# Thread: Cosmological Model of The Universe

1. I might add that there are at the very least dozens of cosmological models out there.

All of them done by learned cosmologists, theoretical physicists and mathematicians have elaborate and complex 'supporting' mathematical descriptions, and carefully lay out step by step their physical 'proofs', logical derivations, reasoned conclusions and predictions (if any).

At best all are wrong but one. At worst, all are wrong. Am I missing something here?

2. Originally Posted by pywakit
I might add that there are at the very least hundreds if not thousands of cosmological models out there.

All of them done by learned cosmologists, theoretical physicists and mathematicians have elaborate and complex 'supporting' mathematical descriptions, and carefully lay out step by step their physical 'proofs', logical derivations, reasoned conclusions and predictions (if any).

At best all are wrong but one. At worst, all are wrong. Am I missing something here?
Are there really that many? How many are you familiar with? How do they differ? How are they similar?

3. Originally Posted by Pete
Are there really that many? How many are you familiar with? How do they differ? How are they similar?
I don't know if there are that many. I have skimmed over only a few dozen in the last couple years. Maybe that's all there are. I'm sure you can research this on your own.

When I reach the part where non-existent physics, gods, magic, or other unfalsifiable phenomena are invoked I stop reading. If they can't be tested I stop reading. If they are already falsified by current astronomical observations I stop reading.

I edited my post above to say dozens. Ok?

4. So of the dozens of models by 'learned cosmologists, theoretical physicists and mathematicians', what are the similarities and differences between them?
And what 'non-existent physics' do you mean?

Hawking conceptualizes the universe. He bases these conceptualizations on known physics, and observations. He then has assistants create the actual mathematical equations describing the concepts.
That really doesn't sound right. Where did you get that idea?

5. Originally Posted by Pete
Are there really that many? How many are you familiar with? How do they differ? How are they similar?

That really doesn't sound right. Where did you get that idea?
From a recent (2010) documentary on Hawking. According to it, Hawking, already advancing in his disease, conceptualized black hole evaporation 30 years ago, then had others do the math, with Hawking supervising.

It was a documentary that dealt with (among other things) his great 'reversal' on black holes relating to lost information.

Hawking can't do his own equations anymore. He can barely communicate at all. He has full-time assisants to do the grunt work. This doesn't mean he can no longer comprehend math. He just can't work out any problems on his own, and apparently he hasn't for decades.

According to reports, it takes quite a while for him to type out a full sentence now. So long that a conversation with him is almost impossible.

6. Originally Posted by Pete
So of the dozens of models by 'learned cosmologists, theoretical physicists and mathematicians', what are the similarities and differences between them?
And what 'non-existent physics' do you mean?
*sigh* I assume you are joking. I am not going to take all the models I have looked at and critique them for you. That would take hours at minimum. Research them yourself ... like I did.

The big bang with inflation model is an excellent example of non-existent physics. Obviously. There is no physics that creates a Hubble volume of matter/energy from a zero point. There is no physics that allows for the intitial hyperinflation of the universe with no physical cause or mechanism.

There is also no known proven physics that allows for 11, or 12, or 26 dimensions. There is no known proven physics that allows for our universe to exist by virtue of a 'white' hole in another universe or dimension connected to ours.

There are many other examples of non-existent physics in cosmological models.

Like Frampton's 'empty packet' model. Like Turok and Steinhardt's Ekpyrotic model. Like Linde's expanding bubble universe model.

And many many lesser known models. Check out the threads on this site, and it's sister site Scienceforums.net.

Go to any physics site. Check out the different journals. Go to the science periodicals, such as National Geographic, Universe Today, Scientific American, and Science Daily.

Go to different university websites. Check out their cosmology departments.

Here is a link to many respected cosmologists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cosmologists

Go to their homepages. I think you will find a few models.

7. Originally Posted by pywakit
So I am required to create new algorithms for mining the existing astronomical data? Are you suggesting that if I can't do it, nobody can? .
No. You are required to provide the mathematical basis from which a model can be constructed so that a computer simulation can be implemented. You claim that computer simulations will confirm your hypothesis. My question remains unanswered: how can you create a simulation without a mathematical model?

Originally Posted by pywakit
Hawking conceptualizes the universe. He bases these conceptualizations on known physics, and observations. He then has assistants create the actual mathematical equations describing the concepts.
And you seriously think Hawking would not be capable of doing the maths if he could move his fingers over the keyboard or his pen over the paper? And you seriously think he does not give his research assistants one heck of leg up in terms of what direction they should take?

Originally Posted by pywakit
I suspect the same process would work in this instance. I have provided the concept, and mathematicians can create the math. If the concept is unworkable, the math would probably reveal this. .
Your concept is weakly expressed, ambiguously presented and inadequately constrained. There is no basis in anything you have said from which to create any meaningful mathematical model. It is up to you to demonstrate this is not the case by developing such a model.

Originally Posted by pywakit
Computer models generally start with mathematical descriptions of basic assumptions. Those assumptions reflect widely held and/or accepted theories and assumed parameters pertaining to the structure and processes of the universe.
Which specific assumptions do wish to be included in your model?
Which specific assumptions do you wish to be excluded?
How do you wish these assumptions to be configured to generate a sequence of events that will 'simulate' the evolution of the universe?
What size mesh are you proposing as a minimum? What time resolution?

Originally Posted by pywakit
There is nothing 'nonsensical' about my hypotheses. They are plausible solutions to many unanswered questions and problems associated with the Standard Model.
You have offered only vague assertions with no substantiation and much arm waving. You are right: nonsensical is too kind a word.

Originally Posted by pywakit
Is there some crime in offering this alternative to current popular contenders for replacing the SM? Is science going to collapse because I suggested them? Are billions going to be wasted exploring them?

It's a good theory. Just as good as any of them floating around. Just as good as strings, or branes, or time reversal, or expanding bubbles or empty packets. It's falsifiable.

What harm can there be in suggesting a solution that no one has suggested before?
No harm if the proposal were one grounded in the scientific method. However, yours is not. Consequently, you may mislead neophyte members and lurkers into thinking that your bluster and bilge is how science is done. That is a very serious danger and one for which a short mandatory prison sentence would be appropriate.

Originally Posted by pywakit
Ok. I get it. You don't like it. I can live with that.
There is nothing there to like or dislike. An empty shell that is making a great deal of noise.

8. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
No. You are required to provide the mathematical basis from which a model can be constructed so that a computer simulation can be implemented. You claim that computer simulations will confirm your hypothesis. My question remains unanswered: how can you create a simulation without a mathematical model?

And you seriously think Hawking would not be capable of doing the maths if he could move his fingers over the keyboard or his pen over the paper? And you seriously think he does not give his research assistants one heck of leg up in terms of what direction they should take?

Your concept is weakly expressed, ambiguously presented and inadequately constrained. There is no basis in anything you have said from which to create any meaningful mathematical model. It is up to you to demonstrate this is not the case by developing such a model.

Which specific assumptions do wish to be included in your model?
Which specific assumptions do you wish to be excluded?
How do you wish these assumptions to be configured to generate a sequence of events that will 'simulate' the evolution of the universe?
What size mesh are you proposing as a minimum? What time resolution?

You have offered only vague assertions with no substantiation and much arm waving. You are right: nonsensical is too kind a word.

No harm if the proposal were one grounded in the scientific method. However, yours is not. Consequently, you may mislead neophyte members and lurkers into thinking that your bluster and bilge is how science is done. That is a very serious danger and one for which a short mandatory prison sentence would be appropriate.

There is nothing there to like or dislike. An empty shell that is making a great deal of noise.
I can't produce the math. I will never be able to produce the math. If you or anyone else can't conceptualize this model, then it is nothing. You must be correct.

Thank you for clarifying this and saving all the neophytes from a fate worse than death.

I will now leave the universe to the professionals.

Lol. Or not. I don't think the world is in jeopardy from neophytes and lurkers.

Fact is, poorly articulated or not, you nice folks know exactly what I am talking about. I managed to convey this concept well enough that a child of 5 could grasp the basics.

And not one of you are willing to debate the merits, few as they may be.

You just stubbornly insist it is worthless, so there is nothing to discuss. Quite disingenuous.

That's fine. Do whatever you want. You can yank it from the site if you wish, even though it clearly meets the written criteria for this forum.

It doesn't matter. The model isn't going away.

9. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Several of your predictions state that computer simulations would confirm some aspect of your hypothesis. I find this puzzling. A computer simulation ias based upon a model expressed in a mathematical form. You say you cannot express your model mathematically. Therefore no computer simulation can be made that reflects your model. Therefore you are, on this point at least, talking bollocks.

If you can't offer a mathematical description it is not a model. Stop calling it that.
This is not strictly true. A model does not have to be mathematical. Historically physicists often create a conceptual model and then sought the help of a mathematician to provide a mathematical expression of the concepts. Einstein himself relied significantly on the work of mathematicians. (Perhaps it could be said other mathematicians.) The special and general theories of relativity both incorporated the work of other mathematicians. (Maxwell, Lorentz and Minkowski all contributed key mathematical components to his two most famous models).

From the top of a google search on the definition...

"Definitions of Scientific model on the Web:

Scientific modelling is the process of generating abstract, conceptual, graphical and/or mathematical models. Science offers a growing collection of methods, techniques and theory about all kinds of specialized scientific modelling. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_model

An approximation or simulation of a real system that omits all but the most essential variables of the systemO
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scientific_model

Mathematical tools used to understand large scale processes that can't be observed directly in their entirety. The Chesapeake Bay Program uses mathematical models to simulate changes in the Bay ecosystem due to changes in population, land use, or pollution management.
http://www.cacaponinstitute.org/PHSW...Vocabulary.htm
It has not been until the 'modern' era of theoretical physics that mathematics has become the 'primary' accepted tool. I sometimes think that has been as much a limitation as an asset.

I don't agree with most of the conclusions that pywakit presents, that does not diminish the potential value of different perspectives of questions we currently have no functional answers to.

It seems that all to often these days any attempt to step outside of accepted explanations is dismissed solely because it does not conform to accepted perspectives. The difficulty with this is that what we consider accepted today is having significant difficulty explaining some of what we are coming believe about how the universe works.

General relativity does not explain dark matter and only explains dark energy in a limited way. In particle physics, the standard model has its own problems, with theorists holding their breath as researchers search for the Higgs boson or supersymmetry. Neither has shown any real progress toward a grand unified theory.

Sometime a model that we don't ourselves believe can spark insight by changing the way we view, even a single question. As I said before, I don't 'get' this 'model' as he, pywakit seems to. On the other hand I am still watching the conversation. Which at times seems to be more of a debate than a discussion.

If what we are looking for is an understanding of things beyond credible explanation by currently accepted theories/models, there are no bad ideas. They cannot all be correct in the end, but they have a potential to provide insight.

Think about Einstein and the special theory of relativity. A significant contribution came from the Lorentz Transformations. Lorentz originally worked out the math in an attempt to defend the concept of the Luminiferous Aether, by explaining the results of the Michelson & Morley experiments, which suggested there was no ether. Einstein saw something in the work of Lorentz that Lorentz did not intend or see himself.

I am still watching and listening.

10. Originally Posted by OnlyMe
This is not strictly true. A model does not have to be mathematical. Historically physicists often create a conceptual model and then sought the help of a mathematician to provide a mathematical expression of the concepts. Einstein himself relied significantly on the work of mathematicians. (Perhaps it could be said other mathematicians.) The special and general theories of relativity both incorporated the work of other mathematicians. (Maxwell, Lorentz and Minkowski all contributed key mathematical components to his two most famous models).

From the top of a google search on the definition...

It has not been until the 'modern' era of theoretical physics that mathematics has become the 'primary' accepted tool. I sometimes think that has been as much a limitation as an asset.

I don't agree with most of the conclusions that pywakit presents, that does not diminish the potential value of different perspectives of questions we currently have no functional answers to.

It seems that all to often these days any attempt to step outside of accepted explanations is dismissed solely because it does not conform to accepted perspectives. The difficulty with this is that what we consider accepted today is having significant difficulty explaining some of what we are coming believe about how the universe works.

General relativity does not explain dark matter and only explains dark energy in a limited way. In particle physics, the standard model has its own problems, with theorists holding their breath as researchers search for the Higgs boson or supersymmetry. Neither has shown any real progress toward a grand unified theory.

Sometime a model that we don't ourselves believe can spark insight by changing the way we view, even a single question. As I said before, I don't 'get' this 'model' as he, pywakit seems to. On the other hand I am still watching the conversation. Which at times seems to be more of a debate than a discussion.

If what we are looking for is an understanding of things beyond credible explanation by currently accepted theories/models, there are no bad ideas. They cannot all be correct in the end, but they have a potential to provide insight.

Think about Einstein and the special theory of relativity. A significant contribution came from the Lorentz Transformations. Lorentz originally worked out the math in an attempt to defend the concept of the Luminiferous Aether, by explaining the results of the Michelson & Morley experiments, which suggested there was no ether. Einstein saw something in the work of Lorentz that Lorentz did not intend or see himself.

I am still watching and listening.
Thank you. I think.

11. Originally Posted by pywakit
1. I asked for a link, not a title. I googled 'Physics Review' and got several different sites.
Jesus, do you have your food chewed for you too? 'Physics Review' covers Physics Review A, B, C etc . I obviously gave you too much credit for having passing familiarity with the physics community.

Originally Posted by pywakit
I checked a couple, and they both required *affiliations*.
Please provide a link to the page where Physics Review says that they require an author to have an academic affiliation and will absolutely not review any work from anyone else.

Originally Posted by pywakit
2. My model does not appear to require new physics. Or magic. Or strings. Or gods.
Your model doesn't require anything because it doesn't have anything to it other than "Because I say so". And it isn't a model. Simply calling it one doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by pywakit
3. I assume most physicists understand known physics.
No, most physicists understand some of known physics. Known physics is too large for any single person to 'know' to research level. You're showing your naivety.

Originally Posted by pywakit
4. I do not have the ability to describe the model mathematically as required for publication in physics journals.
Then your claims it explains things, models things, isn't contradicted by experiments etc are all utterly without justification.

Originally Posted by pywakit
And I can't do it here either. I was unaware I was required to do so to post on this forum.
You call it a 'model' so I've asked you to provide justification for that. If you'd called it a 'vague hypothesis' I'd not have asked. I expect models to model and the way you do that is to have quantitative results. If you can't provide such things then stop using labels, like 'model', which imply you do. It's not my fault your ego is writing cheques your brain can't cover.

Originally Posted by pywakit
5. My model makes specific predictions. Several of them.
You make assertions about how you think the universe operates but you don't derive them from anything, you assume them. A 'model' whose predictions are also its assumptions is worthless.

Originally Posted by pywakit
You continue to insist it does not. You are in error. Please read post #111. You will find the predictions there. They are testable either through direct astronomical observation with existing instruments, or instruments soon to be deployed, or by mining existing astronomical data.
Can you provide a derivation for any of them from more basic assumptions?

Originally Posted by pywakit
6. My model is accompanied by numerous supporting science articles and papers from respected sources, and are generally peer-reviewed. Am I required to post a link to a research paper that fully confirms my model's hypotheses?
Citing other people's peer reviewed work has absolutely no bearing on the scientific viability of your work. Yes, other people have made models. Yes, other people have done experiments. That doesn't negate my criticisms. And it doesn't magically turn your work into a 'model'.

Originally Posted by pywakit
7. Your comments regarding string theory are in conflict with the principle researchers.
My thesis was in string theory, I'm more than a little familiar with it.

Originally Posted by pywakit
There are no experiments or observations that confirm string theory. There are no experiments or observations that even support string theory in any meaningful way.
Where did I say that? I said it had made predictions and there were ways to falsify it. String theory necessarily leads to general relativity as the weak field effective theory of gravity. If gravity didn't behave like general relativity at weak limits then string theory would be wrong.

Originally Posted by pywakit
According to Brian Green at Columbia, in a PBS interview from a couple years ago, string theory remains unfalsifiable.
It is unfalsifiable from its present position, in that the predictions it makes about things we have measured it has passed (ie general relativity). The next set of things string theory is unambiguous on are a long way out of our ability to test at present.

That's an important distinction. It makes lots of predictions. Those which are within our ability to test have been validated. Unfortunately there's a huge gap between the weak field limit of gravity and the strong limit of quantum gravity. String theory is an attempt to model quantum gravity and thus the majority of what it says about the universe involves the Planck scale. But this shouldn't be surprising, since any model of quantum gravity will be aimed at the Planck scale.

If Einstein hadn't gone GR in 1915 string theory would have lead to its discovery. Personally I find the derivation of the Einstein field equations in string theory much simpler and more elegant than the original derivation Einstein gave.

Originally Posted by pywakit
I am going to take his word over yours.
It's not a matter of my word versus his, its a matter of you not grasping the full picture. I've seen that PBS documentary, I watched it before I even took my first course in string theory. Since we're doing the "This famous guy says...." milarky, the person who lectured my string theory course was Michael Green, the person who has just taken over Hawking's (and Newton's) old position as the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge. He appears in that documentary too, he and Schwarz developed the anomaly cancellation method and sparked one of the string theory revolutions. Someone once asked him in a lecture why he worked on string theory and his reply was the derivation of general relativity I just mentioned.

String theory is the only model of gravity which has consistent quantum interactions and the experimentally verified weak field limit.

Originally Posted by pywakit
Green also goes on to say that the predictions string theory makes would not confirm strings because other equally valid theories make the same predictions.
In particular experiments yes, but that's why multiple experiments and multiple ways of testing predictions are always done.

Originally Posted by pywakit
The math provides for a minimum of 10^500 possible solutions. I have already posted the relevant excerpts from Green and others on this thread.
I'm well aware of the notion of the string landscape. My thesis was on the effect certain dualities have on the landscape. A collaborator and I came up with a way to parametrise huge numbers of them.

Originally Posted by pywakit
I have read no recent paper that changes the status of strings.
I question whether you've read any papers on string theory. You don't seem to understand the level of detail and the requirement of derivation and sound methodology in physics, which suggests you're quite unfamiliar with scientific papers. I question whether you even grasp undergraduate level physics, never mind high level string theory research.

You're making the same logical fallacy/approach that creationists do in regards to evolution. I've disagreed with you and rather than defending your work by providing evidence to justify your claims you're trying to attack something I support. Even if you could prove string theory wrong right here and now it wouldn't make a jot of difference as to the scientific merit/worth/validity of your work. I suggest you spend your time a little more wisely.

Originally Posted by pywakit
8. There is nothing random about my model. My hypotheses are logically and reasonably derived from astronomical observations, and the assumption that the known laws of physics are universal.
So where is the derivation? I keep asking you, you keep failing to provide. All you ever provide is just arm waving.

Originally Posted by pywakit
They are not wild, unjustified guesses, anymore than my working out the photometric transit method of exoplanet discovery was a wild, unjustified guess.
Superficial concepts are quite different from working models.

Copernicus realised the Earth goes around the Sun from observations. Is that a 'model of gravity'? No. It took decades, even centuries, for people to develop formal descriptions such that they could say "Ah, the reason the orbit is an ellipse is..." or "If you cube the radius of the orbit, you square its period". A little kid saying "The planet makes the star's image wobble" is a long way from a model of how that wobble appears, when you take into account relative motions, interstellar distances, optical properties of the camera, spectral variation and dozens of other things.

You have a series of vague hypotheses based on extremely qualitative summaries you hear about work scientists have done. That's the first step on an extremely long road to a working model derived clearly and logically from a set of baser postulates which is verifiable by experiment and worth publishing.

Originally Posted by pywakit
Please elucidate the numerous known (or theorized) astronomical phenomena that could cause a periodic drop in luminosity.
Astrophysics 101 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid_variable . They are the 'standard candle' used to measure distances precisely because we understand the relationship between their pulse periods and their brightness.

Originally Posted by pywakit
10. The most basic element of the model is ridiculously simple. The big bang was a centrifugal release of mass from a black hole containing all the mass contained within the Hubble volume. Suggesting that an astrophysicist, or cosmologist could not carry on research of this simple concept if I was hit by a bus is absurd. The conversations I have had with other scientists make it clear that they have little trouble grasping the basics. They may not agree with certain elements of it, but they do appear to understand it.
This is all arm waving. You've reached 'conclusions' without any reason to think they are logically consistent with one another or other observations or whether they can be derived from simpler concepts.

There's an enormous gulf between arm waving wordy ideas and actual models and theories.

Originally Posted by pywakit
11. You have yet to attempt to falsify any of my hypotheses. I can't help but notice you have had no such reluctance when addressing other 'cranks' theories.
You have nothing but your conclusions, which are so vague they cannot be critically analysed or you've tailored to match experiments you've heard of.

Let's consider what you just said, " The big bang was a centrifugal release of mass from a black hole containing all the mass contained within the Hubble volume.". Now if someone like Hawking said that he'd provide a ton of equations, showing how he went from something like the Einstein field equations and some other assumptions and worked through to show that an inflating space-time is the necessary outcome of a particular configuration of matter within an event horizon of size associated to the rate of expansion. It'd be dozens of pages long, showing every step. It'd have a quantitative conclusion and then comments about how it might be put to the test.

In fact, Penrose recently did something very much like that. Lots of derivation, a quantitative conclusion and then an analysis of observations to see if the predictions held any water. That can be analysed, it can be critiqued. For instance, Lubos Motl examined the specifics of their work and concluded it was a result of the CMB power spectrum being a bit quirky.

Now compare that to what you have provided, a few lines of arm waving. It can't be critiqued, because its got no derivation and is just vague.

That's the problem with watered down shit, its hard to nail to the wall.

Originally Posted by pywakit
12. Contrary to your assertions, I do not think I know everything.
Where did I say that? I'd say you think you know a hell of a lot more than you actually do. For instance, you mentioned reading papers pertaining to string theory. I don't think you could understand any published string theory papers on any level that wasn't just reading the wordy parts (abstract, intro, conclusion).

Originally Posted by pywakit
I do think I am a fairly good observer of reality, though. However, if we are to go with your logic, no human in existence could ever know enough to draw any conclusions whatsoever about the form, structure and processes of the observable universe.
For a 'fairly good observer of reality' you sure do fail to grasp the scientific method and people's view of science.

Originally Posted by pywakit
13. I will be happy to debate or discuss any of the specific elements of my model with you or anyone else.
Select a phenomenon in the real world which you can model. State clearly your starting postulates, work through the derivation to a quantitative model and then demonstrate it indeed models said phenomenon, ie leads to predictions which closely correlate with data obtained by experiment. No arm waving, actual precise results/measurements.

Originally Posted by pywakit
14. If the requirements for posting now in pseudoscience are a mathematical description, including all the physics used to derive the hypotheses, then feel free to delete all my posts. I certainly can't stop you.
You called it a model. I'm asking to see you model anything. If you'd called it a vague hypothesis or random idea or Ketamine induced vision I'd not have asked you to provide a model.

You talk about journals, implying you want your work published. I'm not asking you for anything which a journal wouldn't. You claim to have results, predictions, derivations. I'm just following up those claims of yours. And I always find them lacking.

Originally Posted by pywakit
9. My claims of 'flaws' in theories are well-supported by the words of the researchers themselves, as articulated in the numerous science papers and articles included in the addendum at the bottom of post #111.
I'll look at that tomorrow.

12. Okay, here's a skimmed set of comments on post Post 111.

Originally Posted by pywakit
The following model which I proposed two years ago remains rational and sensible. It appears to follow all known laws of physics.
....
The model is supported extremely well by the accumulated observational evidence, physics, and existing mathematics, and does not appear to be fatally contradicted in any way
I'm quoting these for future reference.

Originally Posted by pywakit
1. Assuming the validity of quantum mechanics, black holes are physical, 3-dimensional objects. There is no logical or rational reason to believe they are zero-point, zero-dimensional singularities.
False. QM cannot deal with black holes. Nothing in any quantum mechanics or quantum field theory related to the Standard Model can be trusted when it comes to the centers of black holes.

Originally Posted by pywakit
Hawking Radiation, if confirmed, will not affect this is any material way, as accretion rates, even if not visibly feeding, will invariably out-pace evaporation.
Demonstrate it.

Originally Posted by pywakit
and black holes collapse and 'eat' space continually
They do not 'eat space', like some sort of conveyor belt.

Originally Posted by pywakit
4. All matter that was released from the Big Bang remains in gravitational communication regardless as to how tenuous
False. The cosmological horizon is precisely that, the limit of what is in gravitational and/or electromagnetic communication. As such your claim that your work is not in contradiction to known laws of physics is false.

Originally Posted by pywakit
therefore Newtonian law requires that black holes will eventually chase down all matter irrespective of the accelerating recession.
False. Firstly the Newtonian view of gravity is flat out wrong when you consider things like space-time expansion. Newtonian space-time is absolute and Euclidean. You're demonstrating your don't understand either it or GR. Furthermore, once an object crosses the cosmological horizon you cannot 'chase it down', it is out of communication forever. Another contradiction with the known laws of physics.

Originally Posted by pywakit
Current research indicates that black hole rotational spin generally increases with mass
No, it increases as it accrets mass but only because the mass spirals into it due to its own angular momentum. If you had a spinning black hole and you dropped material into it along a radial line the rate of spin would decrease, via conservation of angular momentum.

Originally Posted by pywakit
Schwarzschild black holes are still a purely mathematical construct and have yet to be confirmed to exist, and while the rotation rate may or may not eventually exceed c, it is not unreasonable to presume the surface matter of rotating supermassive black holes, irrespective of the physical state of the matter, must be rotating past a fixed point in space at many multiples of c.
Schwarzschild black holes do not spin. Kerr black holes spin and Kerr-Newman black holes spin and are charged. You also measure angular velocity in units of linear velocity. Then you make the mistake of thinking in a Newtonian way. When black holes (or anything) rotate they warp space-time and induce things like frame dragging. As a result it isn't possible for such rotation to result in faster than light motion.

Furthermore such a situation wouldn't occur anyway. How would a black hole get to be rotating so quickly? You made the mistake of thinking rotation rate increases with mass, when its not the mass but rather the mass's angular momentum. It would have to be accelerated by in falling material, which means in falling material would have to have unphysical (ie faster than light) motion in order to speed up the rotation rate. It's like pushing a kids roundabout at a playground. Its easy to accelerate initially but once its up to speed its very hard to get it to go faster because your arms have to move faster than the ride in order to accelerate it. Once again you contradict the known laws of physics, contrary to your claim.

Originally Posted by pywakit
6. As black holes eventually gain mass far in excess of trillions and quadrillions of solar masses the strain on space increases (gravitationally induced ripple effect), collapsing and drawing in ever increasing volumes of space and all m/e contained within.
A completely unjustified claim. You have no evidence for this. This is precisely what I'm talking about, you just assert things out of nowhere, with just a "because I say so" argument.

The relationship between spin, mass, charge and event horizons was all done via mathematics, formal structured logic. Since you don't understand said mathematics and it would seem you never read proper research papers you have no clue as to the level of detail and work involved in justifying such results and thus you don't realise the standard your work needs to meet.

The only way you're going to be able to justify that claim is with a formal mathematical model. Since you admit you don't have such things you admit to just making shit up.

Originally Posted by pywakit
8. Regardless of the immense distance separating the last black holes, they will eventually find each other, and this final merging triggers a major contraction of surrounding space, dragging all remaining m/e released from the Big Bang back to the single merged black hole ... down to the last escaping photon and (theorized) graviton.
Previously explained as wrong. Also you claim there's a contraction of space. Justify that. Once again you'll need quantitative work, which you don't have.

Originally Posted by pywakit
9. This sudden collapse of space, in addition to the accumulated spin is sufficient to increase the rotational velocity of the black hole to the point where centrifugal force at the equator finally exceeds the gravitational attraction, briefly releasing a portion of it's mass before conservation of angular momentum slows the rotation below the threshold.
Justify that. Once again you'll need quantitative work, which you don't have.

Actually, pretty much all the remaining numbered points are like that. Assertions without evidence or justification, making detailed claims with absolutely nothing to base them on. You talk about temperatures, how did you arrive at that number? You just plucked it out of the air because you know what some physicist has said. You say as much, mentioning quark-gluon plasmas. Its clear what your method is, you read pop science articles or Wikipedia and find out what the buzzwords are and what predictions or observations actual physicists have made. Then you just make up a load of stuff off the top of your head, throwing in the buzzwords and numbers you know physicists would want to hear and declare it 'a model' and 'consistent with all known laws of physics'.

Originally Posted by pywakit
. Matter in the physical universe has a gravitational 'critical mass point'. Except, so far, black holes.

2. Relativity and quantum mechanics allow for such a process.

3. The ever-increasing acceleration rate of the recession can not go on indefinitely.

4. All systems in the universe appear to conform with physical laws.
Justify 2. Prove that GR + QM leads to such a process, an inevitable 'critical mass point'. You can't, you admit you don't have any maths to back this up. And even if you could none of those things justify your claims.

Now the 'Supporting Evidence' :

Originally Posted by pywakit
1. The laws clearly apply across the observable universe.
That's not evidence, that's a tautology. How in any way does that support your work over anything else?

Originally Posted by pywakit
In any case, the estimated time for a black hole to evaporate far exceeds the time needed for the merging process to occur.
And what is the merging time? You didn't provide any. And you couldn't even if you wanted since, as I've explained, your claim was false.

Originally Posted by pywakit
5. The current isotropic chemical/radiological composition of the visible universe is consistent with the model.
Because you don't provide any predictions in relation to them. The current isotropic chemical/radiological composition of the visible universe is also constant with the existence of Bigfoot, doesn't valid the claim one iota.

Originally Posted by pywakit
6. The high numbers of black holes merging or set to merge
And these are where?

Originally Posted by pywakit
8. The recent discovery of a dwarf galaxy containing a supermassive black hole is in contradiction to established theory regarding the relationship between the mass of galaxies and the mass of their central black holes, and calls into question basic assumptions regarding galaxy formation.
Let's see, you claim the mainstream model is falsified because its quantitative model, which includes things like supercomputer simulations, doesn't gel, so you claim, with such observations. You then go on to say "Both hierarchical (majority) and non-hierarchical formations are predicted by the model". So you can provide a model which can correctly describe galaxy formation? Can we run it on a supercomputer? Can we construct the relationship it predicts between galaxy mass and central black hole mass? Nope, because you don't have any quantitative work, its all just arm waving.

Originally Posted by pywakit
9. The recent observations detecting far more galaxies and their attendant black holes gravitationally bound to ours and M31 than expected.

10. The recent discoveries of high numbers of early protoclusters clusters, including quasars with masses ranging up to 10 billion suns inconsistent with generally accepted theories.

11. The just-announced (unconfirmed) discovery of a protogalaxy , 480m years after the Big Bang. ( Rychard Bouwens, Nature 1/27/11 )

12. The recent discovery of a supercluster in the distant past containing the mass of 800 trillion suns, the existence of which is not supported by current theories of galaxy formation.

13. The recent discovery of a black hole spinning at upwards of 1,000 rps.

14. The recent observations suggestive of black hole spin's upward velocity being related to increased mass.
You're doing the fallacy I previously mentioned, thinking that if you discredit the mainstream then your work becomes more reasonable as a result. False. Until you show your work explicitly leads to such phenomena there's no reason to think your work would be any more able to describe them than the mainstream.

Originally Posted by pywakit
15. The recent ergosphere/frame-dragging studies.
So your work includes ergosphere and frame dragging? Prove it, lets see you derive such things accurately.

Originally Posted by pywakit
18. No compelling evidence that black holes are limited to any specific mass.

19. No evidence of black holes showing any loss of mass.

20. No evidence that black holes 'shunt' mass anywhere else.

21. No evidence of any black holes exploding.

22. No evidence of white holes.

23. No evidence of branes, strings, 11 through 26 dimensions, although strings per se would not conflict with the model.

24. Closed-loop supported by 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

25. Violation of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (entropy build-up) is avoided.

26. The process is not constrained by the existence of dark matter or anti-matter.
ou're doing the fallacy I previously mentioned, thinking that if you discredit the mainstream then your work becomes more reasonable as a result. False. Until you show your work explicitly leads to such phenomena there's no reason to think your work would be any more able to describe them than the mainstream.

Creationists try that tactic with evolution because they can't offer any evidence for their position. Likewise you have no evidence for yours.

Anyway, its 2.30am and I require sleep. There's no point in continuing. You've demonstrated you don't know what 'derivation', 'evidence', 'logic' or 'reason' mean when it comes to science. You've demonstrated you're ignorant of the mainstream work. You've demonstrated you're willing to make assertions and claims you have absolutely no evidence for, by your own admission. You said a few posts ago your work was partly justified by the fact you mentioned other works by scientists, which were published. Your references are almost all pop science articles. You demonstrate precisely what I've previously commented on, you get your 'understanding' of science from the media, not from actual scientists and thus has no clue just how staggeringly far from viable science you are.

Until you can show you're motivated enough to even bother to read physics papers so as to see the kind of methodology your work would require there's little point in continuing discussion with you. You aren't interested in the scientific method or intellectual honesty, you're just wanting to tell people your take on the universe, regardless of how uninformed and ignorant you are on the subject. You've spent years on this but you have squandered it. No doubt you'll complain about how journals are elitist or whatever but unless you take a serious look at your methods and attitude you'll just continue to piss your own time down the drain. Is that what you want? To be precisely where you are now in 2, 5, 10 years, still whining about journals and spaming physicist email addresses?

It's no skin off my nose if you do that but its a pretty pathetic reflection on you if that's how it ends up.

13. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
False. The cosmological horizon is precisely that, the limit of what is in gravitational and/or electromagnetic communication. As such your claim that your work is not in contradiction to known laws of physics is false.
This is mostly true and as far as the communication of information true within the context of current knowledge and technology.

However, you included gravity and gravity has to be considered essentially instantaneous by any measure we can currently make. When you see the moon it is approximately 1.28 light seconds behind its gravitational location. Light appears to be slower than gravity. I say appears because I am not sure there is yet an explanation.

From that we cannot rule out the possibility that the influence of gravity extends further than the electromagnetic horizon. How we might use that is still a mystery. We have yet to even detect or measure gravitational waves. Thus the initial disclaimer, "within the context of current knowledge and technology."

14. Originally Posted by OnlyMe
However, you included gravity and gravity has to be considered essentially instantaneous by any measure we can currently make. When you see the moon it is approximately 1.28 light seconds behind its gravitational location. Light appears to be slower than gravity. I say appears because I am not sure there is yet an explanation.

From that we cannot rule out the possibility that the influence of gravity extends further than the electromagnetic horizon. How we might use that is still a mystery. We have yet to even detect or measure gravitational waves. Thus the initial disclaimer, "within the context of current knowledge and technology."
General relativity says the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light, thus something which is out of communication electromagnetically is out of communication gravitationally. There is no experimental evidence that gravitational influences move faster than electromagnetic ones, with the Moon or otherwise. It is difficult to measure precisely because you can't 'turn on' a gravitational effect in the same way you can with electromagnetism but the speed of gravity has been experimentally narrowed down to about $(1 \pm 0.1)c$.

15. Alpha, I can't do the derivations in the scientific manner so you can stop badgering me about it anytime. Lol.

But I will tell you how I arrived at my conclusions.

Starting with: What evidence did we ever have that the genesis of our universe was an infinitely small/dense point?

None. Zero. We had a math equation, elements of which were supported by observation. But no actual evidence that the universe we observe today was ever an infinitely small point.

In fact, the reverse was true. To make this hypothesis work, we had to suspend every observed physical law. No physics. No weak and strong forces. No chemistry. And most importantly, no gravity.

With absolutely no supporting observational or experimental evidence we just assumed that those laws did not exist until some time after the big bang. Since we had no evidence the laws did exist before, this was as good a default position as any, especially in the context of our deep underlying philosophical belief that this universe was the first 'anything' to ever exist.

And we built a universe from that foundation. Please correct me if I am in error so far.

A quick chronology of my reasoning ...

As a curious child in the late 50s I disagreed with Einstein's infinite yet bounded space. Reason assured me that two straight parallel lines would have no end points and would always remain parallel. I had no problem with curved space and time, relating to our expanding gravitational bubble of matter and energy, but I had no preconceptions about our universe being the only one to have ever existed, and as far as I knew, there was no observational evidence to support this mainstream assumption either.

By the late 60s, I had changed my mind. I was starting to believe mainstream knew what they were talking about. I realized that many theoretical principles derived from quantum mechanics were being born out through experiments. So maybe they were right after all.

Black holes were still theory, and there was still much disagreement as to their actual existence so I stopped worrying about them. For a while.

By the late 70s black holes were to all intents and purposes a 'given'. No one was talking about them being ubiquitous of course. And merging wasn't even in the conversation. But I knew that even if they were just a 'freak' of nature they were going to be a problem if the universe was going to fade away as mainstream was theorizing (now with a high degree of confidence). By this time it was apparent they were not vanishing from our universe. They were not shunting mass. They were not exploding.

Of course, one key element of the 'fading away' theory was the assumption that all matter will eventually decay to nothing. Particle research was really just starting to gain steam, and scientists were confidently predicting that we would have experimental evidence of total decay "in the very near future".

And about this time, Hawking came out with his theory of black hole evaporation. Like many people, I assumed Hawking was probably correct. So now it didn't matter if black holes existed.

But by the late 80s I was beginning to have doubts again. Particle research experiments were not producing a single total decay. And I did not understand the logical basis nor the mechanism for Guth's Inflation. It was as if we just decided, "Well, based on our more accurate measurements, the universe must have expanded really fast in a very short period of time, so let's just make the universe expand really fast in a very short period of time."

And too, we were starting to realize that black holes were probably a lot more common than we had suspected. We now suspected they could merge. But we had no idea how big they could get, since we still lacked any real understanding as to how they formed, how long they had existed, or that they could keep growing.

By the late 90s our universe was a drastically different place. It had grown in size exponentially. We now suspected black holes were 'everywhere'. Hawking radiation had yet to be confirmed, and particle research was a dud as far as decaying matter.

String theory had morphed into the most 'promising' theory, set to replace the standard model with a theory that would unify all the forces, and the experts were confidently claiming we were "very close" and predicting we would have solid evidence of their existence "in the very near future ... 1 to 5 years at the outside." Of course, they had already been claiming this for over a decade.

On the other side, we now knew the universe was expanding at an ever-increasing rate of acceleration, or more accurately, we knew that the superclusters were receding from us and each other at an increasing rate of acceleration. And some unknown force was driving this.

But I had never fully bought into the assumption that our universe was the only one. And if it wasn't, then why wasn't there any evidence of other universes? If mainstream was right (and I assumed they were) our universe was going to expand for a very very long time. I reasoned that even if the particle theoriests were right, and other possible universes could have any number of physical laws, I still understood that if it happens once, it can happen (theoretically) an infinite number of times. So there must be other universes that have existed with the exact same laws (and function) of ours. If that is the case, why were there no overlaps? Given (in theory) eternity, and infinite space to work with?

Either we were 'alone' or the theorists were wrong.

By the late 2000s I had decided they were. Black holes were still not evaporating. Instead, they were growing by leaps and bounds. Merging. Accreting. Particles were still not decaying. String theorists by now had devised an ever more complex myriad of hypothetical structures to account for the observed universe, and none of them were going anywhere. It appeared to me that they were just creating more problems. Where did these branes come from? If nothing existed prior to the big bang, then how could they have existed at all? Why would they collide? Where did their energy come from? Why would their collision, even if such collisions happened, bleed a Hubble's worth of energy into our universe? Seemed to me they were just digging themselves a deeper hole by the minute, and coming up with zero evidence, experimental or obervational to prove any of it.

If our universe wasn't the first to ever exist, and it didn't come from strings, or branes, or an infinitely small/dense point, and it didn't come from gods, or 'exotic' unknown physics, then where did it come from?

The laws of physics appeared to be universal. There had to be a physical explanation. And there had to be a physical reason why we had no evidence of other universes. A simple reason.

So I attempted to reverse engineer the 'actual' universe (or omniverse) based on the assumption that our local universe didn't start from an infinitely small point. Since I was also assuming space was infinite and eternal this required me to make other assumptions. I had to assume each universe must be a 'closed' system. This assumption then required me to assume that all universes were the same.

Based upon these assumptions, there appeared to be only one possible way this could happen. Since they don't seem to want to go away, and they are the most exotic thing we have ever observed, and they exist, the leading candidate was black holes. They seemed to be the only way to get 'rid' of matter that won't decay. And they could theoretically solve the bleed over issue.

So I set out to prove my 'theory' wrong. I looked for any evidence that could falsify this hypothesis. I reviewed all the data I could find on the early universe. I tried to find support for an infinitely small/dense singularity. I looked for research that confirmed inflation and/or provided a physical mechanism for this phenomenon. I looked carefully at the COBE images. I tried to confirm the theorized hot, dense, homogeneous state of matter immediately following the big bang. I looked for any evidence to prove physics did not exist at the moment of the big bang.

I reviewed the latest on particle research relative to matter decay. I looked for confirmation of hierarchical galaxy and black hole formation. I looked for solid evidence to explain the wide disparity in the masses of black holes. I reviewed the latest on evaporation.

I looked for new information that supported strings, or branes. Or expanding bubbles of space.

I could find nothing to support those mainstream theories, any of which would have falsified my hypothesis.

The accelerating recession was a serious problem. But if we assume our universe started from a hypermassive black hole then the entire paradigm changes. If gravity and physics always existed then it doesn't matter if the expansion of space exceeds c.

As OnlyMe pointed out, we have no evidence that all matter is not in gravitational communication. In fact, if we assume that the genesis of our local universe was a hypermassive black hole, then we must assume that there was also a hypermassive gravitational field that preceded the big bang.

We do not understand the physics of gravity. We don't know how it does what it does. We know it propogates through the medium of space, but we don't know how. We have yet to determine the mechanism for this.

If the genesis was a hypermassive black hole, then logic tells me that every bit of matter that was released from this black hole would always be in gravitational communication, regardless as to the accelerating recession, or the vanishing horizon. Stretched unbelievably thin, but still there.

In any case, since we also don't understand the force behind the accelerating recession, we have no way to determine it won't stop, or reverse.

As far as the physics at the center of a black hole, it doesn't matter. We know they are there. We know how they interact with the rest of the universe. We know they have gravity, so they can't be 'somewhere else'.

I included the reference to frame dragging, because it supports high rotational velocities. If I am not incorrect, the Lense-Thirring effect proves ergospheres rotate faster than c relative to the rest of the universe.

You said that black holes do not 'eat space' as in a conveyor belt. Do you have evidence to support this? Because my understanding is they do. If they can drag space/time around in excess of c, and they collapse space per GR, and space is 'something' with intrinsic energy, then why wouldn't black holes be eating it as fast as it drops past the event horizon?

Ok. I'm tired. No doubt I am forgetting several important things. Sorry again for my lack of articulation, and mathematical derivations.

But I did not just 'wildy guess' at this. I reasoned it out. Of course it may be entirely wrong. But I think it is about as 'Occam's razor' as you can get. Simple. Plausible. Physical.

Spin and centrifugal force could be the mechanism for the big bang.

16. Originally Posted by OnlyMe
...gravity has to be considered essentially instantaneous by any measure we can currently make.
Why?

17. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
General relativity says the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light, thus something which is out of communication electromagnetically is out of communication gravitationally. There is no experimental evidence that gravitational influences move faster than electromagnetic ones, with the Moon or otherwise. It is difficult to measure precisely because you can't 'turn on' a gravitational effect in the same way you can with electromagnetism but the speed of gravity has been experimentally narrowed down to about $(1 \pm 0.1)c$.
You are right. However, the way GR defines the speed of gravity is how fast a change in gravitational force propagates through space. That is still theoretical. Though there are some observations that support it. But we are still looking for those gravitational waves.

On the other hand, within an existing gravitational system, like the moon and the earth, the gravitational force the moon exerts on the earth has to be calculated based on its real poison rather than where it looks like it is. The moon is not where you see it in the sky. It is about 1.28x light seconds ahead of that location in its orbit. The gravitational force exerted on the earth seems to originate from it real location, instead of where it was.

No theory at this time explains how or why. Though we can mathematically calculate with significant reliability where things in the shy look like they are (from the light we see), where they are ( somewhere further along in their orbits because light takes time to get to us and orbital motion continues during that interval) and where they will be and will "appear" to be in the future, we still don't know the fundamental "cause" of gravity.

The gravitational force that the moon exerts on the earth has to be calculated from its real position.

Perhaps the field itself is subject to frame dragging? The force then could move between two objects at the speed of light while the effect of that force is experienced in advance of that position.

Newton claimed gravity was an instantaneous force because he observed that that the force came from a position in advance of visible light. GR speaks to how fast gravitational waves propagate.

18. Originally Posted by OnlyMe
On the other hand, within an existing gravitational system, like the moon and the earth, the gravitational force the moon exerts on the earth has to be calculated based on its real poison rather than where it looks like it is. The moon is not where you see it in the sky. It is about 1.28x light seconds ahead of that location in its orbit. The gravitational force exerted on the earth seems to originate from it real location, instead of where it was.
Citation needed.

Originally Posted by OnlyMe
Newton claimed gravity was an instantaneous force because he observed that that the force came from a position in advance of visible light. GR speaks to how fast gravitational waves propagate.
The speed gravitational waves spread is the propagation speed of gravity. You seem to under the impression there's two different speeds to consider, there isn't.

Originally Posted by pywakit
Alpha, I can't do the derivations in the scientific manner so you can stop badgering me about it anytime. Lol.
And you should stop whining about publishing and being worth of study because you have nothing worth looking at in that case. The story of your life is irrelevant.

I ask you for justifications, you provide anecdotes and attacks on the mainstream. I ask you to provide a link to the journal page where they state they reject automatically anyone without university affiliation and you ignore me. You claim to read the latest research yet your work shows you have no idea how scientific work is presented or undertaken.

You're dishonest, naive and ignorant. And no matter how much you whine the fact of the matter is its gotten you nowhere.

19. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Citation needed.

The speed gravitational waves spread is the propagation speed of gravity. You seem to under the impression there's two different speeds to consider, there isn't.
Correct the speed of gravitational waves is the propagation speed of gravity.

A gravitational field is a static field. It exists even where an object that might interact with it does not. The effect of the static field has to be calculated as if the effect of gravitation were instantaneous.

Eddington, 1920
“If the Sun attracts Jupiter towards its present position S, and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its present position J, the two forces are in the same line and balance. But if the Sun attracts Jupiter toward its previous position S’, and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its previous position J’, when the force of attraction started out to cross the gulf, then the two forces give a couple. This couple will tend to increase the angular momentum of the system, and, acting cumulatively, will soon cause an appreciable change of period, disagreeing with observations if the speed is at all comparable with that of light.”
(Eddington, 1920, p. 94)
There is a difference between the speed that gravitational waves propagate and the effect of the static field that they create.

20. Alpha.

Perhaps you failed to read the part where I said I realize my work would never meet the standards for publication in a respected science journal. I am not a physicist. I am not a mathematician. I'm just an observer.

When I first (naively) looked into publishing, the mainstream journals (which I was unfamiliar with, getting most of my information from 'pop' science rags like Universe Today) required affiliations. So I went directly to the scientists. It worked fine for my purposes.

I make no outrageous attacks on mainstream. All I do is report what occurred, and how it helped shape my thinking. If I misreported it, then feel free to correct me.

Ignorant? Of course I am. Who isn't? Certainly every scientist I corresponded with was fairly ignorant of the latest observations outside their own narrow field of study.

Naive? Again, of course I am. Since I am not a learned academician, I am by definition naive as to the inner workings of academia. And many other things too. So?

Dishonest? I must disagree. I only claim to be a fairly good observer of the macro universe. There is a great deal I don't know, and will never know. This doesn't prevent me from grasping the basics.

I also consider myself a fairly good observer of human psychology. No expert here either, but it's easy to recognize certain patterns of behavior.

Alpha, I am an imperfect human. I do not claim to be smarter than everyone in the science community. I just have an interest in the universe. I have no more or less right to express my views, conclusions, rationales, and justifications for those views as anyone else.

Your incessant unrealistic demands, and derisive comments serve no purpose. Of course, you are welcome to continue, but it doesn't change anything. You are not dissuading me. I am getting where I want to go.

You are entitled to your opinions. If you believe I have wasted all those years, so be it. I don't feel they have been wasted at all. I understand I have limited skills and knowledge, but I see no reason why I should give up. You can insist over and over that I am getting nowhere if it pleases you to do so. But again, it changes nothing.

Rather than encourage people to add to their knowledge, you expend much time and energy pointlessly attempting to make them feel as if they will never be able to participate in the human quest for understanding. Not only are their ideas worthless in your view, but they are worthless as human beings in general. Again, if it makes you feel better about yourself to do this, have at it.

I am trying to expose scientists to an alternative view of the universe. To encourage mainstream to challenge certain assumptions. To consider possibilities they may not have considered before. I have presented these possible solutions in the most descriptive and comprehensive way I can.

It is clearly your view that someone as ignorant as me can't possibly have anything of value to add to the discussion. That even attempting to do so is a serious affront to scientists who have dedicated their lives to their profession. A serious breech of protocol.

Somehow, I think the scientists will survive this. Nobody is being forced to read any of my material.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•