All scientists are biased, but only a few admit it. Yet, if they hew to the scientific method, their conclusions may still be trusted. Motivation is irrelevant. Even biased scientists can remain ethical. The scientific method is a framework or skeleton upon which may be hung the musculature of such ethics.
  6. Thanks AJB. I was starting to think I was beginning to see double from the mushroom sauce I just ate with my breakfast steak. Maybe I need a rest. I am starting to hallucinate from my intellectual diet of cosmology. Nah! I am not hooked. I can quit anytime!
  7. The Z boson is the last particle needed to fill out the Standard Model. So, where does the Higgs boson come from if not from an ad hoc addendum to the Standard Model the purpose of which is to explain the phenomenon of "mass". That a version of supersymmetry can be invoked to "predict" the Higgs is not surprising. But, that this "mass" is not actually explained by the existence of the Higgs, but only certain "kinds" of mass, is suspect. The success of Alan Guth's Inflation Theory should be instructive. An excited state of an inflaton field gave rise to an inflaton "virtual" particle by means of its intensely high energy state that was much more probable than lower energy states because of the zero point cut-off. It appears that the inflaton field is an excited state of the vacuum (the Einstein Aether) called a "false vacuum". It and its associated particle came into existence as a probabilistic statistical inevitability. It possessed a gravitational field which may have been identical to the inflaton field itself. What would an excited gravitational field be like? In the meta-space implied by the existence of an inflaton field and particle, might not the excited gravitational field have rather different properties relative to a "ground state" gravitational field? This excited gravitational field engendered the whole mass and energy of the entire universe. An excited field like it might create the Higgs particle and imbue the particles with which this field can interact with some form of "mass". I have suggested that, given the correct assumptions and boundary conditions, a gravitational field (if it emanates from a singular infinitely dense point mass like a black hole) could operate with a hyperbolic attractive force. This rather than the usual inverse square or "exponential" force. Its fundamental basis for being could be a two dimensional version of our 3-D world, like the holographic principle implies that the information in a given volume of space can be represented on its surface. A 2-D gravitational field could be hyperbolic in nature without stretching general relativity too far. Two dimensions does not necessarily imply "flat". A hyperbolic gravitational field would be quantum normalizable and could fit with quantum mechanics/dynamics to allow quantum theoretical treatment of gravity and "mass" as an expression of the Einstein Aether - an acknowledgement of the fluid dynamics analogy in general relativity. In other words, might it be profitable to consider the Higgs boson and field from the perspective of general relativity with a few quantum principles mixed in to give a sort of quantum relativity? If the mass of the Higgs should be less than the Z, and the Z is about as massive as an iron atom, may it not be asking a bit much from the CERN super-collider? If the Higgs is not found, would not a brand new band-aid be found to slap onto the standard model? And, how can there legitimately be more than one "standard" model? Are we not formulating whole models as ad hoc fixes for the flaws we perceive? Like weathermen, we choose the model we prefer for the purpose we desire.
  8. Why do particle physicists and cosmologists seem to be so very bent on totally ignoring John Wheeler and Hugh Everett? How can they embrace Alan Guth's Inflaton field and particle and at the same time dismiss the ramifications of a fully quantum universe? We are trying to meld quantum mechanics/dynamics and relativity into a GUT or TOE, spending hundreds of millions per year to support scientists, professors and graduate students. But, the consequences of a quantum universe seem to be just swatted away like an angry mosquito. If the universe was once a quantum entity, then it still is. And, if there was an inflaton particle, there was a virtual anti-particle that our universe has not yet met and annihilated. The John Wheeler style quantum interference of the inflaton wave form to give its anti partner may mean that there is a universe full of antimatter almost right beneath our feet. The superposition of states to give the universe that we see only means that we cannot sense the other state or states that may superpose to produce our reality. But quantum mechanics/dynamics demands that they are there. So, there is no paradox here. But, scientists have always been reluctant to extend quantum to macroscopic scales even though there is a lot of research to find ways to do precisely this and the correspondence principle demands that it should be possible. I guess it would be too disappointing for them to learn that it has already been done - at least 13.72 billion years ago and perhaps a lot more than 27.44 billion years ago. Maybe they fear the day when a GUT or TOE will spell the end of cosmology and particle physics. We may not have to wait another 30 billion years for our parcel of space to loose causal contact with the rest of the cosmos (LOL).
  9. I have constructed a model of inflationary big bang expansion of the universe from simple assumptions similar to Alan Guth's model. But, he does't provide a model that stretches all the way from the first plausible and treatable instant to the present and beyond as my model does. And, by means of a single adjustable parameter, I can mimic acceleration, steady expansion or deceleration. In the case of acceleration, my model naturally passes through a short pause of perhaps about 100 - 200 minutes or maybe more, not exactly as your calculation suggests, but the duration of this period is subject to the choice of somewhat arbitrary initial conditions. This period also provides time for equilibration of temperature and density differences in the inflationary expansion. Because the universe was still very small, when all the regions or arbitrarily small parcels were still in causal contact, this pause is essential to the inflationary scenario. This pause is necessary and most fortunate because this simple model does not provide for a lag or "induction" period initially, as Guth assumed, even though the model is a fully exponential growth process. When I saw this expansion rate curve come down from a maximum, turn right around and then go through a minimum and turning around again to resume its upward trajectory, I was amazed that such a simple equation could produce such odd behavior. I wondered if there was any consequence other than to offer a time period long enough to allow equilibration. Now, I see that it may have been crucial to BBN. My model is posted on my website, www.lonetree-pictures.net , but this site is temporarily down because the index.htm main page has become corrupt and I cannot access it until I figure a way to replace the bad code on this page. In addition, my website host has issues recognizing my password for uploading. So, it is difficult to replace the corrupt page. But, I can post the details on my blog http://neocosmology.blogspot.com . So, this has just become a priority on my agenda. As I recall, I posted it there a long time ago, so if you check older posts, it may show up. In the meantime, I have posted images on FotoThing.com: http://www.fotothing.com/Gak/ , images 94 to 96.
  10. Dark Matter is an unnecessary ad hoc fix to fill in the blanks in the Friedmann model under the FLRW metric. Galactic supermassive black-holes exist as true physical singularities according to the Kretschmann invariant and Schwartzchild's analysis. Therefore, as point masses, they must possess a hyperbolic (1/kr) gravitational field, NOT a field that falls off as 1/r2. Now, k = constant = 1m, S.I., for dimensional integrity. It is not true that GR cannot tolerate hyperbolic spacetime geometries. "The universe is hyperbolic." said Albert Einstein in his classic paper of 1916. An hyperbolic field will give constant rotational acceleration to orbiting bodies as far from the center of a black-hole as we might like to measure. This means that bodies near the periphery of a galaxy seem to move at constant velocity because rotational acceleration does not drop to near zero as with a !/r2 inverse square law. Gravitation does not fall nearest to zero between galaxies in a cluster either. So they too can bend light and affect redshifts in ways that mimic Dark Matter. The rotation of galaxies in clusters is also influenced by the black-holes that they contain with their 1/kr gravitational potential profiles. The not quite counterbalanced redshift effects in the Sunyaev-Zeldovich phenomenon are influence by the hyperbolic galactic and galactic cluster gravitational fields that exist as light falls out of such clusters and super-clusters into a large void and as it climbs out of it again after the universe has expanded by another billion light years or so. Scientists are mapping, not Dark Matter, but the huge extent of the network of hyperbolic galactic and super-galactic gravitational fields that behave like Dark Matter because of the mathematical properties of the hyperbolic gravitational field. Any entity that possesses rest mass or mass by virtue of its motion will be influenced by the gravitational fields that it encounters. It is not so much that a gas may be very much colder than other gases that such a body might encounter, but whether it may be much denser. But absolute zero is absolute. Only translational motion and ground state vibration modes are allowed for gases at absolute zero, and such modes are only for multi-atom molecules. Intergalactic gas is almost non-existent, is not denser and is not a factor.
  11. Very many people do not believe that science is actually practiced this way. Many believe that Science is not only ideological, it is Myth. The problem is with scientists themselves. Too often, they forget that all math, all science, is metaphor. All language is ultimately just metaphor. It is impossible to fully capture reality with any kind of human language. This is what many people mean when they claim that scientists are insufferably arrogant and naive. These critics go too far though, when they claim science is Myth. They create the Myth. We should endeavor not to do so ourselves. I do not dismiss good suggestions. My style is what it is. Take it or leave it. Off putting? What kind of style is this? No style. Read it again. I do not necessarilly endorse faith. I simply say that it is a reality and those who dismiss it make a big mistake. For starters, they dismiss 5 or 6 billions of people worldwide. I do not say Science is faith, although this is exactly what many critics of Science say. In a way, I think they have a point. But, do I have faith that if I jump out the window, Isaac Newton's gravity will drag me down to my most dismal fate? Do I have faith that there is dangerous electricity all around my house? I do have faith in Faraday's laws, so I avoid electectrocuting myself. I have faith in the rules governing radioactivity so that I can faithfully depend on the nuclear power that lights up my home. We all operate largely on faith. We do not have time to personally verify the science that we accept, often blindly. Such blind acceptance is faith. Evidence? We must accept evidence for ideas based on our faith in the integrity and competence of the scientists who present said "evidence". There is an element of some sort of faith in all that we do. What is the difference, and who should care, and who should judge if faith is in an ill defined God or in The Bomb? We are not all atheists, thank God. Education does not mean Godlessness. But, SwansonT will be here shortly because we are not supposed to talk religion on this forum.
  12. Now, if that other big unfalsifiable massive particle we call the Higgs Boson is the particle that imbues all other particles with their mass, what imbues the Higgs Boson with its mass? Higgs theorists are pulling their "pud". The Higgs is an ad hoc addendum that is a poor band-aid for the kink it was supposed to fix. Just what was that, anyway? Oh yeah, no explanation of "mass" in the standard model. Higgs is not really part of the standard model (yet). If the Higgs is not found, they will simply add in another ad hoc splint. The standard model will not collapse. Eventually, they'll get it right, though, I'll bet. Funny, there is no explanation of the origin of gravity in GR either, only that it exists mathematically associated with mass. Why cannot we be satisfied with two sides to the same coin? Yin and Yang? If mass and gravity are two ways of looking at the same thing, is it not futile to try to merge them into one - when they are NOT one? OR, if they are already merged as best they can be? This implies quantum and GR are just "so" - two facets of the samereality. If we try to merge the two, we shall go blind. The GUT or TOE is afantasy. What if I am right? Millions, perhaps billions more will be spent pursuing Harvey down his rabbit hole. We will get just a mouthful of mud Much less than mass, there is no implicit validated account of gravity in the standard model of particle physics either. If there is a Higgs boson and Higgs field, it should be possible to derive the existence of the full fledged macroscopic gravitational field from them by means of the "correspondence principle". Then we shall have quantum gravity. Nah! Too easy. On the other hand . . . But, as far as other unfalsifiable new hypothetical heavy bosons are concerned - try Alan Guth's "inflaton" particle: A hyper-massive excited particle in a humongously excited "inflaton field" that cannot be distinguished from gravity itself, except by its degree of excitation. Guth says that suddenly, it decays. But, it decays into daughter particles and these then decay. Some of this decay debris has a long half-life. And enormous mass. The rest decays into matter and energy as we know it. But, the long half life particles remain as ultra-massive black holes. These decay, not via Hawking radiation, but by virtue of their intense infinitely deep singular gravitational fields that cause them to erupt into this same universe (somewhere "else"). There must be such a "process" involved. They spew out smaller black holes and matter/energy detritus like a Roman candle, (The Big Barf.) Because of dependence on random processes and/or temperature, the daughter black holes they generate this way should follow a "normal" or "Poisson" distribution, perhaps. Statistically, this might be verified. Yet, it would take time for these BHs to start gathering in more matter to form full fledged galaxies. Some additional BHs may then form by accretion in the expected way. Perhaps this process would indeed result in very ancient super-massive BH masses following a Poisson distribution. If I was a mathematical physicist, I am sure I could derive it. But, I am just a modeler. Note that this process will result in sufficient inhomogeneity without invokingacoustic anomalies, quantum instabilities or other forms of additionalturbulence to give the energy/mass distribution we see today, especially in theCMB. Now for Black-Hole existence: the singularity case of a mass with radius r = 0 is different, however. If one asks that the solution set to the simultaneous homogeneous nonlinear partial differential equations in GR be valid for all r,one runs into a true physical singularity, or gravitational singularity, at the origin. To see that this is a true singularity one must look at quantities that are independent of the choice of coordinates. One such important quantity is the Kretschmann invariant which says that at r = 0 the curvature blows up (becomes infinite) indicating the presence of a singularity. At this point, the metric, and space-time itself, is no longer well-defined, but not undefined. For a long time it was thought that such a solution set was non-physical. However, a greater understanding of general relativity led to the realizationthat such singularities were a generic feature of the GR theory and not just an exotic special case. Such solutions are now believed to actually exist and are termed black-holes. Because they certainly are gravitational singularities, they must have a unique gravitational field profile. By simple analytic geometry, they must be distinguished by a hyperbolic (1/r) fall-off in their gravitational field strength. This fact is currently being ignored. F= GMm/kr, k = 1m (S.I., for dimensional integrity) means black-hole gravity falls off hyperbolically, not parabolically as according to Newton. This F equation is fully Newtonian, however. It just focuses on black-holes as being unique, and, of course, they are. Note that k = 1m is an explicit reminder that we deal with a gravitational singularity here. Mordechai Milgrom is a reputable careful worker. His data are used to support the idea of Dark Matter (DM), not MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics). Not by him, though, he still teaches MOND. Where do we get Dark Matter from GR or from the standard theory of particle physics? Where? WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles) are even more hypothetical and unfalsifiable than DM or MOND. DM itself is just a patch used to fill in the blanks in the Friedmann model. If Einstein can derive Newton from GR, then one can derive the hyperbolic (1/kr) black-hole galactic gravitational field using the right assumptions about black-holes. These would be interesting in themselves. . . Unfalsifiable hypotheses cannot be used to refute facts, as forum respondents often do. TeVeS theory is such an hypothesis like quantum/GR hybrids all are. They have never predicted one single unique item and no such prediction has ever been verified. A theory that does not predict competently is not a theory and does not deserve the attention of mathematicians nor scientists. All math, all science, is metaphor. All language is ultimately just metaphor, including (or especially) Scripture. It is utterly impossible to fully capture reality with any kind of human language. Professionals' unawareness of this objection is what many people mean when they claim that scientists are insufferably arrogant and grossly naive. These critics go too far, though. Then they claim that science itself is just Myth. They create this Myth. Let us endeavor NOT to do so ourselves. No cynic is happy.
  13. The case r = 0 is different, however. If one asks that the solution be valid for all r one runs into a true physical singularity, or gravitational singularity, at the origin. To see that this is a true singularity one must look at quantities that are independent of the choice of coordinates. One such important quantity is the Kretschmann invariant which says at r = 0 the curvature blows up (becomes infinite) indicating the presence of a singularity. At this point the metric, and space-time itself, is no longer well-defined, but not undefined. For a long time it was thought that such a solution was non-physical. However, a greater understanding of general relativity led to the realization that such singularities were a generic feature of the theory and not just an exotic special case. Such singular solutions are now believed to actually exist and are termed black holes. The event horizon of a black hole is not really what defines it. It is defined by its singular mathematical nature. However, according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the precise location of the center of a black hole cannot be known. Therefore, the matter in a black hole cannot actually be measured as infinitely dense nor its gravitational field as infinitely strong. But, mathematically, they may be treated this way.
  14. You do not believe in Science? (Upper case "S") Science has always been embroiled with religion. Not so long ago, they were hardly distinguishable. Isaac Newton justified doing his kind of work by appealing to Scripture. But this misses the whole point of my post which is to outline some initial version of the scientific method. Please, may we not address this? This post is written for a discussion forum. It is written in a conversational style deliberately. It is not intended for an English rhetoric professor to grade. Please address the actual content of this post, not its style. I intended to get a discussion going on the implications of the Scientific Method. I should not have even included the poll.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.