Black Holes A Opposed To The Big Bang

science takes the backseat again !!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You have it arse about face rajesh.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's you and your incredibly ignorant paper that are not even on the tram!
Science and cosmology progress via the scientific methodology and peer review.
They really are not the least bit interested in "would be's if they could be's"with inflated egos, publishing nonsense through a less than reputable publishing agency, nor are they in the main interested in forums such as this, which are open to any constant theorist, chinglu and Rajesh, to flaunt their inflated egos.

The scientists, physicists and cosmologists that gain us the knowledge we have, are at the coal face, examining data from a myriad of probes, that fools do not have access to, and the many 'scopes covering much of the spectrum.

You my dear friend are nothing more than a fly in the oinment, which thankfully we can contain here, so that the scientists, cosmologists and physicists that do matter, can work with the greatest of benefits.

Which is why tashja needs to once again be thanked whole heartedly for the many replies and information she has received, that has put your nonsense and stupid claims, in the correct light, for all to see.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I havn't given up on you, and will continue to expose your lies, your inane conspiracies, your childish nonsensical crap, and your total opposition to accepted evidenced based mainstream cosmology.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Give me some credit for the fact that I came here on my own with the paper, knowing very well what happens at the forums......I said Paddoboy, the roar has just begun !!! You will run away, not me !!

 

Delusions of grandeur sonny, delusions of grandeur!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Like I said, if you had anything of substance you would not be here!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ps: Could you please drop the childish banter about running away etc, it's really doing nothing for your credibility, which is in tatters anyway.

 

None of the nonsense you propose has anything to do with science Rajesh. LOL. You're here to troll Paddoboy and me. LOL. So Rajesh at what r does the neutron star start to come apart and how much proper time before the star reaches r=0? What's that the 4th or 5th time I've asked you that? You can figure that out using those equations I linked earlier in the thread specifically for you. The ones that were derived from GR. The ones that predict your dumb idea is just that. The ones that predict your stable neutron star is nothing more than bullshit crank nonsense.

 

1. Singularity at r = 0 is fine by you, but not any realistic object in between ???

2. Any solution, anyday got to have some surface of the sort at some level, inside EH, and that would be stable ?

3. I do not have to calculate any time for you, why did you run away when it was asked "what is that 72 Hrs of yours inside EH, actually equal to Earth's time....eternity ?? You can answer this question in that time Dilation Thread if you know, otherwise keep trolling.

I am fully convinced, that people like you are causing bigger damage to relativity discussions on the forum, then people like Paddoboy, at least Paddoboy is defensive about himself, you are a perennial snob with huge pretensions.

 

Don't undermine the value of forum !! A Prof has just been here for quite long.

 

I don't under value it, but I'm also able to see that it is not proper peer review or where one would go if he had anything of substance...That's reality.
It's wide open for fools of all shapes and sizes, to express their religious zealotry and opposition to science, and for others to obtain orgasmic pleasure in the fact that they have some where to infest with their nonsense, without the need of being contained by evidence, and the scientific method and peer review.
Professor Link was driven away by your stubborn refusal to accept reality. He was though very diplomatic about it.

 

You are full of pretentious crap Rajesh, as well as being a liar and a conspiracy creator. I'm not defensive at all, I just believe in telling it like it is, without your pretentious nonsense, delusions of grandeur, and gutless avoidance of questions.

 

GR tells us when the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory. That's why your paper could make a great toilet roll.

 

Once your link to John Baez has nicely supported my argument that we cannot distiguish if we live in a BB or a very big WH, there was no reason of further evidence. Of course, BB and WH are different solutions, so there are differences between them. Whatever, the question itself is completely irrelevant.

Not something more, but something different. Which it does. Namely, it predicts a big bounce instead of a singular big bang.

Singularities would be, in this case, properties of false theories, not of Nature. If theories break down, Nature does not break down. The false theory may lead to infinite values, Nature doesn't - Nature will behave differently already at some distance away from the singularity of the false theory.

Whatever you accept - the "predicted point singularity" will exist only in your phantasies, not in reality. In reality, the masses will exists in a state described by the better theory. If this better theory is somehow related with quantum gravity effects or not is unknown. The only thing which is known is that the infinity itself does not exist.

As long as you do not present these many reasons I do not have to care.

I have said it is wrong, but that this does not prevent it from being a useful approximation.

It may fail at other places too. For example, it is highly probable that it fails already near the event horizont. Even if nothing in GR itself suggests that there will be any problem. It also fails somewhere in the Gödel universe solution. Again, nothing in GR itself suggests any failure, normal, usual matter, a rotating universe, but so what, usual bodies rotate, why not a whole universe? But the solution contains closed causal loops, thus, is in contradiction with causality. Thus, it has to fail somewhere, or you have to give up causality.

And, by the way, it does not really fail at the quantum level - as an effective field theory, it is fine also at a quantum level. This variant of GR - GR as an effective field theory - of course ignores Holy Prescriptions of the Spacetime Interpretation, but the equations of GR do not care that much about this.

Your point being? I do not object if my theory will be handled on the same level as all the GUTs and string theories and other speculation. You are free not to accept them - I will not make claims that you are completely stupid or not really a scientist or so if you do not accept them. I take the same freedom for me too - not to accept the actually fashionable speculative theories like GUTs, string theories, supersymmetry and many others.

The assumptions used by Hawking and Penrouse in their singularity theorems. BTW, without assumptions about matter GR predicts nothing at all, if one does not count "there exists a metric" as a prediction. Because you can take every metric you like, compute the Einstein equations, and use them for the definition of the energy-momentum tensor of matter.

Regarding its speculative character, my theory is comparable with GR because it makes almost the same predictions as GR.

"Time dilation", if interpreted in a meaningful way, as clock time dilation, is also a prediction of my own theory.

 

Sorry, the fact is a little bit different. GLET predicts the dying pulse train followed by a visible burst for large values of Y. This is falsified by observing the dying pulse train without a following burst. But for sufficiently small values of Y, as well as all negative ones, it predicts the same as GR - the dying pulse train without a following burst.

 

I have participated in forum discussions even long before I have published my ether theory. I have understood, already long ago, that the current way of organization of science prevents a success of outsider theories with very high probability: As long as people have to care where to get their next grant, simply to survive as scientists, only a few outsiders have the luxery of doing really independent research, because they do not depend on getting paid. Once I am in such a fortunate position, I do not have to care how often I'm cited and how many of my papers are published.

 

No link I gave, give any similarity between the BB Singularity and a BH Singularity. They are two different beasts.

Thank you...Like I said, all speculative, no evidence what so ever, and by the way, if we could show that the Universe may recollapse and bounce, it would not invalidate the current BB model within its current accepted parameters.

??'That's double Dutch to me. Theories are not invalidated by Singularities.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm sure I just said that, or words to that effect.

My reasons are best summed up in that your theory is totally speculative with no evidence, while GR is supported by evidence, as too is time dilation as generally accepted and all other postulates of relativity.

Semantics. Your agenda is blinding you. My agenda is plain and simple...mainstream accepted science which is mostly supported by evidence or logical assumptions.

GR is near rock solid within its recognised parameters.

I disagree.

Science sometimes makes reasonable assumptions. GR has been validated many times as has time dilation.
Your theory is entirely speculative.

I have already told you it needs to do more than the incumbent model, and have that validated.
The Big Bounce is still speculative [but personally I like it]

Time dilation as commonly inferred is proven.

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html from your #65 writes: "In other words, we cannot rule out the possibility that the universe is a very large white hole." Which was my point.

except all the evidence in favour of GR, which is also evidence in favour of GLET in the domain where they do not make different predictions ....

And what is required for a big bounce instead of a big bang? Some period of time with a''(tau)>0. That means, inflation. Is there evidence for inflation or not?

Theories which predict singularities are invalid. From the start, no need for some process of invalidation.

A strange count of evidence, where every piece of evidence which makes no difference between GR and GLET at all is counted as evidence for GR and nothing for GLET. I would suggest a fair game of considering only those things where we have differences between GR and GLET predictions.

There is enough - GR predicts wormholes, closed causal loops, singularities - wide field to show the advantages of GR.

Clock time dilation is indeed supported by evidence, and, of course, predicted by my ether theory too, so, this does not make a difference at all. According to a popular but nonsensical ideology of GR that "time is what clocks show" some people think that from clock time dilation something nontrivial follows for time itself. It doesn't.

 

To the last part - most agree there sure is - BUT: Back in #51 a link to a presentation by Penrose on the crucial matter of initial (and later) entropy was given. He is virtually alone in being willing to deal adequately with that elephant in the room. His solution is certainly speculative and radical but at least offers a rational way out. Can I take it you have dealt with the seemingly fatal issue of entropy re your big bounce idea? Especially if it forms part of an endlessly oscillating universe rather than a one-off bounce scenario. Others such as LQG crowd also predict or at least model a big bounce, but afaik without comprehensively dealing with entropy there either. There is more than just highly idealized field solutions to consider!

 

Firstly he is speculating..we all do it, trick is to not be carried away by speculation, secondly, he still emphasises a difference between a BH Singularity and the BB singularity, which is the question of this thread...or was until you punctured it with your theoretical speculative paper.

So the incumbent model still reigns supreme.
I do though like the WH speculation and have used that many times myself, here and elsewhere. But it's still just speculation.

Rethinking the situation, a Big Bounce is highly unlikely, due to the data for the accelerating expansion.
Inflation answers far more questions than what you are proposing [which is now getting confusing]

Bullshit, Theories that predict Singularities are limited in scope.

GR has been experimentally and observationally verified.
Your total theoretical concept has not.
Time dilation has been observationally and experimentally verified, not some fabricated "clock time dilation"

Sure, but as yet they are not verified as with WHs.

You are wrong.
"Clock time dilation" is a furphy.
Time dilation as generally referred to has been proven and is the accepted scenario.
If you believe that it is a nonsensical ideology of GR, that's your business, but of course once again shows up your agenda,
My agenda? Simply experimental and/or observational evidence to support any alternative model, that pretends to usurp GR.
You have none.

 

Read the above very slowly and then think about all cases that experimentally verify time dilation. Where do they not involve clocks? As far as verification of time dilation is concerned even muon decay rates are clocks. In science time is measured and recorded with clocks, thus it is the effect of velocity, acceleration and location in a gravity well, on a clock that we use to verify time dilation..., but it is the time that whatever clock used records (or clock time), that is tested. In the of case time dilation "clock time dilation" is what is being verified.

Einstein, went to extremes to deal with clocks and time in special relativity, before he jumped into time dilation, causality and Lorentz Transformations, to reconcile the difference in how clocks in different inertial frames record the passage of time. He did not overturn that work within the context of GR. It just was not necessary to reinvent the wheel. There are no ideal clocks, clocks that record the passage of time without change from frame to frame, so all verification of time dilation is a verification of the passage of time recorded by imperfect clocks.., clock time.

 

Regarding entropy I'm in the camp of the Bayesians. That means, entropy is something which characterizes human knowledge of Nature, not a property of Nature itself. It has, of course, some objective background (I'm in the Jaynes camp, that means, probability should describe the objective available information, not subjective belief), because there are things where it is possible to get information, and others where it is impossible, and this difference has some objective background. This background distinguishs between types of information which are quite stable so that they are accessible macroscopically and all that microscopic stuff which we are simply unable to observe. And with these objectively accessible variables there exist also the corresponding objective entropy. But this does not change the point that, for example, if there would appear a new possibility to distinguish two types of matter, together with this additional information we would obtain another new notion of entropy, which is higher than the new types are mixed than if they are not, something which the actual entropy does not care about.

With this conceptual background, many of the considerations about entropy sound quite meaningless. And I tend not to care about such animals as the entropy of the universe.