liarliarpof Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 I'll comment on the particulars of your theory later but, for now, just wanted to say you are correct in stating that the scientific community as a whole is disinterested in the ideas of 'outsiders'. More unsettling is that the scientific 'institutions' are flat out intolerant in matters of opposing viewpoints. I believe it was Lee Smolin that stated a few years ago that ~90% of Theoretical Physics Post-Docs are researching ST, and not all by choice. The remaining 10% have been effectively branded and, for now, have committed career suicide by daring to stray from the pack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 I'll comment on the particulars of your theory later but, for now, just wanted to say you are correct in stating that the scientific community as a whole is disinterested in the ideas of 'outsiders'. Unfortunately most of "outsider ideas" are founded upon misunderstandings, either with the statements/mathematics of a theory or even what theoretical really is. Just about all the new ideas posted on this forum fall into this category. The real trouble with this is that most of us on here are not going to expend much time or energy looking into proposals here. Especially if little knowledge of physics is evident from other posts. More unsettling is that the scientific 'institutions' are flat out intolerant in matters of opposing viewpoints. I believe it was Lee Smolin that stated a few years ago that ~90% of Theoretical Physics Post-Docs are researching ST, and not all by choice. The remaining 10% have been effectively branded and, for now, have committed career suicide by daring to stray from the pack. I don't know it it is that hight, but for sure string theory and related things are very fashionable. There does appear to be quite a few of postdoc positions related directly to string theory. Stringy-ideas have also influenced other theories, especially SUSY and quantum gravity. It is also true that stringy-ideas have influenced pure mathematics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pywakit Posted January 7, 2010 Author Share Posted January 7, 2010 (edited) I think one thing that must be made clear is that a physical theory is a mathematical model and that I would not worry about any conceptional difficulties of an infinitly thin classical string or infinitly small classical point-particle. Neither are directly observable in the theory so we are ok. I think you will admit how profound mathematics has been in understanding nature and in particular the physical sciences. This is truly wonderful and gives me great confidence that one should not be afraid to follow the mathematics. However, one must also not get lost in endless generalities nor lose site of (at least attempting to) make contact with the natural world. I think I would agree that theoretical physics can seem to lose sight of this contact. Part of theoretical physic is to understand the mechanisms needed, so toy models and idealisations are key. (What I am interested in is even further from "physics" that this. I work on "general methods and constructions", particularly form a geometric angle .) Buy a sphere do you mean a ball [math]B_{3}[/math] or a sphere [math]S^{2}[/math] which is the boundary of the three-ball. It could be interesting to find out what has been studied about the classical and quantum theory of such objects (as embeddings in a larger space-time ). I think it would get tough very quickly. Anyway, push your ideas until they succeed or fail. You will learn a lot even if it just falls apart. To your last statement ... yes. Before I say anything else, I want to stress once more that strings are still ( technically ) hypothetical. So they can't be used as an argument against my model. And I don't want to debate strings or spheres in this thread, as they are not germane to the model. If you want to continue, a new thread would be appropriate. ( edit ) I'm sorry. That was rude of me. I need to work harder on my tactfulness. Add the word 'please' after 'debate'. That said, I will address your previous post. First paragraph: I don't think we ARE ok. I don't think infintely small is possible in the universe, other than as a mathematical construct. There is still no evidence infinitely small is possible. It has nothing to do with my ability, or inability to conceptualize them ( strings ). I just don't think the universe allows one-dimensional objects. Second paragraph: Total agreement. Third paragraph: Without physics we would understand little of our universe. It is an awe-inspiring construct. Fifth paragraph: Since we are assuming strings 'vibrate' at different frequencies, I think the spheres must be solid, as opposed to hollow. I think they would vibrate/resonate 'better' than hollow structures. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Michel sees a 'contradiction' in my little spheres. What purpose could it serve to consider three-dimensional spheres when one-dimensional 'strings' are so much closer to 'infinitely small'? Well' date=' my answer would be ... there is no such thing as 'one-dimensional' objects in a three-dimensional universe. They are purely mathematical constructs. QUOTE'] Yes, you are probably right. I was probably wrong. But I realized it after writing my post. Except for the point that we are not living in 3D universe, we are living in 4D universe. You forgot Time. And when you say "there is no such thing as 'one-dimensional' objects(...)" what would you say for zero-dimensionnal object (a point)? Michel, I don't think the universe allows anything but 3 dimensional objects. So zero dimensional is ... again ... a mathematical construct unrelated to the physical universe. We just have no evidence, to my knowledge, that any physical structure has zero dimensions. ...................................................................................................................... On a personal note ... it is distressing that I can not go back and correct my factual errors. I am quite embarrassed by them. Thankfully, none of them are relevant to, or falsify, the model. Thank you all again for being so patient, and allowing me this opportunity to share my theory(s). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThis latest from Universe Today http://www.universetoday.com 1/4/10 Astronomers have discovered 33 pairs of merging black holes in cosmic dances around each other, a finding that was predicted or 'choreographed' by Isaac Newton. "These results are significant because we now know that these 'waltzing' black holes are much more common than previously known," said Dr. Julia Comerford of the University of California, Berkeley, at the American Astronomical Society meeting in Washington, DC. "Galaxy mergers are causing the waltzing, can use this finding to determine how often mergers occur. The black holes dancing towards us are shifted towards blue light, and those moving away from us are shifted toward the red. So it is like a cosmic disco ball showing us where the black holes are dancing." Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedScienceDaily (Sep. 10, 2008) There appears to be an upper limit to how big the Universe's most massive black holes can get, according to new research led by a Yale University astrophysicist and published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Once considered rare and exotic objects, black holes are now known to exist throughout the Universe, with the largest and most massive found at the centres of the largest galaxies. These "ultra-massive" black holes have been shown to have masses upwards of one billion times that of our own Sun. Now, Priyamvada Natarajan, an associate professor of astronomy and physics at Yale University and a fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, has shown that even the biggest of these gravitational monsters can't keep growing forever. Instead, they appear to curb their own growth - once they accumulate about 10 billion times the mass of the Sun. Space.com 1/9/08 AUSTIN, Texas — The most massive black hole in the universe tips the cosmic scales at 18 billion times more massive than the sun, astronomers suggest today at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society. Even though researchers suggested black holes up to this mass might exist in quasars, this is the first direct confirmation of such a behemoth. The hefty gravity well is six times more massive than the previous record and is orbited by a smaller black hole, which allowed the measurement of the giant's mass. Black holes can't be seen, but astronomers detect them by noting how other objects are affected by the tremendous gravity created in tremendously small sphere of space. The binary black hole system powers a quasar known as OJ287, which is located 3.5 billion light-years from us in the constellation Cancer. The quasar — an overwhelming beacon of light associated with a developing galaxy — has been studied in .... NewScientist http://www.newscientist.com September 3, 2008 by David Shiga Just how big can a black hole grow? Two astronomers reckon they have worked out the answer: colossal black holes with a mass of up to 50 billion suns could be lurking out there - but that's the limit. Giant black holes sit at the cores of virtually all galaxies, and are thought to have grown from smaller seed black holes that swallowed lots of matter. The biggest well-measured one resides in the galaxy Messier 87 and has the mass of 3 billion suns, a measurement based on the speed of the gas swirling around it. Even bigger black holes are waiting to be found, say Priya Natarajan of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Ezequiel Treister of the European Southern Observatory in Santiago, Chile. In a study to appear in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, the pair examined the "feeding habits" and growth of black holes. They used data from surveys carried out by other teams that observed the X-rays and visible light emitted by matter as it is devoured by black holes. The properties of this radiation can be used to estimate a black hole's mass and how quickly it is gobbling up its surroundings. The team analysed how many galactic black holes of various masses were present at each stage in the universe's history. The distribution of masses they found today and in the past can only be explained if there is a limit on how fast black holes can grow, the researchers say. Ultramassive black hole Previous studies have also suggested this, and it may be due to the way radiation from infalling matter blasts the black hole's neighbourhood free of additional sustenance. "They self-regulate," says Natarajan. "They never grow beyond a certain mass in any epoch." Knowing this growth rate allowed them to work out the modern-day size of the biggest known black holes that existed in the early universe. Back then, they are estimated to have had the mass of about a billion suns. According to Natarajan and Treister, a few black holes of this size may have bloated to "ultramassive" size by now, with between 5 and 50 billion times the sun's mass, at the most. Even a black hole at the lower end of this range would be gargantuan - more than 3 times as wide as our solar system. One ultramassive black hole may already have been spotted 3.5 billion light years away in the galaxy OJ 287, which is thought to harbour a pair of giant black holes circling each other at its centre. The larger of the two has been estimated to be 18 billion solar masses, based on the properties of radiation outbursts from the system, but astronomers disagree on how accurate this is. From Stardate blackholes.stardate.org Supermassive black holes: These are the black hole behemoths, weighing in at a few million to a few billion times the mass of the Sun. These black holes inhabit the cores of galaxies. Name: Mass (Suns): Distance (light-years): M105 60 million to 200 million 38 million M31 30 million 2.4 million M32 3 million 2.4 million M51 1 million 27 million M60 1.6 billion to 3.4 billion 51 million M77 15 million 50 million to 60 million M81 7 million 12 million M84 Roughly 1.5 billion 50 million M87 3 billion to 7 billion 50 million Milky Way Sagittarius A* 2.6 million to 4 million 27,000 NGC 1023 40 million to 60 million 33 million NGC 2778 9 million to 36 million 76 million NGC 2787 36 million to 45 million 24 million NGC 3115 400 million to 2 billion 32 million NGC 3377 30 million to 120 million 33 million NGC 3516 23 million 120 million NGC 3783 8 million to 10 million 130 million NGC 4061 1 billion to 9 billion 325 million NGC 4261 500 million to 1.2 billion 100 million NGC 4473 Roughly 100 million 50 million NGC 4697 Roughly 175 million 40 million NGC 541 Unknown 216 million NGC 7457 2.1 million to 4.6 million 43 million NGC 821 50 million to 100 million 100 million RX J1242-11 100 million 700 million It is interesting to note that although the math/physics does not limit a black hole's mass, researchers continue to attempt to place arbitrary limits on it's size. So what is it? 10B sols? 18B? 50B? I am certain we will discover ( very soon ) black holes much more massive than those listed above. And much more massive than the arbitrary limits set by these researchers. I would also like to correct an error I made. I incorrectly stated that Einstein said black holes would not be limited to C rotational speeds. This error does not affect my model in any tangible way. However, as math and physics breakdown at the 'singularity' ... where space has collapsed, I think we will find the spin is NOT limited by the normal laws of space. This does not mean that it could have infinite spin, as an infinite spin would require an infinite amount of mass. **Can't wait to see what measurements they come up with for the combined masses of all those merging pairs ... ** Edited January 7, 2010 by pywakit Consecutive posts merged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 First paragraph: I don't think we ARE ok. I don't think infintely small is possible in the universe, other than as a mathematical construct. There is still no evidence infinitely small is possible. It has nothing to do with my ability, or inability to conceptualize them ( strings ). I just don't think the universe allows one-dimensional objects. Observables cannot be infinitly big or infinitesimally small. This does not rule out non-observable constructs. A classical infinitly thin string or an infinitesimal point-particle are not by themselves observable. So there is no conceptional problem or mismatch with observed physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pywakit Posted January 7, 2010 Author Share Posted January 7, 2010 ajb writes: Observables cannot be infinitly big or infinitesimally small. This does not rule out non-observable constructs. A classical infinitly thin string or an infinitesimal point-particle are not by themselves observable. So there is no conceptional problem or mismatch with observed physics. Of course the above is true by definition. No, they are 'not' ruled out. However, I am reminded of another concept(s) that also cannot be 'ruled out'. You will find it in those marvelous ( and ancient ) Theoretical Cosmological Models of the Universe, "The Bible" and "The Quran". My only point is that ... so far ... we have no evidence ( to my knowledge ) to support their existence in the physical universe. Perhaps someday that will change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liarliarpof Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 ajb: How about this - the 'primordial singularity' responsible for the 'blood-splatter' evidence at this crime scene we analyze, after delivering its cargo, began to contract at a rate ~ inverse to that of the erstwhile expansion. Then we could be facing scales of magnitudes(minitudes?) of negative googleplexes and beyond, but forever nonzero. Speculative of course and perhaps wacky, but the touch of symmetry involved I find intriguing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Of course the above is true by definition. No, they are 'not' ruled out. However, I am reminded of another concept(s) that also cannot be 'ruled out'. You will find it in those marvelous ( and ancient ) Theoretical Cosmological Models of the Universe, "The Bible" and "The Quran". My only point is that ... so far ... we have no evidence ( to my knowledge ) to support their existence in the physical universe. Perhaps someday that will change. Point particle theories include the standard model of particle physics, which has been experimentally verified to some huge degree of accuracy. In fact, it contains many non-observable constructs in various forms. This does not matter as the predicted observables match reality very well. I will concede that as of now there is no compelling evidence that string theory is realised in nature. However, the fact that classical strings can be infinity thin is by no means a problem. I do not see how the creation myths in the holy books can be compared to string cosmology that attempts to make predictions that can be tested. For one, string cosmology can evolve and may even fail completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pywakit Posted January 9, 2010 Author Share Posted January 9, 2010 (edited) ajb writes: Point particle theories include the standard model of particle physics, which has been experimentally verified to some huge degree of accuracy. In fact, it contains many non-observable constructs in various forms. This does not matter as the predicted observables match reality very well. I will concede that as of now there is no compelling evidence that string theory is realised in nature. However, the fact that classical strings can be infinity thin is by no means a problem. I do not see how the creation myths in the holy books can be compared to string cosmology that attempts to make predictions that can be tested. For one, string cosmology can evolve and may even fail completely. I apologize as always for failing to express myself in an understandable way. I do not give those books equal comparative validity. Yes, they were myths ... looking back from a 2000 year ( plus or minus ) later perspective. But at the time of their creation they provided a ( reasonable? ) model for the form and function ( for what little they had observed ) of the universe. ST has much more going for it ... lol. You are absolutely right. The predictions work ... to a point. But to date ... predictions of anything being 'infinitely small' are not borne out by observations. Infinitely thin strings are not a problem mathematically in themselves, although other aspects of their 'possible' behavior have run into major difficulties. ( as has already been discussed ) Please correct me if I am wrong, but the classic 'singularity' of a finite mass with an infinite density and zero volume ( zero dimensions ) is again, a mathematical construct only. We have no direct evidence that black holes do not exist 3 dimensionally. We could 'look' directly at one a million kilometers in diameter, and we would not see it. We would only see the accretion disc if it had one, or infer the black hole's existence from observing matter in orbit around it. And of course we could see any emitted radiation from the feeding process. Extremely compact is a certainty. But 'infinitely' dense runs into problems. For one, it is a one-way street. The mass would be forever lost from our universe ... Without some 'magic' act, there does not seem to be a mechanism allowed by physics for the release of that mass. Second, it would require an infinite amount of mass to create infinite density, and there ( to our knowledge ) is not an infinite amount of mass in our visible/local universe. As far as 'shunting' mass to other dimensions ... if they exist at all ... this process also runs into problems. The black hole would lose it's gravitational mass. Once the process began, it seems likely the black hole would simply disappear from our universe. And of course we have no observational evidence of such an occurrence. At least Hawking and I are in agreement over this. I am not faulting the math. I am just saying that it appears the universe won't allow infinitely small objects. There are limits. (edit) I hate to keep stating the obvious, but we have to remember that even if one dimensional objects such as strings were proven to exist, it is still a rather gigantic leap to infer from them the existence of any other dimensions than the ones we currently observe. ______________ Edited January 9, 2010 by pywakit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 In classical general relativity a singularity is a point where the curvature is infinite. However, no-one really expect them to exist in nature. Quantum effects presumably regulate this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pywakit Posted January 9, 2010 Author Share Posted January 9, 2010 (edited) In classical general relativity a singularity is a point where the curvature is infinite. However, no-one really expect them to exist in nature. Quantum effects presumably regulate this. I agree. So perhaps we should stop referring to a black hole as an 'infinitely' dense, 'infinitely' small structure. (edit) ajb ... am I correct in that 'strings' are but one possible mathematical outcome among a ridiculously high number of possible outcomes? I mean, if 'strings' are a mathematical certainty to the exclusion of all other possible outcomes, then what is there left to argue about? But they are not .... Edited January 9, 2010 by pywakit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 If we are discussing black holes in the context of general relativity then referring to the singularity as a point is ok. Though technically one may wish to cut out this point to so that the space-time remains a Riemannian manifold. But we are nor getting into technicalities and mathematical physics. We also have various branes, both p-branes and Dp-branes in string theory. But I do not think we are totally free to define the dimensions of these objects. For example in type IIA we have Dp-branes for p = 0,2,4,6,8 and for type IIB we have p = -1,1,3,5,7,9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pywakit Posted January 10, 2010 Author Share Posted January 10, 2010 (edited) I don't like using wiki, as I am always a little leary .... but I will make an exception here. A tachyon (pronounced /ˈtækiˌɒn/; Greek: ταχύς, takhus, "swift" + English: -on "elementary particle") is a hypothetical subatomic particle that travels faster than the speed of light. In the language of special relativity, a tachyon is a particle with space-like four-momentum and imaginary proper time. A tachyon is constrained to the space-like portion of the energy-momentum graph. Therefore, it cannot slow down to subluminal speeds. The first description of tachyons is attributed to German physicist Arnold Sommerfeld. However, it was George Sudarshan,[1] Olexa-Myron Bilaniuk,[2] Vijay Deshpande, [2] and Gerald Feinberg[3] (who originally coined the term in the 1960s) that advanced a theoretical framework for their study. If tachyons were conventional, localizable particles which could be used to send signals faster than light, this would lead to violations of causality in special relativity. But in the framework of quantum field theory, tachyons are understood as signifying an instability of the system and treated using tachyon condensation, rather than as real faster-than-light particles, and such instabilities are described by tachyonic fields. Tachyonic fields have appeared theoretically in a variety of contexts, such as the bosonic string theory. According to the contemporary and widely accepted understanding of the concept of a particle, tachyon particles are too unstable to be treated as existent.[4] By that theory, faster than light information transmission and causality violation with tachyons are impossible. Since a tachyon moves faster than the speed of light, we cannot see it approaching. After a tachyon has passed nearby, we would be able to see two images of it, appearing and departing in opposite directions. The black line is the shock wave of Cherenkov radiation, shown only in one moment of time. This double image effect is most prominent for an observer located directly in the path of an FTL object (in this example a sphere, shown in grey). The right hand bluish shape is the image formed by the blue-doppler shifted light arriving at the observer—who is located at the apex of the black Cherenkov lines—from the FTL sphere as it approaches. The left-hand reddish image is formed from redshifted light that leaves the sphere after it passes the observer. Since the object arrives before the light the observer sees nothing until the sphere starts to pass the observer, after which the image-as-seen-by-the-observer splits into two—one of the arriving sphere (to the right) and one of the departing sphere (to the left).Despite the theoretical arguments against the existence of tachyon particles, experimental searches have been conducted to test the assumption against their existence; however, no experimental evidence for or against the existence of tachyon particles has been found.[5] It fascinates me how quicky, and easily tachyons have morphed ( through popular culture ) from hypothetical to real! And this misunderstanding is not alleviated when nice scientists incorporate them in their 'theories', and speak of them as 'givens'. Yes. An interesting quirk of human cognition. Really, in many ways, no different than religion. ajb, I am not, nor have I ever been, a religious man. This allows me the freedom to question every claim ( whether religious, political, or scientific, etc. ) from an objective viewpoint. It's easy to seperate beliefs from reality ... if you don't have beliefs. I started to ( in response to your 'authoritively' stated 'we' ) dig into the types of branes ( just trying to be fair, here ) that could range in size from infinitisimally small to universe sized ... but it does not take long to re-establish firmly in my mind that all of the above are on very shaky ground ... still. I think we will ultimately discover that the universe is not all that complicated. It has very simple and obvious properties that we observe every day. And try as we might, we are never ( IMO ) going to force the universe to comply with our complex, and contorted view. Math is wonderful. Physics is wonderful. But they are imperfect, especially when they stray from our observations, and butt up against reality. Maybe I am wrong about all of this. But it appears to me that the major questions can be solved simply by using Newton, and Einstein. And figuring out how to adjust the math and physics to conform to reality, instead of trying to force reality to conform to the math. However ... all avenues need to be explored. We have brilliant people like you ajb, and Green, and so many more who have the best ( so far ) possible technological tools with which to explore these possibilities. Even Einstein could not have forseen the incredible tools Man has invented to investigate our universe. He would be so envious. As you said to me, push your ideas until they succeed or fail. Even if my model is correct, there will never be a shortage of questions needing to be answered. And we will never stop devising better and better ways to answer those questions. Edited January 10, 2010 by pywakit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 It fascinates me how quicky, and easily tachyons have morphed ( through popular culture ) from hypothetical to real! And this misunderstanding is not alleviated when nice scientists incorporate them in their 'theories', and speak of them as 'givens'. If you look at bosonic sting theory, you see that the vacuum state is tachyonic. There is no way around this. There is a similar problem with superstring theory, however there is a consistent procedure for removing this, known as the GSO projection. In point-particle theories tachyons are known to be an artefact of doing perturbation theory around a false vacua. They are inherently unstable and decay. In string theories with branes present, tachyons represent an inherent instability of certain branes. This is the tachyon condensation in string theory. It gets technical very quickly. .. in response to your 'authoritively' stated 'we' .. By "we" I meant everyone. D-branes acts as sources for RR-fields, which you can think of a a higher order generalisation of electromagnetic fields. The RR-fields are determined in the string theory and thus places restrictions on the D-branes. Maybe I am wrong about all of this. But it appears to me that the major questions can be solved simply by using Newton, and Einstein. And figuring out how to adjust the math and physics to conform to reality, instead of trying to force reality to conform to the math. Lots of things are understood in the context of classical mechanics, quantum field theory or general relativity. However, there are plenty of things that are not well understood. Even if my model is correct, there will never be a shortage of questions needing to be answered Every step forward seems to open up new questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pywakit Posted January 16, 2010 Author Share Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) More BH updates ... From Discover online: http://www.discovermagazine.com Are Black Holes the Architects of the Universe? Long known for their obliterating power, black holes may also have been a creative force: New evidence suggests that they gave order to the chaotic mess produced by the Big Bang. by Andrew Grant From the December 2009 issue; published online January 4, 2010 An excerpt: Black holes are finally winning some respect. After long regarding them as agents of destruction or dismissing them as mere by-products of galaxies and stars, scientists are recalibrating their thinking. Now it seems that black holes debuted in a constructive role and appeared unexpectedly soon after the Big Bang. “Several years ago, nobody imagined that there were such monsters in the early universe,” says Penn State astrophysicist Yuexing Li. “Now we see that black holes were essential in creating the universe’s modern structure.” Black holes, tortured regions of space where the pull of gravity is so intense that not even light can escape, did not always have such a high profile. They were once thought to be very rare; in fact, Albert Einstein did not believe they existed at all. Over the past several decades, though, astronomers have realized that black holes are not so unusual after all: Supermassive ones, millions or billions of times as hefty as the sun, seem to reside at the center of most, if not all, galaxies. Still, many people were shocked in 2003 when a detailed sky survey found that giant black holes were already common nearly 13 billion years ago, when the universe was less than a billion years old. Since then, researchers have been trying to figure out where these primordial holes came from and how they influenced the cosmic events that followed. As expected, this new information fits nicely within the parameters of my model ... and only increases the likelihood of discovering black holes in excess of 50B sols, as my model predicts. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIrrelevant I suppose, but I just want to say that 50 years ago I couldn't wait for the 21st century to arrive. I had very high hopes that the 'predictions' I had made about our universe would be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. I have yet to be disappointed. And yes, I still could be wrong ... but either way, what an exciting time to be alive! PS: I hope the above referenced material is not considered 'hand waving'. It seems reasonable to post recent, reliable evidence to further support my model, and of course I welcome any posts referencing opposing views. Edited January 16, 2010 by pywakit Consecutive posts merged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 Are Black Holes the Architects of the Universe? Interesting. The question arises from the fact that we are observing BH very very far from us, in the very early universe. At first sight it is curious, because for creating a BH, you need sufficient time. You don't have enough time in the early universe. There are 4 possibilities: 1. we are interpreting in a wrong sense the data.We have to redo our maths. 2. the BH are created very quickly. We have to redo our maths. 3. the BH are inherent structural elements of the universe, they have been there all the time. We have to redo our maths. 4. the BH are not created quickly. What we are observing so far from us is not the very early universe. Paradoxally, we don't have to redo our maths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pywakit Posted January 16, 2010 Author Share Posted January 16, 2010 Interesting.The question arises from the fact that we are observing BH very very far from us, in the very early universe. At first sight it is curious, because for creating a BH, you need sufficient time. You don't have enough time in the early universe. There are 4 possibilities: 1. we are interpreting in a wrong sense the data.We have to redo our maths. 2. the BH are created very quickly. We have to redo our maths. 3. the BH are inherent structural elements of the universe, they have been there all the time. We have to redo our maths. 4. the BH are not created quickly. What we are observing so far from us is not the very early universe. Paradoxally, we don't have to redo our maths. Michel, I may be wrong, but I think the solution is much simpler. We have no way at this moment ( to my knowledge ) to peer into the plasma cloud. I think we will drastically improve our 'vision' very soon ... this year ... and I think we will find that the intitial expansion?/inflation?/BB?/'singularity'? did not release it's energy in as nearly a homogeneous way as we have presumed. In fact, it is quite possible that an ultramassive BH remained behind after the initial expansion, along with countless other 'clumps' of matter/energy. There could have been innumerable black holes spawned immediately from this initial release of energy. I think this hypothesis is very much in line with our understanding of physics, and our current observations. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedPerhaps this is a poor analogy, but I would point to the current observations of our own solar system, and the Milky Way. When our proto-sun exploded the lightest materials on average ended up the farthest away. Denser material remained very close. The only rocky 'planets' beyond Mars, are the satellites of gas giants. And the MW is clearly denser the closer we get to the core. There just does not seem to be any evidence pointing to a nice, even release of energy ( irrespective of density ) in any structure in our visible universe, and I can't see the logic in assuming such a ( generally ) homogeneous event would have occurred with the BB model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted January 17, 2010 Share Posted January 17, 2010 (...)and I think we will find that the intitial expansion?/inflation?/BB?/'singularity'? did not release it's energy in as nearly a homogeneous way as we have presumed.(..) There just does not seem to be any evidence pointing to a nice, even release of energy ( irrespective of density ) in any structure in our visible universe, and I can't see the logic in assuming such a ( generally ) homogeneous event would have occurred with the BB model. Hum, I agree. When a chef coq tries making mayonnaise sauce, his goal is to make something coherent. When the ingredients agglomerate, the sauce is a failure. The whole universe may be a failure after all, who knows? We are so used to consider our universe admirable because we are part of it and we are admirable. Maybe we should take a step back and look at things more objectively. On the other hand, the current model of the universe presents a single creation. The entire universe is a single entity that was created at a single moment in time. I am not sure this is correct. I think your ideas should be suitable for a multiple creation model, in which "creation" does not happen once but many times and in many places. Of course in this case the concept "creation" loses some of its strength, but if it is compatible with observation, why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pywakit Posted January 17, 2010 Author Share Posted January 17, 2010 Hum, I agree. When a chef coq tries making mayonnaise sauce, his goal is to make something coherent. When the ingredients agglomerate, the sauce is a failure. The whole universe may be a failure after all, who knows? We are so used to consider our universe admirable because we are part of it and we are admirable. Maybe we should take a step back and look at things more objectively. Lol. I've never considered us 'admirable'. Fortunate would be a better description. The universe's failure ( as you amusingly put it ) is our gain. Clumpy is good! I agree ... Mankind is not, and never has been, 'long' on objectivity. I have always thought of us as extremely specialized ... but not special. I think I am in the minority in this view. On the other hand, the current model of the universe presents a single creation. The entire universe is a single entity that was created at a single moment in time. I am not sure this is correct. I think your ideas should be suitable for a multiple creation model, in which "creation" does not happen once but many times and in many places. Of course in this case the concept "creation" loses some of its strength, but if it is compatible with observation, why not. Yes ... The BBM does not address anything beyond our particular existence. And just to be clear, my model doesn't either, except as an addendum. I see no intelligence at work in the construction of our visible/local/finite universe, or the infinite universe that lays beyond our expanding bubble. It just 'is'. And for no other reason than WE exist, it is quite obvious ... looking at it in a purely objective manner ... the process that allows us to exist in physical dimensions must be currently, and has been in the past, repeated an infinite number of times. It is incomprehensible to me how humans, science minded or not, can actually believe that nothing ... absolutely nothing ... existed anywhere before our universe sprang forth. And that when we are gone ... nothing will ever exist again. This is just lunacy. The laws of space are not unique 'to' or 'for' US. Why should they be unique to our visible/local/finite universe? Not to soapbox here ... but if I may make another quick observation. 51 years ago, I was desperate to be rescued. I wanted OFF this planet ( well, the island I lived on, anyway ... lol ) of totally irrational humans who kept raving about this 'supreme being' ... and who were sure if they just beat me enough times, I would become irrational, too. I KNEW there must be other planets out there with inhabitants who were not quite so insane ... and who might treat me a little better than the inhabitants of my own planet. But humanity was, at that time, being assured that it was quite impossible ( now and in the future ) to know if any other planets existed ... because we could never see a non-radiating object in close proximity to a star. Of course now we know better. Sadly, the refrain changes little in half a century. Humanity is now being assured that we will 'never' know for sure if there is anything beyond our local universe, because we will never be able to 'see' beyond it. The fact is, we didn't need to actually see exoplanets to 'know' they existed. It was ludicrous to think our star ... and our star alone ... had planets out of QUADRILLIONS of stars that we knew existed even 50 years ago. Very soon we will come to realize we don't need to 'see' an infinite number of universes to know that they exist. At this moment in our development, that realization is just difficult to adjust to. But we will get there. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMore from Space.com: Black holes spin near the speed of light Nine huge galaxies were found to contain furiously whirling black holes Supermassive black holes spin at speeds approaching the speed of light, new research suggests. Nine huge galaxies were found to contain furiously whirling black holes that pump out energetic jets of gas into the surrounding environment, according to a study using data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory. "We think these monster black holes are spinning close to the limit set by Einstein's theory of relativity, which means that they can drag material around them at close to the speed of light," said Rodrigo Nemmen, the study's lead author and a visiting graduate student at Penn State University. Einstein's theory suggests spinning black holes would make space itself rotate. The overall effect makes gas spiral in toward the black hole, and also creates a magnetic field that shoots inflowing gas back out as a jet. Researchers previously found that the greater the amount of gas falling into supermassive black holes — known as the accretion rate — the greater the energy of the jets shooting out. Leading theories suggest that the same jets drive the rotation of the central black holes in galaxies. "By comparing observations of massive elliptical galaxies with current theories of jet formation, we are able to get the spin of supermassive black holes," Nemmen told SPACE.com, explaining how his group ran computer simulations and compared the results with Chandra's observations of the nine objects. Black holes can't be seen, but their existence and mass are inferred by their gravitational effects on material around them and by the energy released from all the activity. The observed jet power and accretion rates were huge — one black hole ate 10 Earth masses per month and, from its surroundings, spat out 50 times the annual energy of our sun per second. That allowed Nemmen and his colleagues to estimate that the spin of the black holes approaches Einstein's speed-of-light limit. "Extremely fast spin might be very common for large black holes," said co-investigator Richard Bower of Durham University. "This might help us explain the source of these incredible jets that we see stretching for enormous distances across space." The jets produced by such high-speed spins heat the surrounding gaseous atmosphere and can help trigger the birth of stars. However, such powerful jets could also destroy the atmospheres of neighboring planets. The new research was detailed in a paper presented at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Austin, Texas, last week. © 2010 Space.com. All rights reserved. If black holes can drag space, and matter/energy along with it at speeds near c, then I do not think it unreasonable to hypothesize rotational velocities of the 'singularity' ( the actual 3d structure ) exceeding c. Matter/energy is obviously limited to c or minus c in 'normal' space. But it seems the more we observe black holes, the more evidence we have that thay are not 'in' normal space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted January 17, 2010 Share Posted January 17, 2010 Hey what happened? We remained the 2 of us. Where are the others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pywakit Posted January 17, 2010 Author Share Posted January 17, 2010 Hey what happened? We remained the 2 of us. Where are the others? They are not gone. They are thinking about all this. ( too assumptive? ) I fully expect additional reasoned arguments against the model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pywakit Posted January 24, 2010 Author Share Posted January 24, 2010 (edited) In the interest of clarification, I provide this interim up-date on the model. I am grateful to Ed Hill from Florida for his assistance. This is my reply to his summary of the model. He goes by quantum_wave. Hopefully this will answer questions/common misconceptions about the model in a more concise, and clear manner. Originally Posted by quantum_waveIt has been interesting communicating with you and getting down to what your model really is about . I think the next step is for me to post what I have learned from our PMs to test my understanding. I have left out any axiomatic statements you might or might not want to include. You can address, confirm or correct my understanding of your model. ” Nice job. Just a couple errors, and omissions. “ 1) You have multiple big bangs fueled by the energy of space but your model proposes that the occurrences of those big bangs are spaced far enough apart to allow all of them to be separate systems in themselves; bang, collapse, bang, collapse without out losing any energy, and without any physical or inertial connection between them, i.e. each is a closed system. ” Yes. And I base this on the very low energy density of space. I do not use hypothetical alternate dimensions ( or any metaphysical incarnation ) as a source for the energy, so it would take a great deal of space to equal the energy content of a universe like ours. I think we will find that in a sense, the macro universe operates much as the micro universe. Quantum fluctuations on an infinite scale. Each universe is comparable to a materializing particle. Flashing into existence, it is annihilated instantly by the anti-particle. To an infinite-in-volume, and eternal-in-age universe, our BB universe would seem little more than a quick, and faint flash. Furthermore, By virtue of GR, and all known observations going back over 13 billion light years, I feel we now have adequate evidence ( notwithstanding chaos theory ) that all space is indeed uniform**, and we can safely assume ( as a reasonable working model ) that the same laws of physics, chemistry, EM ... and GR ... will apply at any location throughout the infinite universe. ( ** This aspect of the model is hypothesis. It is hoped that new observations, and measurements currently being performed by the Planck Telescope, and others will establish this to a reasonable assumption shortly.) Because of this we can also assume ** that all universes will have formed originally in exactly the same manner ... energy robbed from the fabric of space. And once established they will repeat forever. We can be assured ** that they all operate under the same laws, and are all closed systems by our measurements of CMBR. There is no evidence of CMBR coming from outside our expanding bubble of matter/energy. “ 2) You have the black holes at the center of galaxies growing by capturing the galactic stars and energy. In addition you have some black holes no longer gravity bound to galaxies, roaming free. Of course they will become bound again as the merging proceeds. ” Yes. “ 3) You have those enlarged black holes increasing their spin as they grow. ” Yes. Recent observational evidence from Chandra suggests supermassive black holes ( 9 ) all apparently spinning at close to c. If this is accurate, then we already have black holes with a spin far beyond the previously accepted theoretical limit of 1,150 spins per second. “ 4) You have those same black holes attracted to each other to form one huge spinning black hole; overcoming expansion momentum through angular momentum, which itself does not have to be conserved under the developing conditions of black holes free of their galactic constituents. ” Angular momentum, AND Newtonian gravity. The black holes will alter trajectory eventually to move toward the strongest gravitational field. “ 5) You have that huge merged black hole spinning faster and faster approaching the speed of light and beyond on the basis that “normal” space limits mass to less than the speed of light but space becomes compromised or broken at the “singularity”. ” Possibly faster than c. It may be limited. However, either way, the model will function. “ 6) You have that spinning black hole capturing every last photon that has ever been emitted from the arena along with any energy contained in the space that collapses into the BH. This final clean up is accomplished when space 'snaps back' and carries the lighter elements and CMBR with it. Heavier elements are not completely dragged back so you think we will find that the core of our universe now has a plethora of black holes, some really, really massive ones, perhaps trillions, or quadrillions of solar masses. ” No. The final 'clean-up' is accomplished when the gravitational waves of the last remaining black hole ... containing all the mass/energy of 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 sols ( 200 billion galaxies times 200 billion stars ... and this is a conservative estimate ), all dark matter, all dark energy ( if it exists ) ... causes all space containing gravitons ( any remaining mass/energy ) to collapse into the black hole. “ 7) You have that spinning black hole then throwing off plasma and gas to feed the birth of the next cycle. ” Not yet. “ 8) As a result of that superluminal spinning you have that black hole substantially disbursed but leaving some remnants that would be currently undetectable, but you believe this will change shortly to reveal many 'remnants'. ” Yes and no. Out of order. “ 9) You speculate that the final BH (that will be the accumulated sum of all matter and energy in the closed system that is our arena) will spin so fast that it will throw off the hot plasma and gases that will then reconstruct our expanding universe which would then over time again succumb to the collapse and merger, cyclically, time and time again. ” Otherwise known as the BB. The final collapse of space will be the trigger. The added boost in spin to cause the black hole to fly apart. Angular momentum finally overcomes gravity. Now we can incorporate #7, and #8. When the black hole releases it's stored energy, the lines of space 'snap back' to normal, at speeds exceeding c, in conformance with GR. When this happens, when space returns to near uniformity, it drags lighter elements with it. Heavier elements remain closer. Although currently obscured, new telescopes should be able to peer deeper into the earliest epoch of our universe, where I believe they will find a much denser region than expected. “ 10) You proclaim that it is a cosmology that differs from all other cyclical cosmologies in that all mechanisms are supported by known physics, Newtonian gravity, GR, and QM. Further, you explain that GR does not place an upper limit on BH mass. QM does not allow infinitely small, so the BH will have a physical 3-D structure at the scales involved. ” Correct. “ Waa la, a cyclical cosmology (with a few problems I and others may point out ). ” Please do. “ To my knowledge that is it. You don’t have reams of written pages supporting or justifying your theory but you base it on years of study and feel good that none of those to whom you have distributed it to (in its former version) have falsified it. ” Not quite. True, it has not been falsified ... yet. But the model is falsifiable on many fronts. I include this partial list of ways the model can either be unequivocally falsified, or at least, show strong evidence against it. 1. If it is in conflict with any known, accepted law(s) of physics. 2. If it is in conflict with Quantum Mechanics. 3. If it is in conflict with General Relativity. 4. If it is in conflict any experimental evidence. 5. If it is in conflict with any observation to date. 6. If it is determined that SST is correct, and we make observations, or invent experiments showing our universe draws it's energy from alternate dimensions/membranes. 7. If we determine that space never existed before our BB. 8. If we determine that space itself actually expands. 9. If we determine that black holes bounce off each other ( as opposed to actually merging ). 10. If we determine that black holes shunt matter/energy somewhere outside our 3d universe, or for that matter, somewhere else within our 3d universe. 11. If we determine that black holes actually do rapidly evaporate in the manner(s) described ( IE; ever increasing release of energy as mass decreases ). 12. If we determine that black holes are infinitely dense. 13. If we determine that a singularity ( zero dimensions ) actually exists ( as opposed to a physical, 3d structure ). 14. If we determine that black holes stop growing at some arbitrary mass ( IE; like 50B sols ). 15. If we determine that observed non-feeding black holes never feed again. 16. If we determine that black holes do not gravitate toward ( IE; altering their original inertial path ... which could be determined by tracing it back to it's starting point ) other strong gravitational sources ( IE; other galaxies/black holes ). 17. If we determine that black hole rotational velocity is actually limited to the arbitrary 'theoretical' limit of 1,150 spins per second. 18. If we observe a black hole blowing up. 19. If it is determined that the curvature of space is not flat ( currently 2% margin of error ). 20. If it is determined that space ( the actual, total universe ) is finite. 21. If it is determined that there is extreme red shifted CMBR co-existing with that already observed. 22. If any other model is proved to be ( more ) correct. All ( or most ) of these falsification tests can either be done right now, or will be determined ( in all likelihood ) in the near future. Thank you very much q. Sure you don't want to re-write it for me? Lol. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedLol. Well, I guess I should be grateful it lasted exactly one month on the main forum. I have not received an explanation ( yet ) for being moved to 'speculations' so I must assume you all just got tired of looking at it, I just broke some law/rule, or you have decided it is 'speculative' after all. Thank you for the previous consideration you afforded me. James Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe following was my attempt to determine why my model was moved. I contacted Moo. One of her suggestions was to post my messages to her ... and presumably her replies. Originally Posted by mooeypoo Originally Posted by pywakit Moo. Please don't tell me you did this! Lol. How sad. Moo: Did what? Py: Moved my model to specs. But you obviously didn't. The reason I thought it might be you was because you were the only mod listed when it happened about 20 minutes ago. No explanation was given. I was fairly certain after surviving a full month, it would stick to main. Just a little shock is all. I will recover. Don't worry about it. I think you are great. Moo: Resident experts can move threads to speculations too, so it might have been one of them. But you know, your thread should be in speculation, since it's not mainstream science. You shouldn't take it as a bad thing, though... it's just its rightful place. We try to leave the mainstream forums to actual mainstream theories and not speculative ones. The move to speculations isn't meant to say anything bad at you, it's just for organization purposes. Some people are getting confused by the distinction between a not-yet-completely-proven speculative theory and mainstream science. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMore on this. Moo didn't post my full PM to her, and I don't know how to retrieve it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by pywakit I'm not going to rake you over the coals, but please allow me a short defense. It's true my model doesn't conform to mainstream. However, it is really nothing more than a modified BBM, without inflationary theory. Crudely stated, to be sure. But ... Moo: Then when you show it in the thread and provide evidence for it being mainstream, it'll go back to the mainstream forum We removed the "Pseudoscience" from the forum title, it's not *ONLY* "Speculation" so there's nothing to be 'stained' anymore. It's a speculation for now, and if and when it becomes mainstream, it will come back to the appropriate forum. There's not much use arguing about this in PVTMSG, btw... if you would need to convince anyone, it wouldn't be the singular me.. the staff debate such things. But anyways, there's not much need to be offended -- a speculation is a perfectly valid first scientific step. Since we switch the name to Speculation and removed 'pseudoscience' from it, it's no longer 'crackpotville'. I have a few threads there with myown speculations.. it's just the rightful place of things that are nonmainstream. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMore ... Originally Posted by pywakit Sorry Moo. It's not my intent to put you in an uncomfortable position. As a non-learned man, I felt I had earned my place on the mains ... the hard way. I still believe my model is sufficiently meets all necessary criteria to qualify for 'mainstream science'. Mine is the first model this forum has had ( at least in recent history ... to my knowledge, based on my thread searches ) that provides a reasoned alternative to the standard cosmological model without resorting to 'magical' fixes. It is not contradicted by physics, or GR, and it is falsifiable. There is nothing 'crack-pot' about it. Furthermore, two very recent observations/discoveries lend even more support. ( 33 merging pairs, apparent near c rotational velocities of 9 SMBHs far exceeding accepted theoretical maximum rotational velocity of 1,150 spins per second. ) The issues I address beyond the basic model ( such as infinite space ) are not germane to the main function of the model, and I take care to keep them seperate. The standard model ignores such issues as infinity, and what came before the BB. My addendums can also be ignored without removing any legs of support. The goal is not to answer all questions flawlessly. The goal is to improve substantially on the standard model. My model does this. In Occam's Razor fashion, the most elegant solution is the simplest. Someone told me that it is rare to have a decision like this overturned. But it can be done. It requires a strong case. I don't know how a stronger case could be made, without actually 'blowing up' a black hole. I will stop bothering you now. Either way, I appreciate your efforts in trying to make me feel welcome, and valued. Hope your day goes well. Moo: pywakit, even if you convince me, I can't do anything on my own accord, you will need to convince all the moderators. If you want, I will post this in a mod-only forum, and see what the others say (I don't usually share private messages, seeing as they're.. private -- there's just not a lot of use debating this here.. If you aren't comfortable with me sharing the PMs, then you can perhaps post that in the public thread and see what people answer; I would tell you this, though: The moving (or not moving) of your thread to speculation (or from it) has nothing to do with whether or not the theory (and you) are valued here. The theory is not mainstream, not yet. Until you get it into textbooks, or win a nobel prize on it, or get the math SO tight that it's unquestionable, you won't change it. Therefore it will not be in the mainstream forum. You should convince people of its validity as an attempt for a peer-review. If ti passes us, think about going to publish it somewhere for a real peer-review. That's how things work. That doesn't mean, though, that you're not welcome here or that you're not valued. The threads are not just abandoned in the speculation forum, we debate them. Just be patient and see where problems pop up in your theory so you can either fix them to make an even stronger theory or see how to formulate a new approach. Don't take it personally Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMore ... Originally Posted by pywakit Dear Moo. You force me to respond. I really don't want to do this. Originally Posted by pywakit I'm not going to rake you over the coals, but please allow me a short defense. It's true my model doesn't conform to mainstream. However, it is really nothing more than a modified BBM, without inflationary theory. Crudely stated, to be sure. But ... Moo writes: Then when you show it in the thread and provide evidence for it being mainstream, it'll go back to the mainstream forum Py: Define 'it'. What must I show? That my model conforms to GR? That is axiomatic. Define 'mainstream'. Are you suggesting that a reasonable alternative to the 'mainstream' BBM falls outside mainstream? This would not make sense. The BBM has problems. The inherent function of my model addresses those problems, following Newtonian gravity, GR, and QM. Moo: We removed the "Pseudoscience" from the forum title, it's not *ONLY* "Speculation" so there's nothing to be 'stained' anymore. It's a speculation for now, and if and when it becomes mainstream, it will come back to the appropriate forum. Py: You didn't remove the sub-title. My model shares space with "God is dead!". There is a vast difference between pure, unfalsifiable speculation, and theory backed by every bit of scientific evidence we have. Moo: There's not much use arguing about this in PVTMSG, btw... if you would need to convince anyone, it wouldn't be the singular me.. the staff debate such things. Py: It wasn't an argument. And I was simply going by the rules your forum has posted where you are allowed to defend your position directly to a moderator, or administrator. Since I already have some small relationship with you ... and there was no explanation forthcoming from whoever moved me, along with his/her name ... it seemed reasonable to ask you about it. Moo: But anyways, there's not much need to be offended -- a speculation is a perfectly valid first scientific step. Py: *sigh*. This is an inaccurate characterisation. This is a theory based on the evidence/observations, the math, accepted physics, GR, QM ... and nothing else. Moo: Since we switch the name to Speculation and removed 'pseudoscience' from it, it's no longer 'crackpotville'. I have a few threads there with myown speculations.. it's just the rightful place of things that are nonmainstream. Py: Maybe not 'crackpotville' to you Moo, but to anyone familiar with these forums, anything posted here has no more ( or less ) validity than ... "Telekinesis Fire Question" "We know essentially nothing - Expanding the mind with philosophy." "Does our consciousness exist in a higher dimension?" "Science Proves God Is Dead!!!" "One World System." Can you honestly claim my model belongs with this nonsense? Moo, I understand this is not a democracy. Or a republic, for that matter. I can't force you to do anything you don't want. Somebody had to come along with a better model. Eventually. It just happens that I am the one who did. The problem seems to be no one BELIEVES a layman could have 'cracked the code'. Or at least have gotten much closer than the SCIENTISTS have. This possibility is unthinkable. Therefore ... in your mind ... all I have done ( at best ) is come up with a kernel of an idea that may ... by some miracle ... have some truth to it. But only after many, many years of rigorous testing, and experiments. What you are not grasping, is that the model FITS. Fits known science. Fits known physics. I don't need to come up with 'tight' math. It's already been done. If mine needs tight math, the BBM needs tighter math. MY model doesn't create new problems. It solves old ones. With our existing understanding of gravity, and physics. If you don't understand this, then you do not understand the model. If you wish to share this with others, I have no problem at all. I am respectfully asking for fair, objective, and reasonable treatment. Now I will address your other note. Moo: James, I didn't mean for you to start a debate over this in private messags. If you want to ask why your thread was moved to speculation and argue against the decision, please do that on the thread. I won't be arguing this on pvtmsg, specially since it's not my decision alone to make. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOk. Last post on this. No guys, I am not naive enough to think anything is going to change. It's just the principle. Re: Solution -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Py: Tell you what Moo. Just post all the PMs I sent you on my thread, and on your mod-only thread. I don't know how to retrieve them all. It says I haven't sent any messages. Then you are out of the loop. Thanks. Moo: I'll tell you what, James -- you do it by the book and keep PERSONAL conversations to PM and "professional" conversations to the open forum. I set your request up to the mod team, but since your theory is NOT mainstream science (don't argue, please, it isn't. It's nice, it might one day be proven, it isn't YET) then it has no place in the mainstream board. If you want to make your case, make it publically, please. Py: Ok. Done. I disagree that it is not mainstream science. It is not mainstream 'theory'. Moo: Whoa! There you go! that's it, my dear Not mainstream theory. It's not about mainstream science -- you might be using all science in there, that doesn't matter. It's NOT an accepted mainstream theory. Quite frankjly, I'm not sure I understand the big deal. You know how many posts I have in speculation? So *what* if it's a speculation? that's how scientific theories *start* and that's fine. You are taking this waaaaay too personally. But your mind is clearly made up. Py: Sorry for ever putting a human face out there for all to see. I fully understand nobody is interested. I fully understand the critical nature of keeping science discussions scientific at all times. It won't happen again. Moo: Oh, come on now. So, what, I disagree with you and you go sulk in the corner? Lighten up, relax, continue arguing your point on the thread and debate, there's no need to stop being a human being or to apologize for sharing. I don't think anything bad of you or of your theory, even if the theory isn't mainstream science. I like non-mainstream science theories, which is why I am *usually* answering more posts in the Speculation forum than I do in the mainstream physics forum even though Physics is my profession. Chill, James.. this is a science forum, and we go by the (yes, strict) science method rules. A move to the "Speculation" forum is not a death sentence and it's not a spit in your face. The theory isn't mainstream science. Not yet. When it will be, we would have something to discuss. It's like you'd argue with me why an engineering project moved from Math to Engineering. It moves because we keep things organized. Stop taking things so personally... I really don't see the urgency of "fixing" this. Nothing BAD was done, what is there to fix? ~moo Py: Moo. It is impossible not to like you. Lol. Don't worry. I'm not sulking. Not freaking. Just was making my case for keeping it on main as forcefully as a keyboard will allow. That's all. Even when I get offended, or hurt, it passes in about 5 minutes. To my perspective Moo, it IS bad. We all have our own motivations and agendas. Keep it where you want to. Or where you feel it belongs. But I will point out ... you all kept it on main for over a month. And it's not like you didn't know what the model was. It did not take you guys 33 days to figure out it wasn't mainstream. You were under no obligation to keep it there ... from day one. Just telling it like it is Moo. To allow it to be there for 33 days, then arbitrarily move it claiming 'non-mainstream' is the flimsiest of rationalizations. Now if you will excuse me ... I have a corner to sulk in for 5 minutes. Lol. Love ya Moo. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOk. THIS is the last post on the issue. Lol. Moo. It is impossible not to like you. Lol. Don't worry. I'm not sulking. Not freaking. Just was making my case for keeping it on main as forcefully as a keyboard will allow. That's all. Even when I get offended' date=' or hurt, it passes in about 5 minutes.[/quote'] Moo: Yeah, I know, it happens to me too.. just try not to take it personally To my perspective Moo, it IS bad. We all have our own motivations and agendas. Keep it where you want to. Or where you feel it belongs. But I will point out ... you all kept it on main for over a month. And it's not like you didn't know what the model was. Moo:Take into account that the moderators aren't "all seeing". We only see what we happen to debate in (and I didn't debate that thread) and/or what is reported. No one reported the thread and the mods that did participate didn't notice - or perhaps felt that some of the concepts still could remain in the mainstream forum one, until the experts decided that the theory - though interesting - isn't yet mainstream. We're human beings. We miss stuff, we change our minds, it's not done to hurt you or belittle your ideas. Just telling it like it is Moo. To allow it to be there for 33 days, then arbitrarily move it claiming 'non-mainstream' is the flimsiest of rationalizations. Moo: It's not arbitrarily. Whoever moved it (not sure how) should have put a note on it, in that I agree with you (and it was reported, by myself, to the experts and moderators so it won't happen again). But.. it isn't a mainstream theory. Again, I'm not sure I understand the big deal. If someone was to post that you are COMPLETELY wrong, or that the theory had no merit at all -- I'd understand the frustration. But all that was done was move the thread from mainstream science into speculation, I have a feeling it was done because the 'less-mainstream' pionts started to be more prevalent than the mainstream ones. Take into account that (name deleted) isn't too "mainstream" either.. So.. it was done.. big deal... you still have a thread, it's not closed or anything. We had a few woowoo people on board that took the attention of a lot of the moderators and the experts, so that might've been the reason why your thread recieved less attention. In the speculation forum, btw, it might actually get more attention. Take a few minutes, calm down, cheer up, and continue debating good night! ~moo Thanks Moo. That was thoughtful. I am going to post this, too. Maybe it will help remind readers that you ( all ) are very human. You have reminded me. Good night to you. Edited January 24, 2010 by pywakit Consecutive posts merged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 I have not received an explanation ( yet ) for being moved to 'speculations' so I must assume you all just got tired of looking at it, I just broke some law/rule, or you have decided it is 'speculative' after all. ___ I still believe my model is sufficiently meets all necessary criteria to qualify for 'mainstream science'. Mine is the first model this forum has had ( at least in recent history ... to my knowledge, based on my thread searches ) that provides a reasoned alternative to the standard cosmological model without resorting to 'magical' fixes. It is not contradicted by physics, or GR, and it is falsifiable. There is nothing 'crack-pot' about it. (emphasis added) You have answered your own question. Alternative theories go in Speculations. The main science forums are for discussing accepted science. Note that the forum is called Speculations and not Crackpot Science. Being in Speculations just means that it is not mainstream, accepted science. As for the delay, I can only say this: we volunteer our time (mods and experts, both of whom have the power to move threads). Personally, I don't always notice where a discussion is, or it may take some time to realize that the poster is presenting an alternative hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pywakit Posted January 24, 2010 Author Share Posted January 24, 2010 (emphasis added) You have answered your own question. Alternative theories go in Speculations. The main science forums are for discussing accepted science. Note that the forum is called Speculations and not Crackpot Science. Being in Speculations just means that it is not mainstream, accepted science. As for the delay, I can only say this: we volunteer our time (mods and experts, both of whom have the power to move threads). Personally, I don't always notice where a discussion is, or it may take some time to realize that the poster is presenting an alternative hypothesis. Couldn't just leave it alone could you? Moo gave a reasonable explanation that I was clearly comfortable with. But you had to come along and spoil the good feeling. I don't appreciate you insulting my intelligence. I don't appreciate your disingenuous remarks. I don't appreciate your dismissive, rude demeanor. I am disturbed by your apparent inability to grasp that I would have had every reasonable expectation of staying on mains after 33 days, and successfully rebutting all arguments against the model. I am disappointed that you don't acknowledge your ( the forum's ) failure to provide an explanation ( as Moo did ) but irrationally assume that I would just 'know'. ajb is a physics expert. sisyphus is a moderator. They were both well aware as early as ONE day after I posted my model. Are you going to suggest that neither one of these experts was capable of grasping that I was presenting a model that was NOT mainstream? I have treated you decently. I expect the same in return. ajb (Physics Expert) December 22nd, 2009, 2:06 AM #4 Physics ExpertA model is a mathematical construct. You have presented a list of ideas etc. Great. Now can you write out your model a bit more explicitly please? You talk about black-holes, strain on space etc... So your model is based on General Relativity or similar? Plus what? (Not higher dimensions and strings and branes as you clearly state.) Then can you calculate anything interesting that can (lets say at least in principle) be measured? ______________ Sisyphus (Trickster Archetype) December 23rd, 2009, 11:55 AM #20 ModeratorIn addition to looking for reasons why it isn't true, you should reexamine the reasons for why you think it might be. For example, your reasoning seems to be that because there are other things that can be too large to be stabile, black holes can be too large to be stabile. But that doesn't logically follow. There are specific reasons why stars go nova (i.e., the physical laws in play are not "some things are too big to live"), and those reasons don't apply to black holes. There is no known mechanism that might make an upper size limit on black hole stability, and you're not proposing one, either. Just asserting that one exists. And that's just one hypothesis. You've made several others, and I don't see how each follows from the next. Black holes will "merge," the proposed "upper limit" on mass just happens to be the same as the combined mass of the observable universe, etc. You're offering not one hypothesis, but many unrelated ones (or at least you don't offer a relationship), and don't really support any of them. Because you don't give reasons, there is no reasoning to evaluate. ______________ Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged(edit) Unlikely as it would seem, you may have been unaware of Moo's adequate handling of the situation. If so, this only excuses part of what you said. Barely. You have a responsibility to be aware of a situation before you jump in. We all have a right to respectful, courteous treatment. It matters how you treat people, and obviously, I have taken umbrage. There is a human element here swansont. You have ignored it. Or don't care. Glad I don't share your disdain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 whats the problem, he merely said that you answered your own question as to why it belongs in speculations. he wasn't rude condecending or disdainful about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Couldn't just leave it alone could you? Moo gave a reasonable explanation that I was clearly comfortable with. But you had to come along and spoil the good feeling. I don't appreciate you insulting my intelligence. I don't appreciate your disingenuous remarks. I don't appreciate your dismissive, rude demeanor. I am disturbed by your apparent inability to grasp that I would have had every reasonable expectation of staying on mains after 33 days, and successfully rebutting all arguments against the model. I am disappointed that you don't acknowledge your ( the forum's ) failure to provide an explanation ( as Moo did ) but irrationally assume that I would just 'know'. On the contrary, we expect that you have read and understood the rules, which explicitly state that 2.10 Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations) I don't believe I was dismissive, rude or disingenuous, nor do I see where I insulted your intelligence. All I did was address your concern (which was, BTW, in response to a request, which called for a mod not involved in the thread to confirm what moo had said, and I happened to be the first one to read and respond to it) I am not going to apologize for executing moderator duties. I realize that enforcing/reminding people of the rules can make one come off as a heavy, but that does not give you leave to overreact and respond in an uncivil manner. If you feel the action was impersonal, well, yes. That's just it — enforcing the rules is business, not personal. ajb is a physics expert. sisyphus is a moderator. They were both well aware as early as ONE day after I posted my model. Are you going to suggest that neither one of these experts was capable of grasping that I was presenting a model that was NOT mainstream? ajb did not hold the title of physics expert when the thread opened, nor did he hold that title as of his last posting, and as such did not have the power to move the thread in that span. Sisyphus is not a physics expert. The thread, it seems, flew under the radar for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts