Cosmological Model of The Universe

**mooeypoo** · January 29, 2010

Just a comment about logic, here -- the idea that the current theory might require adjustments does not lead to necessarily YOUR adjustments being the right ones.

That is - your theory needs to stand on its own regardless of any other theory and be supported by facts, evidence, experimentation and mathematics, and only then can it be considered as a replacement for any current theory that already has those.

That said, I will be careful trusting the wording of articles in popular-culture magazines. The journalists, a lot of the time, pick one or two subjects inside a study that they think will be sensational and aren't necessarily the actual information given in the study - or what the study focused on.

~moo

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Which came first - black holes or galaxies? Scientists solve cosmic riddle

Last updated at 10:13 AM on 07th January 2009

www.dailymail.co.uk

Ahem, specially from the dailymail. To be blunt, if the Daily Mail would have an article about gravity, I'd start doubting the validity of gravity.

I think you should choose better sources. Like peer reviewed ones

~moo

insane_alien · January 29, 2010

wow, i didn't realise the daily mail was so bad that even yanks new its was full of bovine excrement.

yeah, it doesn't rate much more than the national enquirer on the scale of scientific accuracy. and thats only because the 'aliens stole my baby' stories aren't on the front page.

pywakit · January 29, 2010

You both are quite amusing.

Rather than attack the reference 'source' ( which may or may not be a valid concern ) you might consider refuting the 'content' of the articles by offering contradictory evidence/observations from your 'peer reviewed' source material.

I agree that 'sensationalism' sells. That does not preclude the possibility that the information in any given article may be accurate.

Are you suggesting that the authors made up both these stories? Or misrepresented the information in that they 'misquoted' the ( fictitious? ) researchers?

Never was a meeting in Long Beach? Long Beach doesn't exist, either?

These findings were NOT presented at the American Astronomical Society's meeting? There is no such organization?

NASA Science On Display At American Astronomical Society Meeting

http://www.nasa.gov

Meeting Services | American Astronomical Society

http://www.aas.org/meetings

NASA, and the AAS not adequate reference material? Don't they usually 'peer review'?

Yes. You both are quite amusing.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Just a comment about logic, here -- the idea that the current theory might require adjustments does not lead to necessarily YOUR adjustments being the right ones.

Interesting wording, Moo. So it's just an 'idea' that the current model 'might' require adjustments. I guess we could logically say then that the current model might 'not' need any adjustments. It may be just fine after all!

That is - your theory needs to stand on its own regardless of any other theory and be supported by facts, evidence, experimentation and mathematics, and only then can it be considered as a replacement for any current theory that already has those.

This is truly a remarkable assertion. Hmmm. Let's look at strings.

1. No facts

2. No evidence

3. No experimentation

4. No mathematics ( ok, that was unnecessarily rude ... let's call the mathematics 'questionable' )

5. No way to falsify ... so far ( you forgot to mention this critical aspect )

Now explain why we are considering strings ...... ??

Incredible as it may seem, my model has ...

1. Facts supporting it

2. Evidence supporting it

3. Experimentation that can come in the form of further corroborating observations

4. Mathematics that already exist supporting the BBT ( which does not conflict with my model )

5. Apparent conformity with General Relativity

6. Apparent conformity with Newtonian Gravity

7. It's falsifiable on many, real world levels

That said, I will be careful trusting the wording of articles in popular-culture magazines. The journalists, a lot of the time, pick one or two subjects inside a study that they think will be sensational and aren't necessarily the actual information given in the study - or what the study focused on.

~moo

Merged post follows:
Consecutive posts merged

Ok. I will be careful.

Ahem, specially from the dailymail. To be blunt, if the Daily Mail would have an article about gravity, I'd start doubting the validity of gravity.

I think you should choose better sources. Like peer reviewed ones

~moo

No doubt you would.

Edited January 29, 2010 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

**mooeypoo** · January 29, 2010

I didn't attack anything,I made a point, and if instead of going into 'defense mode' you'd have read my FIRST part, relating to your point about this source (and the previous one) making your theory more valid (which it does NOT), you might've not missed the bigger picture here.

There are three things here:

Even if the stories are 100% correct and the current theories are false, or lacking, or to be replaced, that does not give *your* theory any special credence.

The only evidence that will give your theory credence is experimental and/or peer-reviewed.

You supplied two articles. my point was a general one, but then doubly-so about your second reference, which is just emphasizing the idea of peer-review papers.

Seriously pywakit, the fact I disagree with you doesn't mean I disrespect you. It's getting really tedious to excuse my points all the time with an explanation why I didn't mean to offend or ridicule anything.

And, finally, could you please link to the *actual articles* and not to the general sites? If you found an article in NASA site, link to it, and not the nasa.gov site. I know the NASA site, I want to read the article so I can actually understand the content and context.

But seriously, my only generl point was that bringing up the idea that the current theory might not be perfect has *no bearing* on whether or not YOUR theory is true. You theory needs to stand on its own feet first, be able to explain current experiments and be validated by them, math, and predictions.

~moo

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This is truly a remarkable assertion. Hmmm. Let's look at strings.

String theory is a bad example, pywakit, seeing as it's in dispute and pretty much unfalsifiable *experimentally*. HOWEVER, it's mathematical model is extremely sound, something you don't have.

While it has no experimentation, it does have facts on its side and strong mathematical ground. Your representation is not accurate.

Incredible as it may seem, my model has ...

1. Facts supporting it

Not exactly. You seem to be nitpicking the facts that you think might support. If you had an experimental evidence, you'd have facts supporting it. And the same goes to the evidence.

2. Evidence supporting it

No, there's nothing in your arsenal of proposed evidence to suggest why your theory is better over the current one, which is required to say that you have EVIDENCE for your theory. Otherwise, you just have fitted your theory to the evidence and are lacking elsewhere (hrm, like math and predictions)

3. Experimentation that can come in the form of further corroborating observations

As swansont pointed out (as well as Klaynos and ajb) untill you provide such experiments, you can't claim the hypothesized results to your favor.

Your theory might be corroborated by experimentation, but it hasn't yet.

4. Mathematics that already exist supporting the BBT ( which does not conflict with my model )

Sure. But it doesn't prove yours. My proposed theory of splitted-pink-unicornism can fit the math too. And the observation. but that doesn't mean that it's a viable substitution; Even merely by okham's razor.

5. Apparent conformity with General Relativity

6. Apparent conformity with Newtonian Gravity

BTW, you were comparing to string theory -- uh, string theory has no problem with neither Quantum mechanics OR relativity, that's why the string-theorists are so happy to say it's a unified theory.

So if this was an attempt to show how string theory (which you claim is accepted, but.. it's not EXACTLY mainstream, yet[?]) then it's not quite a success.

7. It's falsifiable on many, real world levels

I was meaning to ask you to give us an example of a falsifiable condition on your theory, this is as good a time as any: What would falsify your theory?

It seems like you're thinking about this as if the only options are either current theory or YOUR theory. That's just not true. It's a logical fallacy (false dichotomy). Even if the current theories are wrong, there are MANY MANY MANY other models that might be a viable replacement along with yours. You need to show your theory is VALID FIRST -- on its own! -- before you can make the claim that it's better than the current theories.

~moo

Edited January 29, 2010 by mooeypoo
Consecutive posts merged.

pywakit · January 30, 2010

Moo, I can appreciate your point of view. There is a world of difference between being 'defensive' and 'defending'. I am undoubtably guilty of getting defensive, but overall, I am just ( to the best of my ability ) rationally defending the model ... which would make some sense.

On the face of it, you are correct in that just because a model may need to be replaced does not make mine 'valid'. I never suggested it did. My model DOES stand on it's own two legs. Or more accurately, a plethora of legs.

I would prefer not to have to argue about strings anymore. You can massage the math any way you choose. The reality is that it is highly questionable, and still quite controversial. My bad for using it as an example.

You seem to be having trouble grasping that the model does not stand 'seperately' from the current BBT. It relies on everything already proven to support that model. I am not proposing some off-the-wall solution. I have just taken the time to correlate all the available, and pertinent evidence into a reasoned, and rational scenario for the functions, and processes of the macro universe.

I did not say you disrespected me. And if you find me tedious, then stop posting. I'm not going to allow you to make statements in my thread that I believe are in error, or are lacking material support, without challenging them. There is nothing irrational in my doing so. If my stance on this point is in defiance of some rule, then fine. I'll just leave.

I do not mean to be disrespectful of you. I appreciate your high level of intelligence, and all the work you have put into you field. However, that does not make you exempt from making errors. You have shown ... by your posts ... that you apparently have not read all of mine. You apparently have not followed the arguments against, and my rebuttals. You do not seem to have a comprehensive grasp of the model.

You are quite incorrect in that I 'may' think that the only options are the current theory, or my theory. You can't seem to accept that I have considered many other theories by very respected scientists. Just because I find fault, or discrepancies in the current, or other optional models, that are addressed in an unsatisfactory manner does not mean I did not spend time examining them further.

I have posted the titles to the articles. I am not computer literate enough to display the correct link. I would appreciate a heads-up on that point.

As to the 'sound mathematical model' of strings, I disagree. 10^500 equally possible mathematical outcomes does not lend credence to one. And to suggest that it is a viable unification theory seems to be in striking contrast to all the material I have read regarding the subject.

If you choose to equate my model with strings ... or even having LESS validity than strings, that is your right. If you can prove that strings are falsifiable in the accepted scientific methodology, I will change my views on strings. If you can show me that Briane Greene did NOT state that strings are unfalsifiable, then I will change my views. If you can show me that Witten did NOT call M-theory magic, I will change my views. Until then ... if it's *magic* to Witten, it's *magic* to me. And has no more validity that ANY other unfalsifiable hypothesis. Good heavens Moo. Let's get real. How productive has string research REALLY been in FORTY years of intense study? Compare that to the astounding amount of information we have gathered simply from technical improvements to our observational abilities.

You continue to make the assertion that there is NO math to support my model. That is incorrect. That is the same as saying there is NO math to support the BBT. But you will continue to make this assertion, because you do not understand the model. I clearly am not going to convince you, and frankly, trying to do so ALSO gets rather tedious.

The model is falsifiable on many fronts. I include this partial list of ways the model can either be unequivocally falsified, or at least, show strong evidence against it.

1. If it is in conflict with any known, accepted law(s) of physics.

2. If it is in conflict with Quantum Mechanics.

3. If it is in conflict with General Relativity.

4. If it is in conflict any experimental evidence.

5. If it is in conflict with any observation to date.

6. If it is determined that SST is correct, and we make observations, or invent experiments showing our universe draws it's energy from alternate dimensions/membranes.

7. If we determine that space never existed before our BB.

8. If we determine that space itself actually expands.

9. If we determine that black holes bounce off each other ( as opposed to actually merging ).

10. If we determine that black holes shunt matter/energy somewhere outside our 3d universe, or for that matter, somewhere else within our 3d universe.

11. If we determine that black holes actually do rapidly evaporate in the manner(s) described ( IE; ever increasing release of energy as mass decreases ).

12. If we determine that black holes are infinitely dense.

13. If we determine that a singularity ( zero dimensions ) actually exists ( as opposed to a physical, 3d structure ).

14. If we determine that black holes stop growing at some arbitrary mass ( IE; like 50B sols ).

15. If we determine that observed non-feeding black holes never feed again.

16. If we determine that black holes do not gravitate toward ( IE; altering their original inertial path ... which could be determined by tracing it back to it's starting point ) other strong gravitational sources ( IE; other galaxies/black holes ).

17. If we determine that black hole rotational velocity is actually limited to the arbitrary 'theoretical' limit of 1,150 spins per second.

18. If we observe a black hole blowing up.

19. If it is determined that the curvature of space is not flat ( currently 2% margin of error ).

20. If it is determined that space ( the actual, total universe ) is finite.

21. If it is determined that there is extreme red shifted CMBR co-existing with that already observed.

22. If any other model is proved to be ( more ) correct.

All ( or most ) of these falsification tests can either be done right now, or will be determined ( in all likelihood ) in the near future.

I'm sure there are many more ways the model could be falsified.

My model inherently predicts certain black hole behaviors. When I first proposed the model one year ago, many of the new discoveries that lend support to my model ( that I have posted in this forum ) were as yet unknown, or not yet 'common' knowledge.

Don't think for a second that I have uncovered evidence that refuted/contradicted my model, and I just ignored it. That would mean I am insane. For me to think I could force my model down the collective throats of the scientific community when there is clear evidence against it would be beyond irrational.

Moo, as I have said many times, at some point ( if it is not already occurring ) there will be curious, intrigued scientists who will produce a complete mathematical model describing it in the manner to which academia can better relate. If for no other reason than to 'prove' it wrong. In the meantime, I will just struggle along using english.

What is missing from all of your comments Moo is any attempt to prove my model has insurmountable flaws. You just keep hammering the same theme. I am not qualified. My reference material is not qualified. You continue to put words in my mouth. You continue to make false assumptions about me, and my model. You continue to try to make it personal while I continue to try and focus your ( and other's ) attention on the model itself.

Don't like it? Fine. If you are unwilling to address any of it's salient features, then just ignore it ... and ignore me. I'm not going to stop defending it. I am not going to just drop it. I am not going to just 'take your word' for anything regarding my model.

Even Einstein was wrong. That human failing has not been eradicated. I think you are wrong in the manner in which you address my model. I don't see any constructive help. I am not going to become a mathematician. But I may be the one who is wrong. Time ... and more research is going to answer this question. I accept the possibility that I may have the whole universe wrong. So far, though, every new discovery fits flawlessly into my 'universe' view. Maybe I'm just stupidly lucky.

But I have been stupidly lucky for 50 years. Never been wrong, Moo. Never. My track record outweighs your objections, in my opinion. And it's my opinion that matters.

Whether you want to believe me or not, I have a 'talent' it would seem, for looking at the bigger picture. I will change that viewpoint the day a discovery is made that blows my theories out of the water. Until then ... with all due respect ... I will continue to trust my observational abilities, and my ability to reason.

Any other stance would be totally illogical.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I have to add a couple more points.

It almost seems as if many of you expect my model to predict things OTHER than those we have observed in the past, what we are observing right now, and what we will observe in the future. "If your model just describes the universe as we have observed it, you have NOTHING." That, of course, ignores the fact that there is NO model in existence that DOES fully describe our local universe.

Well here is a news flash. If my model is the CORRECT one, it will ALWAYS describe the universe as we have observed it ... how we observe it now ... and what we will observe in the future. If it didn't do this ... it would be WRONG.

Yes. I understand. NOBODY can come up with the CORRECT one. Only a better one. Right? And furthermore, no one with a 'superficial knowledge' of physics, or math can POSSIBLY understand the universe well enough to add ANYTHING to our understanding. Only a trained mathematician/physicist is 'qualified'. If I lack the ability to mathematically describe my model, and make mathematical predictions, my model is 'worthless'. Ok. If you say so.

Second point. Yes there are MANY MANY models out there. They would be at least on par with mine, or even superior except for one small detail.

THEY ALL REQUIRE MAGIC. Unproven, unfalsifiable MAGIC.

Mine appears to be the ONLY model in existence ... which FULLY, and rationally describes the large scale function/processes of our local universe ... without magic. Call me crazy, but I perceive this as a HUGE advantage over the many many others.

Edited January 30, 2010 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

**mooeypoo** · January 30, 2010

Your post is very long, pywakit, and I have no time to go through it point by point, but I will say that the experts that were on this thread told you what is needed to make your theory stand on its own.

It doesn't YET. It might have potential (though it does have problems too, as the posters told you and explained where and why) but it isn't there yet. You need the experimentation results -- and that those will support your claim, and ONLY then your theory will stand on its own. Your claims rely on something we *don't know* yet; the current theory suggests A, you suggest B - both suggestions are equally possible, only the current theories explain otehr things as well including math and predictions.

THE ONLY WAY to solve this is by getting the answer to the experiment. Then and only then will your theory stand on its own, and not a moment sooner.

And one last point: Be careful what you say about "ALL theories". Hve you read *ALL* alternative theories that you can make this claim, pywakit? I am sorry, but I doubt it. I doubt they *ALL* need some form of magic.

Yours require some form of magic too for now; it makes a claim on something that is untested. *WHEN* you test it, it'll become valid. Until you do, it's empty prediction that can be hopeful thinking.

~moo

pywakit · January 30, 2010

Your post is very long, pywakit, and I have no time to go through it point by point, but I will say that the experts that were on this thread told you what is needed to make your theory stand on its own.

It doesn't YET. It might have potential (though it does have problems too, as the posters told you and explained where and why) but it isn't there yet. You need the experimentation results -- and that those will support your claim, and ONLY then your theory will stand on its own. Your claims rely on something we *don't know* yet; the current theory suggests A, you suggest B - both suggestions are equally possible, only the current theories explain otehr things as well including math and predictions.

THE ONLY WAY to solve this is by getting the answer to the experiment. Then and only then will your theory stand on its own, and not a moment sooner.

And one last point: Be careful what you say about "ALL theories". Hve you read *ALL* alternative theories that you can make this claim, pywakit? I am sorry, but I doubt it. I doubt they *ALL* need some form of magic.

Yours require some form of magic too for now; it makes a claim on something that is untested. *WHEN* you test it, it'll become valid. Until you do, it's empty prediction that can be hopeful thinking.

~moo

Thanks Moo. Current theory suggests A. My theory suggests A+. No more. You just don't get it. My model doesn't require magic because you have decided to redefine the word. There is nothing 'metaphysical' in my model. There is though, in every stringy model out there.

There are many ways to 'verify' or 'test' my model. Observations can verify it to a reasoned certainty. Observations can falsify it, too.

You claim my model relies on things "we don't know yet". Sorry Moo. YOU may not know them. But other ( apparently 'peer-reviewed' ) researchers do. My model makes predictions about black hole behaviors. I'm not clairvoyant, Moo. The predictions are entirely reliant on known science. Known observations. Experiments already performed. And my predictions are at odds with 'mainstream theories'. Tough luck for them. So far, I'm batting 1000. Haven't been wrong yet. They have.

I was told I need mathematics by the 'experts'. ( That was the only 'problems' they could come up with. Every other 'problem' was addressed. Successfully. In all cases they were ill-informed.) It's not my fault they couldn't grasp that the same mathematics that supports the BBT, supports mine. This will make it 'stand on it's own', they said. They said this, even as they failed to understand the model. They were/are still thinking ( apparently ) the model is GR PLUS. Like all other models ( and I say all, meaning every model reasonably accessible for public view ) that are floating around the science community. Yes, Moo. They 'all' do require magic. Or they invoke God. Or they deny observational evidence ... like 'black holes'. I'm sorry you are not familiar with them.

Even though my model was 'worthless' ... even though I had 'nothing' ... these 'experts' still made several attempts to falsify the model. Every attempt failed. That is the reality. I didn't just go 'irrational' on them, and refuse to address their concerns. I addressed every single one, showing these 'experts' where they had gone wrong. Sorry. Not my fault they didn't think their arguments through before trying to defeat my model with them.

Bottom line ... They are entitled to their 'expert' opinion(s).

Moo, what is the purpose of these communications? What is your goal? Make me quit? Make me 'understand' I have nothing? Make me understand that my model can't be verified? Convince me I am not qualified? Convince me I have just made a few 'wild guesses' without any supporting evidence? You are wasting your time.

Well intentioned, intelligent people have been telling me my entire life how 'wrong' I am. In every case, THEY were the ones who ended up being wrong. Do you really think I would just 'fold' because 'experts' ( who have made many errors in our communications already ) tell me I should?

If you want to trashcan my model, do it. I have already accomplished far more than I expected to on this forum. My theory is out there. It's not going away. You can close the barn doors. The horses are long gone.

PS : If I am willing to take the time to address any of the MEANINGFUL, salient, and INFORMED comments you have made ... If I am willing to take the time to read EVERYTHING you have written, but YOU don't have the time to do the same in RETURN, then there is nothing more to be said between us. All you have done is imply that what I had to say wasn't worth reading, let alone worth responding to. That's pretty arrogant.

Finally, you requested of me ways in which my model could be falsified. I complied. You apparently saw no need to address them. Don't ask me for anything again. I will ignore the request. You clearly are not willing to debate any of this rationally.

On another thread I asked you several times how your space-farers could survive high energy particles. You repeatedly ignored the question. That's BS. How many times have I heard you demand that some poster answer the reasonable questions posed to them? And then s/c'd their thread because they refused to?

You need to take a hard look in the mirror. Seriously. Now go ahead. Ban me. It won't change a thing.

Edited January 30, 2010 by pywakit

**mooeypoo** · January 30, 2010

There's a difference between opinion and stating a fact, pywakit. The experts shared some problems your theory has and what it is missing. That's not opinion.

And, as you were told, your theory doesn't quite offer "A+" when the current theory is "A", your theory suggests other effects that need to be demonstrated first.

~moo

pywakit · January 30, 2010

There's a difference between opinion and stating a fact, pywakit. The experts shared some problems your theory has and what it is missing. That's not opinion.

And, as you were told, your theory doesn't quite offer "A+" when the current theory is "A", your theory suggests other effects that need to be demonstrated first.

~moo

No they didn't share some 'problems' my theory has. They shared some 'perceived' problems which I successfully dismantled. And no, my model doesn't suggest 'other effects that need to be demonstrated first'. And that's not opinion. You are ill-informed. And getting very annoying. I am quite aware of the difference between opinion, and fact. I am also fully capable of assessing information, and drawing reasoned assumptons from that information.

The FACTS I have stated are facts. I have provided adequately referenced material in support of all those FACTS.

Any OPINIONS I gave were also based on FACTS, and none of those OPINONS had any bearing on the basic tenets of the model.

My model is missing a mathematical expression. That's it. It's not going to require 'new math or 'new physics' to accomplish this. Please drop it.

Edited January 30, 2010 by pywakit

**mooeypoo** · January 30, 2010

What's stopping you from publishing this in a peer-reviewed publication, then?

pywakit · January 30, 2010

What's stopping you from publishing this in a peer-reviewed publication, then?

That would be because I am not affiliated with a respected university, or observatory. And I am not sponsored by a member ( yet ) of the Union, or any of the Societies.

So those periodicals won't allow it.

As I have said several times before. And as you already know.

But if you are aware of one, please let me know.

**mooeypoo** · January 30, 2010

No they didn't share some 'problems' my theory has. They shared some 'perceived' problems which I successfully dismantled.

No, they didn't, you just wouldn't accept their claims and tended to avoid the subjects you're not too well versed in. I think you should re-read what they wrote.

Here's some highlights:

Does it make mathematical predictions that can be tested against reality? If not it is not a theory.

You didn't answer this one. And it's still a problem.

Your claim that the BBT makes predictions and therefore yours too is false. Your theory makes additional claims, and therefore needs additional math with predictive power. Otherwise, the current mathematical model is evidence for BBT, not your theory.

And as Klaynos, ajb, swansont and myself pointed out, your opinion about mathematics is irrelevant. A scientific physical theory must have mathematical model that supplies prediction, otherwise it's not a theory. And it will DEFINITELY not be able to replace or improve current theory without that when the current theory *DOES* have mathematical model and predictive ability.

Physics and mathematics go together. You can't have a physical theory without math. You can argue against it forever and it will still not change that fact.

You cannot apply quantum mechanics in this situation, it is not valid. The only physics we currently have that you can apply is GR which states you get a singularity so we are assuming that this breaks down.

You didn't really answer this one, you simply stated that's not your only evidence. Seeing as it's not quite right, it's one less evidence.

So... what are these mathematical predictions? What can we measure that will falsify your theory?

You have yet to answer neither the first nor the second part of this question. Falsifiability is crucial. What would falsify your theory?

I know you answered Klaynos that you posted 20 ways your model can be falsified, but on the quick run=through I did over the thread I didn't see them. Can you tell me the post number? Or repost the list.

Please don't say "whatever will falsify BBT" because that AGAIN would mean your theory is no better than BBT, and you are atm in need of proving YOUR theory (or your proposed extension) and not the BBT.

Then, there's these issues:

Careful analysis of the CMBR suggests that inflationary cosmology is correct.

And immediately after:

So, in all you only have a list of ideas as you presented earlier. No theory.

And there were more, I'm not going to repost the entire thread. I think you should go over what the experts said, because they exposed quite a number of problems with this model that show it is definitely not in the stage of a working theory.

Those aren't opinions, pywakit. Those are counter-claims that you answered *with* opinion. ajb gave up. So did Klaynos.

They didn't concede, they got tired of arguing circular claims.

~moo

pywakit · January 30, 2010

Ok, Moo. I am going to take each one of your statements. Then I'm done with this argument. They will not be in order, but I'll address each one.

The following is not dated, but as it refers to the Planck mission I will assume it's recent.

From ... Theories of Inflation

cftp.ist.utl.pt/~bento/ research.html

TGSAA report of the U.S. National Research Council

An exerpt :

Fortunately, all these problems can be solved simultaneously in the context of a relatively simple scenario for the evolution of the Universe --- the Inflationary Universe scenario. The main idea is that the Universe, at very early stages of its evolution expanded quasi-exponentially (the stage of inflation) in a state with energy density dominated by the potential energy density of some scalar field. This rapid expansion made the Universe flat, homogeneous and isotropic and the density of monopoles, gravitions and domain walls vanishingly small. Later, the potential energy density of the scalar field transformed into thermal energy, and still later, the Universe is correctly described by the standard hot Universe theory predicting the existence of the CMBR. The scalar field potential should be provided by Particle Physics theories and hence the development of the inflationary Universe scenario has opened up a new and extremely promising avenue for connecting fundamental physics with experiment/observations.

Most importantly, inflation provides a causal mechanism for generating the primordial perturbations required for the formation of galaxies, clusters and even larger objects. Different inflationary models lead to different predictions for the power spectra of the CMBR. Many models of inflation have been suggested, but at present none is sufficiently distinguished to form a "standard" inflationary theory. However, modern observations allow us to discriminate between different inflationary models, and are already sufficient to rule out some models completely and substantially constrain the parameter space of others. Future observations will make even stronger demands on theoretical precision, and will certainly tightly constrain inflation.

Recent results from the BOOMerang and MAXIMA CMBR experiments confirm the flat Universe predicted by inflation and are beginning to address its second basic prediction: almost scale invariant adiabatic, Gaussian density perturbations produced by quantum fluctuations during inflation. The third prediction, a nearly scale-invariant spectrum of gravity waves will be more difficult to confirm, but is a critical probe of inflation that could be tested by the PLANCK mission.

Sorry, Moo. It seems your resident expert overreached just a bit. CMBR supports the BBT.

CMBR 'might' support one of many inflation models. Not clear yet which. Seems they have a bit of 'tweaking' to do. This is a far cry from ajb's assertion.

Inflation models 'predict' a flat universe.

But inflation models require brand new math, brand new physics, to explain how it all began, or it's pure conjecture.

My model 'predicts' the same flat universe.

I would use the Penrose Weyl curvature hypothesis, and the ( presumed ) accompanying math. I would suggest he is off on the early universe entropy issue, but it doesn't matter to my model.

Anyway, my model DOESN'T require brand new math, or brand new physics to explain how it began. From my understanding, Penrose's hypothesis uses standard physics. Feel free to correct me.

That's one.

**mooeypoo** · January 30, 2010

You shouldn't take my arguments, pywakit, I just showed you that your claim that the experts shared "opinions" and that you don't have a problem with your theory is just not true. You should go over the claims Klaynos and ajb made to you.

And about publishing -- it's true that a formal university helps, but there are ways to publish a revolutionary theory without having the backing of a university. And if you think that the peer-review you're going to go through in a mainstream publication is anywhere less than what you had here, or that you'll be able to get away with the claims like you tried to here, you are going to find out you are completely mistaken.

Your theory has a lot of problems. You managed to excuse through them, but the excuses are not good enough. That's why Klaynos and ajb stopped posting. They tried, they stopped.

Your theory is still lacking. You don't need my points to 'refute', you need the points made by them (they are MUCH more expansive) and you are in need of actually solving the problems, not excusing them.

~moo

pywakit · January 30, 2010

Originally Posted by Klaynos
Does it make mathematical predictions that can be tested against reality? If not it is not a theory.

Does the BBT make mathematical predictions that can be tested against reality? Great. Use the same math. And Penrose's. All it lacks Moo ( again ) is a full mathematical expression that covers the features/processes beyond what the BBT already describes. There is nothing magical, or contrary to accepted physics about it.

That's two.

**mooeypoo** · January 30, 2010

Does the BBT make mathematical predictions that can be tested against reality? Great. Use the same math.

Not good enough. Same math will prove BBT, not your expansion of it.

All it lacks Moo ( again ) is a full mathematical expression that covers the features/processes beyond what the BBT already describes. There is nothing magical, or contrary to accepted physics about it.

No, it lacks more, read the rest of the thread for the reminders.

pywakit · January 30, 2010

You shouldn't take my arguments, pywakit, I just showed you that your claim that the experts shared "opinions" and that you don't have a problem with your theory is just not true. You should go over the claims Klaynos and ajb made to you.

And about publishing -- it's true that a formal university helps, but there are ways to publish a revolutionary theory without having the backing of a university. And if you think that the peer-review you're going to go through in a mainstream publication is anywhere less than what you had here, or that you'll be able to get away with the claims like you tried to here, you are going to find out you are completely mistaken.

Your theory has a lot of problems. You managed to excuse through them, but the excuses are not good enough. That's why Klaynos and ajb stopped posting. They tried, they stopped.

Your theory is still lacking. You don't need my points to 'refute', you need the points made by them (they are MUCH more expansive) and you are in need of actually solving the problems, not excusing them.

~moo

I'm not refuting YOUR points. I'm refuting the points you brought up that were made by ajb, and Klaynos. Just like you want me to.

You could have just told me where to publish. But no. You have to add your uninformed commentary instead.

I will GET the math. You continue to be obtuse about this. I WILL GET THE MATH.

"Not good enough. Same math will prove BBT, not your expansion of it."

You don't know that at all. You are amazing.

And I am going to plow through ALL the reminders. Just to prove you wrong. I repeat, you are ill-informed.

Anyway, I just dismantled ajb's CMBR assertion. Get real. Or are you going to ignore that, too?

I haven't 'excused' anything, and I am extremely offended by this. I have stated I am neither mathematician, nor physicist. That's not an excuse. It's a fact. Doesn't change the fact that the model does not appear to need MAGIC.

Once and for all .... my model will get publshed when it is READY to be published. With FULL math. Because I don't have a sponsor now doesn't mean I won't get one. I don't have to accomplish this by tomorrow. Again ... get real. You are accomplishing nothing but irritating me. And since I happen to like you, I don't care for the feeling. Please stop.

I will cover the other points in a while. Right now I'm hungry and tired.

Edited January 30, 2010 by pywakit

**mooeypoo** · January 30, 2010

I think you should re-read THEIR points, though. I quoted a small portion for reminder, that's not fully what they said.

pywakit · January 30, 2010

I think you should re-read THEIR points, though. I quoted a small portion for reminder, that's not fully what they said.

Ok. Fine. I'll do it tomorrow when I'm not ticked off.

Good night.

PS :

ajb posted 23 times, Klaynos 11. I'm not going to go through each one.

Please post the specific posts ( and highlight the specific comments ) you feel I have not addressed satisfactorily.

Until then, I will just address the points you have already brought up on their behalf.

Thank you

Edited January 30, 2010 by pywakit

**mooeypoo** · January 30, 2010

You don't know that at all. You are amazing.

I don't understand this point... you said yourself that all we need to do is use the BBT math. But you claim that your theory *expands* on the BBT.

If that's the case, you can't eat the cake and leave it whole, pywakit. If your theory is expanding the BBT, you should supply math for the expanded part. The mathematics for the BBT prove the BBT, not your theory.

I'm not sure what there is for me to know, though I do appreciate your compliment about my amazing'ness.

And I am going to plow through ALL the reminders. Just to prove you wrong. I repeat, you are ill-informed.

You were shown where the problems exist, and you excuse them. I know it's making you angry, and I don't mean to - this isn't personal - but the answers we're looking for will not be settled by long posts or circular excuses. You need the math. No question, no doubt, no one will publish this without the math even if you had 10 published scientists backing you up for a publication.

You MUST have math. You *MUST* have falsifiability (I am not sure if I missed the list or if you didn't answer it, I'm just reminding you that this is a point to look for). You *MUST* have evidence for your theory *that are separate* from the evidence for the big bang.

Look. If your theory and the BBT have the EXACT same evidence to their favor, but your theory goes that much further to make a claim that is yet to be experimentally proven, then by definition the 'better' theory is the simpler one, which is the BBT.

You must supply some reason for your theory to replace the BBT, otherwise there's no reason to. The BBT is expansive enough and is well supported. You need to show that something that *doesn't* work for BBT *does* work in your theory, and provide actual evidence for it. Mathematics are crucial; they are the language that is used to describe physics. But you can start with a suggestion for an experiment to be done.

I haven't 'excused' anything, and I am extremely offended by this. I have stated I am neither mathematician, nor physicist. That's not an excuse. It's a fact. Doesn't change the fact that the model does not appear to need MAGIC.

Stop being offended. This is the "lite" version of a peer-review process. If/when your theory is published, you'll get much worse. You might want to prepare yourself for the process.

I'm saying you excuse stuff not as if you're lying or cheating, I'm saying that your answers aren't good enough, and I explained why. ajb and Klaynos have also explained why. You post very long posts that are a bit tiring to go over (again, this isn't personal) but they don't have the substance that the posters are asking for. You were asked for math and you were asked for predictions, instead you posted long posts explaining why those aren't needed.

They are needed. Excuses as to why you think they don't serve nothing for the validity of the theory. That's what I mean about 'excusing'. I have no doubt you're not doing this intentionally. You do need to be aware that it's not enough for the scientific process, and not just for us here in scienceforums.

Once and for all .... my model will get publshed when it is READY to be published. With FULL math. Because I don't have a sponsor now doesn't mean I won't get one.

Right, that's fine, but I am saying that a sponsor will request the SAME THINGS WE DO.

You should be ready to explain them. Thoroughly.

I don't want to be condecending and it's absolutely not my meaning, but pywakit, there's a reason physicists spend so many years studying the mainstream basic (and advanced) theories before they go off trying to find NEW theories. You have to know the basics *EXTREMELY* well. You have to know where they came from mathematically and historically. You have to know how to derive them because that's how you know *why* things are the way they are.

So when a physics expert asks you about a specific aspect, it's not to offend yuo, it's because that physics expert knows the derivation and consequence of those mathematical formulas and where they *don't* fit your idea.

You must deal with this or you will *not* get funding. No one will pay for a theory that can't explain already occuring phenomena. I'm not syaing yours can't, I'm saying yours have problems. Go over the thread once more.

I don't have to accomplish this by tomorrow. Again ... get real. You are accomplishing nothing but irritating me. And since I happen to like you, I don't care for the feeling. Please stop.

I am not the one who claimed that the theory is ready and should be 'mainstream'. You did.

You claimed that your theory has no more problems, and no one managed to dispute it. You are wrong.

I am sorry I'm irritating you, but you need to stop taking things personally when people disagree with you. And I'm getting quite annoyed and tired with your condescending manner. I am TALKING with you, we are debating, I'm putting forth my points and your emotional blackmail will not help you here.

Please don't ask me to ban you again, it's inappropriate. We're not having a discussion out of my power as moderator, but if you continue to beg me to kick you out, I might consider it, and it will definitely not come from my "lack of desire" to debate you.

I wouldn't be wasting my time posting these long replies (which I spend time thinking about before posting) if I just wanted to upset you. Believe it or not, I have better things to do in life. I post what I think and what I know, and I expect you to be as respectful to my points as I am to yours. Disagreeing with you does not equal ridiculing you. Seriously, it's getting annoying.

This is a rational debate. Drop the emotion, pywakit, or I too will give up on you, and tho it will earn you a technical "win" it will not do anything to validate your theory. Not a thing.

~moo

pywakit · January 30, 2010

I don't understand this point... you said yourself that all we need to do is use the BBT math. But you claim that your theory *expands* on the BBT.

If that's the case, you can't eat the cake and leave it whole, pywakit. If your theory is expanding the BBT, you should supply math for the expanded part. The mathematics for the BBT prove the BBT, not your theory.

I'm not sure what there is for me to know, though I do appreciate your compliment about my amazing'ness.

You were shown where the problems exist, and you excuse them. I know it's making you angry, and I don't mean to - this isn't personal - but the answers we're looking for will not be settled by long posts or circular excuses. You need the math. No question, no doubt, no one will publish this without the math even if you had 10 published scientists backing you up for a publication.

You MUST have math. You *MUST* have falsifiability (I am not sure if I missed the list or if you didn't answer it, I'm just reminding you that this is a point to look for). You *MUST* have evidence for your theory *that are separate* from the evidence for the big bang.

Look. If your theory and the BBT have the EXACT same evidence to their favor, but your theory goes that much further to make a claim that is yet to be experimentally proven, then by definition the 'better' theory is the simpler one, which is the BBT.

You must supply some reason for your theory to replace the BBT, otherwise there's no reason to. The BBT is expansive enough and is well supported. You need to show that something that *doesn't* work for BBT *does* work in your theory, and provide actual evidence for it. Mathematics are crucial; they are the language that is used to describe physics. But you can start with a suggestion for an experiment to be done.

Stop being offended. This is the "lite" version of a peer-review process. If/when your theory is published, you'll get much worse. You might want to prepare yourself for the process.

I'm saying you excuse stuff not as if you're lying or cheating, I'm saying that your answers aren't good enough, and I explained why. ajb and Klaynos have also explained why. You post very long posts that are a bit tiring to go over (again, this isn't personal) but they don't have the substance that the posters are asking for. You were asked for math and you were asked for predictions, instead you posted long posts explaining why those aren't needed.

They are needed. Excuses as to why you think they don't serve nothing for the validity of the theory. That's what I mean about 'excusing'. I have no doubt you're not doing this intentionally. You do need to be aware that it's not enough for the scientific process, and not just for us here in scienceforums.

Right, that's fine, but I am saying that a sponsor will request the SAME THINGS WE DO.

You should be ready to explain them. Thoroughly.

I don't want to be condecending and it's absolutely not my meaning, but pywakit, there's a reason physicists spend so many years studying the mainstream basic (and advanced) theories before they go off trying to find NEW theories. You have to know the basics *EXTREMELY* well. You have to know where they came from mathematically and historically. You have to know how to derive them because that's how you know *why* things are the way they are.

So when a physics expert asks you about a specific aspect, it's not to offend yuo, it's because that physics expert knows the derivation and consequence of those mathematical formulas and where they *don't* fit your idea.

You must deal with this or you will *not* get funding. No one will pay for a theory that can't explain already occuring phenomena. I'm not syaing yours can't, I'm saying yours have problems. Go over the thread once more.

I am not the one who claimed that the theory is ready and should be 'mainstream'. You did.

You claimed that your theory has no more problems, and no one managed to dispute it. You are wrong.

I am sorry I'm irritating you, but you need to stop taking things personally when people disagree with you. And I'm getting quite annoyed and tired with your condescending manner. I am TALKING with you, we are debating, I'm putting forth my points and your emotional blackmail will not help you here.

Please don't ask me to ban you again, it's inappropriate. We're not having a discussion out of my power as moderator, but if you continue to beg me to kick you out, I might consider it, and it will definitely not come from my "lack of desire" to debate you.

I wouldn't be wasting my time posting these long replies (which I spend time thinking about before posting) if I just wanted to upset you. Believe it or not, I have better things to do in life. I post what I think and what I know, and I expect you to be as respectful to my points as I am to yours. Disagreeing with you does not equal ridiculing you. Seriously, it's getting annoying.

This is a rational debate. Drop the emotion, pywakit, or I too will give up on you, and tho it will earn you a technical "win" it will not do anything to validate your theory. Not a thing.

~moo

Moo. The emotion stems from frustration. You all three lack current knowledge of cosmological theories. You all three lack the most rudimentary understanding of the current state of astrophysics. And you all three seem to think that alternate dimensions equals known physics. It doesn't matter how much you insist it does. It doesn't.

My 'sponsor' will be a mathematician. This person will create a mathematical structure for my model. So when it is published it will be in the correct format. Again, this is very short-sighted of you.

I wish it WAS a rational debate. The better theory is the one that extends the current one to cover areas previously not addressed. Claiming the BBT is better because it describes LESS is not rational. Both theories use the same physics. Moo. I'm very sorry. And yes you ARE amazing. But you are looking at this the wrong way. My model is able to expand significantly on the BBT while using the same laws of physics.

My model will be ( and currently is by recent observations ) experimentally SUPPORTED. The only way to PROVE it is to wait until the actual end of the universe.

The BBT addresses a very narrow portion of the total processes of our universe. Because it did not have the facts that exist today, it was unable to address anything further. I am filling in the blanks. Nobody else seems to be paying attention to all the evidence. I have gathered all the information together into a cohesive, all inclusive ( in the macro universe, anyway ) theory.

You say the BBT is expansive enough. This is irrational. On several levels. If you think it is, then why are we trying to improve it? Seems to me that making the theory complete might qualify as a good reason to replace it.

You could say ... well it's really just the BBT then. So you have nothing. We would have figured it out ourselves. Maybe so. In fact PROBABLY so. But you didn't. I did.

Onward ... You are so incorrect Moo. You insist I was shown problems. I was not. I was shown string theory. I was shown poor construction of arguments ignoring obvious facts in evidence. Easily rebutted.

You can't show one case of circular logic in my model, or my arguments in support of it. If you are going to accuse me of that, you need to back it up with the evidence. Like I do ( as needed ) with every argument I make.

Here is another reason why you anger me. I have posted my list 2 times. Last one was at your request ... #130. You didn't look very hard.

Moo, I don't have to do some lab experiment to prove that physics is real. As you should know, much of the evidence we rely on for our our 'proofs' is observational. Like CMBR.

A good mathematician will be able to work out a complete set of equations for my model. Especially since it will not require magic. Right one hasn't presented himself/herself yet. Someone will.

My oh my. You continue to stun me.

"You *MUST* have evidence for your theory *that are separate* from the evidence for the big bang."

Now why would I need that when the evidence for the BB supports my model? Once again, you just prove you do NOT understand the model.

MY MODEL HAS A BIG BANG. My model better FOLLOW the evidence or it's INCORRECT.

"I'm saying you excuse stuff not as if you're lying or cheating, I'm saying that your answers aren't good enough, and I explained why. ajb and Klaynos have also explained why. You post very long posts that are a bit tiring to go over (again, this isn't personal) but they don't have the substance that the posters are asking for. You were asked for math and you were asked for predictions, instead you posted long posts explaining why those aren't needed."

I don't have the 'math'. The physics already exists. I can NOT give a mathematical expression. But a mathematician with brain damage could do it, because it is existing physics. They want mathematical predictions. Like ones that make predictions contradicting accepted physics? That won't happen. My model doesn't contradict accepted physics. This is why it's ridiculous to use that argument to claim my model fails. They are not comprehending.

Your posts are long, too. So what? Rather waste hours chatting about unattractive people?

"I don't want to be condecending and it's absolutely not my meaning, but pywakit, there's a reason physicists spend so many years studying the mainstream basic (and advanced) theories before they go off trying to find NEW theories. You have to know the basics *EXTREMELY* well. You have to know where they came from mathematically and historically. You have to know how to derive them because that's how you know *why* things are the way they are.

So when a physics expert asks you about a specific aspect, it's not to offend yuo, it's because that physics expert knows the derivation and consequence of those mathematical formulas and where they *don't* fit your idea.

You must deal with this or you will *not* get funding. No one will pay for a theory that can't explain already occuring phenomena. I'm not syaing yours can't, I'm saying yours have problems. Go over the thread once more."

I don't want to be condescending either, but again, you don't know very much about cosmology. Insisting I have to know mathematics is absurd. You know math, and I can talk rings around you when it comes to cosmology. Sorry, but it's true. You simply have very little knowledge in this field. And so do your experts, as I have proven repeatedly. And your physics experts have yet to show me where physics *doesn't* fit my model. This is nonsense. Just one more unsubstantiated claim.

Funding? What is it you aren't getting?

Knock off the crap about emotional black mail. Nobody is blackmailing you. That is your trip. Not mine. I've already said I have accomplished more than I expected. I'm just irritated that you force me to repeat arguments unnecessarily. I'm irritated that you won't acknowledge errors. Yours, or your compatriots.

I just proved ajb incorrect. Me, a layman. You ignored it. Please acknowledge this. Continued refusal to do so borders on a pathological inability to admit error. And that is a fact, too.

You threatened me before ( 'CLOSE' in caps ) when I was defending my postion on being moved. Just like you told me to do. I didn't care for swansont's BS, and I reacted to it. Well, I don't like being threatened, either. It was totally uncalled for. That's why I have dared you to do so. YOU started it. Irrational.

Look Moo. Just because you think I have to have a mathematical backround to understand the major functions of the universe doesn't make it true. I DO understand them. Way better than you, or ajb, or Klaynos. You can't accept that. And because you can't accept it, you are making a problem where none should exist. You need to back off. You are not accomplishing anything by continuing this stance. It is unnecessary. And it doesn't make you appear very credible.

I asked you to explain why you are doing this, and you ignored the question. Again. Not rational. I will ask again. What's your point? What are you trying to accomplish here? Just trying to justify your assertion I have NOTHING?

Good luck on that. You already lost that battle a while ago. As many viewers already know.

Do us both a favor and STOP reading my posts. Nobody is forcing you to. Nobody is making you post these irrational arguments. I really don't care if you answer the questions. I get your position. You don't need to explain any further. I don't care what your reasons are.

Since none of you know a thing about cosmology, stop trying to pretend you do. I have studied it for 50 years and I will win every argument. Guaranteed. I already have. Without math. Sorry you can't, or won't face it.

And this is what is so stupid about this argument. None of you claim to be cosmologists. Yet you think you can argue cosmology intelligently. But the only weapon you really have is to harp over and over " You can't know cosmology cuz you don't know the math."

By the way, I never claimed the model was 'ready'. Those are your words. I claimed it was simple to understand, and that it followed known science. Both claims are accurate. I have always understood it would need to be expressed mathematically before it was published. You obviously don't understand why I posted here to begin with, even though I have said why several times.

ajb, and Klaynos got tired of being proven FACTUALLY wrong ... with documentation/reference material. That's a cop-out argument. THAT'S why they 'gave up'. That's the reality. Too bad.

And I will do it again.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

A couple of years ago two cosmologists are in their respective homes. Feet propped up on their desks, they are both half asleep.

At the exact same moment they have that 'EUREKA!' moment, nearly falling out of their chairs. They have each 'solved the universe'.

The first one ( who has years of extensive study backing him, not to mention a PHD in both math and physics ) calls his buddy up to excitedly describe the universe.

Here's what happens! The universe continues to expand until the very last atom decays into nothing. NOW HERE IS WHERE IT GETS INTERESTING! When the last atom is gone, the 'empty packet' of space SPRINGS FORTH A NEW UNIVERSE!! As do ALL the other empty packets. THAT'S THE KEY! he shouts to his friend. It has to be AN EMPTY PACKET!

I'll send you the math. But it's really simple. All it requires is kubla khan manigolds! AND 26 DIMENSIONS! In fact, it turns out that this is how OUR universe started. IT'S ETERNAL! OMG!!!!

The second man ( forget about him? ) calls up his friend.

I think I might have solved it! It's pretty simple. Here's how it happens. All it requires is for black holes to merge. And it explains, just using known physics, how our universe began. What made our Big Bang ... bang!

First man is Frampton. He gets peer-reviewed and published.

Second man gets ignored because he can't express it mathematically.

'True' story.

You call this science?

Yes. You do.

Edited January 30, 2010 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

**mooeypoo** · January 30, 2010

Moo. The emotion stems from frustration. You all three lack current knowledge of cosmological theories. You all three lack the most rudimentary understanding of the current state of astrophysics. And you all three seem to think that alternate dimensions equals known physics. It doesn't matter how much you insist it does. It doesn't.

Yes, don't think you're the only one. People didn't just leave this thread because they wanted to get ice cream. The frustration is on all sides.

My 'sponsor' will be a mathematician. This person will create a mathematical structure for my model. So when it is published it will be in the correct format. Again, this is very short-sighted of you.

You are constantly trying to eat the cake and leave it whole. You already had a discussion with a mathematicial physicist (ajb) and with a physicist (Klaynos, and to a lesser degree myself) and they both showed you flaws in your theory. Stomping your feet on the ground and insisting that the flaws aren't flaws will not *solve* those flaws.

You claim that "you're not a physicist or a mathematician" but you refuse to accept the claims of either a physicist or a mathematician. you argue vehemently against these claims but then when I repeated my request to you for answers you again revert back to "I never claimed to be a physicist or mathematician".

Choose pywakit. You were shown the flaws. It's up to you what ismore important to you -- your ego or your theory.

I wish it WAS a rational debate. The better theory is the one that extends the current one to cover areas previously not addressed. Claiming the BBT is better because it describes LESS is not rational. Both theories use the same physics. Moo. I'm very sorry. And yes you ARE amazing. But you are looking at this the wrong way. My model is able to expand significantly on the BBT while using the same laws of physics.

The only reason it's not a rational debate is because you insist to insert emotions into it. The claims we were raising were objective and independent and had nothing to do with your 'character', your obvious passion or your personal appeal. You are being very tiring, and quite unfair, when you let your emotions get the better of you and the argument then shifts to emotional claims like 'this is offensive' (what?! that we say you don't have math??) or 'you can ban me' (oh, come on).

Science is about empirical evidence and objective truths. Stop putting emotional appeals into your claims and the debate will become much more rational.

Now, as I told you before, here's the crux of things:

There are VAST amount of evidence for the BBT, the mathematical model is sound and produces predictions.

If your theory has nothing that can prove itself right *independently* than the BBT, then there's no way of objectively analyzing if your theory is *better* than the BBT. For all intents and purposes, the BBT would be better even just because it has math at the moment and does not require "finite energy for black holes" which is *not* a proven fact.

You cannot claim that your theory uses the BBT set of evidence as a good enough reason for it to be better. You *must* supply a set of evidence (or even PROPOSED evidence!) and falsifiability that are independent.

Think of Einstein's 'expansion' of Newton's gravity. Einstein didn't render Newton's gravity laws *wrong*, they're still right, but he expanded on them. The evidence that was used for Newton's theory *fit* Einstein's theory. *BUT* Einstein's expansion rquired independent evidence -- and he did supply them along with the math. And his "expansion" required independent falsifiability, which he supplied.

You must do the same, or your theory is not a theory.

My model will be ( and currently is by recent observations ) experimentally SUPPORTED. The only way to PROVE it is to wait until the actual end of the universe.

For all intents and purposes, that's unfalsifiable.

Come up with something falsifiable, or the theory is bunk.

The BBT addresses a very narrow portion of the total processes of our universe. Because it did not have the facts that exist today, it was unable to address anything further. I am filling in the blanks. Nobody else seems to be paying attention to all the evidence. I have gathered all the information together into a cohesive, all inclusive ( in the macro universe, anyway ) theory.

You say the BBT is expansive enough. This is irrational. On several levels. If you think it is, then why are we trying to improve it? Seems to me that making the theory complete might qualify as a good reason to replace it.

Now you're making *me* angry. I did not say it was expansive enough, I said it was SUPPORTED by evidence. If you propose an expansion you must support that expanded part by evidence too.

Considering your use of logical fallacies, I would be careful what I call irrational, pywakit.

You stated yourself you're not a physicist and not a mathematician. Don't argue, then, against physics claims and mathematical claims that are brought to you by people who study these issues. You don't have to toss the theory away but you can't claim ignorance on the subject and then claim expertise on the subject. It doesn't work that way.

Onward ... You are so incorrect Moo. You insist I was shown problems. I was not.

I'm not going to argue a cement wall. ajb and Klaynos both LEFT this argument because you insisted on stomping your feet on the ground and IGNORE the problems they raised.

I asked you to read their 30+ posts not to tire you, but to try and get you to go over it again, this time calmly, and see what thy're saying.

I was shown string theory. I was shown poor construction of arguments ignoring obvious facts in evidence. Easily rebutted.

Nope you did not rebut it, and I even showed you why string theory is *not* a valid argument on your part. Please read my first or second post in this exchange, I am getting tired repeating myself and constantly having to go back and forth to older posts to re-post my points.

You can't show one case of circular logic in my model, or my arguments in support of it. If you are going to accuse me of that, you need to back it up with the evidence. Like I do ( as needed ) with every argument I make.

I just did, after ajb showed it to you and Klaynos showed it to you. You need to stop churning water.

If you want to improve this theory to a workin model, there MIGHT be ways to do that, but you have to stop being "holier than thou" and start cooperating. The fact, which you admit to, is that you *dont* know all the physics and mathematics involved. There are people here who do, and who were tryingt o actually *help you*. You took this help as a form of attack and chose to protect your ego rather than try to improve your theory.

We will not have this discussion long, if this keeps going on.

Here is another reason why you anger me. I have posted my list 2 times. Last one was at your request ... #130. You didn't look very hard.

pywakit, stop telling me I "anger you". You anger yourself. I am not going to stop telling you objective questions just because you insist on guilt tripping me into submission.

Your posts are insanely long, as I mentioned, and, quite frankly, you *coudl* be a bit less condecending and just tell me where they were or post them again, seeing as that's what I asked for. If you think I was going to go over your huge posts over and over, you're sorely mistaken.

A good mathematician will be able to work out a complete set of equations for my model. Especially since it will not require magic. Right one hasn't presented himself/herself yet. Someone will.

A good mathematician told you where your model fails. You chose to argue against it instead of trying to find ways to improve it.

Good luck finding a 'good mathematician' that ignores these problems, pywakit.

Okay, I'm having enough of this. I have nothing more to say. Stop being emotional because all that will get you is people frustrated with you. The universe doesn't care about anyone's ego, and you have to start being rational and not emotional.

You can insist your model has no problems until you're blue in the face but that will not change the fact that it *does*.

Did I make you angry wit this? Too bad. You need to make a choice here, pywakit: either you let your ego rule your model and - in all likelyhood - never improve it, or you control your ego, sit down seriously, listen to teh problems people raise, and try to EFFECTIVELY fix them.

Your brandished explanations about why 'black holes have finite mass' is not a problem doesn't make it not a problem. It just convinces you that you're right when you're not.

You need to make a choice here, I can't make ti for you, but I can tell you that I won't continue participating if you don't lay off the guilt-trip 'you make me angry' comments and start arguing objective science.

~moo

**swansont** · January 30, 2010

pywakit, personal attacks are neither permitted nor tolerated. You have already been asked to drop the melodrama and stay on topic; that means discussing the science at hand, and only the science.

Please don't construe this message as an invitation to further discussion on the topic of following the rules. Adherence to the rules is not optional.

pywakit · January 30, 2010

Alright. Let me see if I can recap all of this in a purely objective manner.

The problems ( as you see them ) :

1. String theory is an equal, if not superior alternative to my theory. ( and is falsifiable )

2. My model is not falsifiable.

3. There are no physical laws that can cause a black hole to release it's stored energy. ( and therefore no mathematics that could describe such an event )

4. There is no way to overcome the 'accelerating expansion of the universe'.

5. The BBT is superior because it is 'simpler'.

6. My model can not use the same physics to support it as the BBT does.

Related issues :

7. A lack of formal education in either math or physics reasonably assures us that I lack the capacity to understand the overall functions and processes of the universe ... on the macro scale.

8. A trained mathematician/physicist by definition will understand the overall functions and processes of the macro universe, and will therefore ( presumably ) have at least a good working knowledge of the current state of astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology.

The Rebuttal :

1. I have already posted numerous, clearly adequate, referenced arguments against this assertion, including the actual statements ( not taken out of context ) of actual principles involved in string research, such as Brian Greene. Strings are not falsifiable.

2. Post #130 clearly shows numerous ways my model can be falsified.

3. This assertion is slightly more difficult to address. My claim is based on Einstein's undying insistence that black holes can not form due to angular momentum. I have assumed he based this claim on his knowledge of physics, and his mathematical calculations. Since he was incorrect, I have also assumed ( perhaps incorrectly ) that a good mathematician would be able to 'tweak' Einstein's math ( based on current knowledge of our universe in general, and our knowledge of black holes in particular ), working out a formula for such an occurrence using well understood physics regarding spin, mass, and ( potential ) physical diameter of the black hole.

4. I have laid out my case for this, and I again assume that a clever mathematician can work out the formula for gravity overcoming the expansion ( accelerating recession ) through the mechanism of reduced 'gravitational confusion'.

5. This assertion ignores the reality that the BBT is extremely limited in it's scope. It does not cover the events immediately preceding the BB, the BB itself, or the events immediately following the BB. A model that covers all ( or even just one ) of these issues using known, accepted physics will be, by definition, superior.

6. I have repeatedly stated that my model REQUIRES those same physics to function. The improvements over the BBT stem from the massive amount of observational and experimental evidence that has occurred since the BBT was proposed.

7. As I have repeatedly shown ( using numerous, adequately referenced materials from such sources as NASA, and other top-notch institutions ) a reasonable, and accurate knowledge of differing cosmological models, and a reasonable awareness of the current state of astronomy ... and in particular, a reasonable knowledge of black hole behaviors on the large scale, including accurate predictions of potential mass, ( which GR clearly states is unlimited ... theoretically ) and the commonality of black hole merges ( in contradiction to mainstream science's expectations ) I think this assertion is baseless.

8. The facts do not appear to support this assertion. One of the experts claimed ( in one example ) that black holes were 'likely' limited to 10 billion sols. The only reference given ( as I recall ) to support this claim was "I spoke to a cosmologist." This claim was easily rebutted using numerous references from respected ( presumed ) peer-reviewed sources. In the interest of brevity, I will not list them all again.

In another example, one expert asserted that, in regards to CMBR, "Careful analysis of the CMBR suggests that inflationary cosmology is correct." Once again, this assertion was easily rebutted, with reference material. In virtually all cases, any assertions made by the experts were not accompanied by 3rd party, peer-reviewed reference material supporting their claims.

Lastly, it has been asserted that since I have no ( current ) mathematical full expression of my model ( and accompanying mathematical predictions ) I have "nothing".

Since I am confident ( based on conversations with such luminaries as Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson ) that all aspects of my model fall within the guidelines, and laws of physics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, I think it is not irrational to assume this issue will be remedied in the near future.

Hopefully I have not left out any salient issues.

Edited January 30, 2010 by pywakit

**mooeypoo** · January 30, 2010

Alright. Let me see if I can recap all of this in a purely objective manner.

The problems ( as you see them ) :

1. String theory is an equal, if not superior alternative to my theory. ( and is falsifiable )

Absolutely not, I didn't say that, no one said that but you.

I said you *shouldn't* compare to string theory. It's NOT comparable to your model.

2. My model is not falsifiable.

3. There are no physical laws that can cause a black hole to release it's stored energy. ( and therefore no mathematics that could describe such an event )

4. There is no way to overcome the 'accelerating expansion of the universe'.

There were a few others but these seem to be a good start.

5. A lack of formal education in either math or physics reasonably assures us that I lack the capacity to understand the overall functions and processes of the universe ... on the macro scale.

No, it just means that you might not know everything that is involved in the phenomena you're trying to describe.

6. A trained mathematician/physicist by definition will understand the overall functions and processes of the macro universe, and will therefore ( presumably ) have at least a good working knowledge of the current state of astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology.

You are oversimplifying this. A trained mathematician or physicist could describe the phenomena BETTER. Not necessarily all of them. Better than someone who's not trained.

The Rebuttal :

1. I have already posted numerous, clearly adequate, referenced arguments against this assertion, including the actual statements ( not taken out of context ) of actual principles involved in string research, such as Brian Greene. Strings are not falsifiable.

Again, your comparison to string theory is irrelevant. It's not "yours OR string theory". String theory is a separate theory that isn't yet mainstream, that has SOLID mathematical grounds and problems with falsifiability.

Even if string theory is wrong that doesn't make your theory right or not, it has nothing to do with your model. Totally irrelevant.

2. Post #130 clearly shows numerous ways my model can be falsified.

pywakit, here is the list you supplied:

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.

Okay, I won't go over the other problems that might show the above is true. Fine. All three boil down to the same thing: If it doesn't follow the obervations and experiments we already have. That might be fine, but that's not a falsifiability claim.

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.

How would you suggest we do that?

Is there any way to conduct an experiment or make an observation proving this true (or false) ?

The above two (6 and 7) are statements that are, themselves, unfalsifiable. There's no way to show what you claim in 6 physically (that's EXACTLY the problem of the unfalsifiability of string theory) and no way of finding out 7. Probably not ever. Those aren't falsifiability claims if on their own they're NEVER falsifiable!

Also take into account that while String theory might have unfalsifiable claims, the sheer amount of mathematical solid ground is enough to bring it up as a CONSIDERATION. It's far from being accepted mainstream science, but the fact the math just works out so beautifully in string theory makes it just a little bit more worth our attention.

Yours, I'm sorry to say this again, doesn't have that.

8. If we determine that space itself actually expands.

I don't understand this, but regardless, you are again making a claim without telling us what we need to find out in order to prove/disprove it. This isn't a falsifiable claim, in order to make it falsifiable you need to tell us what experimental result is needed for us to achieve the above conclusion.

Is it even possible? If the answer is "no" or "not at the moment" then the claim is not falsifiable.

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 ).

Same as 8, 7 and 6. This is not falsifiable unless you bring forth a mechanism to MAKE IT falsifiable.

Look. What you're doing is bringing up more CONJECTURE and call it 'falsifiability', while in reality each one of those claims is a hypothesis on its own tht, on its own, requires its OWN FALSIFIABILITY.

Think of this: I make a claim "fairies exist, but we can't detect them". I now bring forth a falsifiable condition: "If we find that unicorns eat red berries, we know fairies don't exist"./ Ignoring the shaky logic I'm making, my own 'falsifiable claim' requires, on its own, a falsifiable condition; how do I prove that unicorns EXIST!?

Your falsifiable claims are the same, and as a result, you have no valid falsifiable claims.

Except, perhaps, this:

12. If we determine that black holes are infinitely dense.

Which, judging from the fact we haven't yet actually SEEN a black hole (we've only so far detected its surroundings, predicted it through math, etc) this might take time.

But this is also one of the *conditions* for your theory to work. Thart is, your theory depends on black holes to NOT be infinitely dense and we don't know that one EITHER.

So.. you need to wait for such evidence to produce itself either here or there - either proving or disproving your theory.

-----

3. This assertion is slightly more difficult to address. My claim is based on Einstein's undying insistence that black holes can not form due to angular momentum. I have assumed he based this claim on his knowledge of physics, and his mathematical calculations. Since he was incorrect, I have also assumed ( perhaps incorrectly ) that a good mathematician would be able to 'tweak' Einstein's math ( based on current knowledge of our universe in general, and our knowledge of black holes in particular ), working out a formula for such an occurence using well understood physics regarding spin, mass, and ( potential ) physical diameter of the black hole.

I'm sorry, but you were given an explanation from 2 members why this is not true.

Einstein's math didn't just come off the ether; it emerged out of PREVIOUS equations, evidence and experimentation. You don't just 'tweak it' to make it work your way; you need to show WHY you tweak it, what's the reason for the NEED to tweak it (it works just fine with no tweaks) and hwo you tweak it.

I know you keep saying that a 'good mathematician' will do that, but you're wrong, and other than telling you to go study at least one university-level course in special relativity(that shows you where the math came from) I am not sure what else to do to make you understand this point.

4. I have laid out my case for this, and I again assume that a clever mathematician can work out the formula for gravity overcoming the expansion through the mechanism of reduced 'gravitational confusion'.

Again, what you assume is irrelevant. You're wrong.

[...] I need to go out, so I'm skipping the rest for now -- the above shows most ofthe big problems anyways, there's no need to continue for now. We can leave the rest for later.

I will say this, though:

Since I am confident ( based on conversations with such luminaries as Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson ) that all aspects of my model fall within the guidelines, and laws of physics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, I think it is not irrational to assume this issue will be remedied in the near future.

I, too, spoke to Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but I *doubt* he told you the problems in your model in depth. He is a very good astrophysicist; you might have had time to graze over the interesting basics, but I am VERY VERY doubtful he actually heard your theory and accepted it.

That said, and again, I don't want any emotions here, but I think part of the problem is that you're confident. A scientist should always suspect something's wrong with a theory; they should always search for flaws, problems, missing stuff, they should always listen to criticism to strenghten their own theory so that the theory will emerge STRONG and impossible to shatter.

You tend to be overly confident. So much so, that you seem to dismiss our claims offhand. ajb and Klaynos did not "fail" pywakit, they GAVE UP. There might be potential in this theory, sure, but you have GOT to start listening to criticism. If your plan is to publish this, I guarantee that the criticism you're getting here is a gentle cuddly kind compared to what will happen after publication.

~moo

Sign In

Cosmological Model of The Universe

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Mr Skeptic

pywakit

michel123456

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Important Information