Come ON. It was funny. William Hung telling you about cosmology. You should listen. Didn't you mention another possibility; the jets as described in this link? It says, "These data support the suggestion that twisted magnetic field lines are creating the jet plumes. Material in the center of the galaxy, such as nearby stars and gas, gets pulled in by the black hole's overwhelming gravity and forms a disk orbiting around the core (the material's inertia keeps it spiraling in a disk rather than falling straight into the black hole). The distorted magnetic field lines seem to pull charged particles off the disk and cause them to gush outward at nearly the speed of light. "We knew that material was falling in to these regions, and we knew that there were outbursts coming out," said University of Michigan astronomer Hugh Aller, who worked on the new study. "What's really been a mystery was that we could see there were these really high-energy particles, but we didn't know how they were created, how they were accelerated. It turns out that the model matches the data. We can actually see the particles gaining velocity as they are accelerated along this magnetic field." Do you use these observations to support your model and if so can you be specific about how your model uses these recent observations to support your transition from your merged black hole into a new expanding universe? The Expansion Momentum Mechanism post describes the mechanism from the point in the early expansion where matter formed. There is a brief period of time before that and after the supposed t=0 which was what Alan Guth calls Inflationary Theory. In theory it lasted pico seconds and was characterized by exponential expansion. Do you consider that part of Big Bang Theory? It is I'm pretty sure Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. What is there in your theory after t=o and during the period before matter was supposed to have form from the soup? Can you describe was was occuring during that period? They aren't saying that it happened without Inflationary Theory so they are not confirming your mechanism. It is interesting to follow. I might not be up to date. Do you have a link to a time line that you consider supports your model? Or can you just give me your time line as you see it? How do you respond to post #78?
Sorry q. I have had other stuff to do. I will take care of post #78 before I go to bed. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No hurry. I'm beginning to see am impasse building. No new physics and no existing physics that explains the event means an impasse. You have to have more than just "angular momentum is known physics and math". Your theory has all the mass in the arena accumulated in a black hole (somehow) and spinning at faster than the speed of light (somehow), and spinning off another complete iteration of the cyclical cosmology (somehow). Are you calling that known physics Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!? Do you agree that there are some holes in the whole merged hole theory Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!?
Q, try to understand. I have had lengthy conversations with Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and shorter conversations with others who disagree with you. I am not a mathemetician, therefore I can not express the theorems that would describe these events. You have already refused to acknowledge the reference material I have provided, and are stuck on the 'theory' that black holes don't spin. Or don't spin very fast. You are clearly incorrect. Every black hole discovered ( to my knowledge ) in the last 5 years has spin far beyond what researchers thought was possible. You continue to misrepresent clear, concise information ... such as the reference material on the 'jets', trying to bend the evidence to suit your model. The researchers involved stated their findings. They stated that the black holes may be spinning at near c. It is also accepted science that SMBHs ( like the 9 they refer to in the Chandra study ) are the product of smaller BHs merging. I'm sorry. I don't give a damn about Guth. Inflationary theory is still nothing more than *magic*. SST/M-theory goes hand in hand with Guth's theories. It is also *magic*. So therefore it is not an acceptable alternative. To start with *magic* as your basis for a 'mechanism' instantly defeats your model. Unless ... by some f'ing miracle, SST/M-theory is proven to be REAL. After 40 years and not a single shred of proof, I wouldn't be holding my breath. Whether or not you choose to believe my theory also requires *magic* is of no concern to me. I know it does not. Per one ( at least ) famous scientist. Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Second, as I have stated repeatedly, you insist on claiming my UBH spins faster than light. I don't claim that. I assert it is POSSIBLE, but not necessary for my model to function. Third, You don't have a clear grasp of the model. My UBH would not just start throwing off surface particles one by one. It would be a sudden, massive release of energy brought on by the final collapse of ALL space containing matter/energy ... which is in keeping with Einsteinian math. From post #78: No. This is incorrect. It will not 'throw off hot particles'. It will release sufficient energy at one time to create the universe we exist in. For all I know, 99.999999999999999999999999% of the black hole remains at the core after this release of energy. Since we can't see to that point ... since all we have are mathematical models to describe anything earlier than about 700 miilion years after the BB, it is impossible to know what is happening at the original point of expansion. I would assume that in it's 'fluidic' ( if that is the way it is stored ) state of compression, there is no temperature ... but I am not a physicist, and it is irrelevant. You know damn well I don't have some mathematical theorem 'written up'. Under the extreme gravity of a black hole, any matter/energy will be ripped to it's smallest possible constituent as it drops beyond the event horizon. Do your research. You will find plenty of support for this assumption. Again, time to get up to speed on black holes. Non-rotating ones are going the way of the dinosaur. You are ignoring Einstein. On several fronts. I don't think he would appreciate this. Einstein said matter collapsing to a black hole will have spin approaching c. He believed this would prevent the total collapse due to ANGULAR MOMENTUM. Now we know he was wrong. And right. Black holes exist. They clearly spin at near, if not at or above c. Space is collapsed at the singularity. GR makes this pretty clear. And there is no evidence to contradict this ... yet. So it remains possible that black holes are not subject to 'normal' speed limits that space imposes. Furthermore, Einstein said space itself is not limited to c. And there is evidence of this from the initial expansion of matter/energy from the BB. And yes. A point on the surface relative to a fixed point in space. Given a massive boost by the final collapse of space, yes. But not just the surface particles. I think the black hole will release far more than that before it slows sufficiently for gravity to win the battle again. This process ( the BB ) occurred over milliseconds, if not faster. A whole lot of material could have been cast off in that time frame. Enough for a universe ... just like ours. Good grief. Even Guth has his 'inflation' occuring in that short a time frame. But Guth's inflation theory does not account for the CMBR, or the isotropy/homogenity of hydrogen/helium. My model provides a rational explanation by space 'uncollapsing' suddenly. In keeping with Einstein's curvature of space. Reversed. If it can collapse, it can UN-collapse. GENERAL RELATIVITY. Right. Maybe you just don't realise how much mass there could be in this UBH. It could be hundreds, thousands, millions of time the total energy we see in the form of our visible universe. All it has to do is release enough to create the matter and energy that we see as our universe. You can argue that point with a physicist. Sorry you feel that way. I don't blame you one bit ... considering the time and effort you put into a model that requires *magic* to start. Q, I have been deflecting 'magicians' unsupported assertions since I first proposed my model one year ago. You are not making any new objections that have not been repeated over and over by 'stringers'. I'm honestly sorry. But you have a mind set supported only by others with the same mind set. Defend Guth all you want. Defend inflation all you want. For now, it needs more than new physics. It needs *magic*. I wish you luck with your model, but if you can't discuss mine or yours rationally, accepting new discoveries and incorporating them into your model, I can't help you. I don't have any problems with the new discoveries, because my model predicts them. Since we now have proof that black holes merge ... and that they spin at outrageous velocities, the ball is in your court to explain how they WON'T merge to one, and will STOP spinning. The evidence is coming down on the side of my model ... every week, or month ... something new is announced that fits within the parameters of my model PERFECTLY. By contrast, each new discovery is another death knell for yours. Again, I feel very bad for you. Obviously you are a nice guy, and you have worked your ass off on your model. Imagine how people like Guth, and Greene, and Turok, and Hawking are feeling right now. They have put a lot more time and effort into THEIR models. And it isn't looking too good for them, either. But facts are facts. If you can't, or won't accept them, that's on you. My model is doing just fine ... with or without 'papers'. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
All along, I have only asked you to put your ideas in words that convey the ideas. If they make sense then you can worry about if they can be expressed mathematically. Are you saying Tyson actually understood and discussed the ideas in detail. Otherwise what were were taking about. Do you have anything in writing from him that acknowledges the concepts and expresses agreement? Otherwise it is possible that you chatted about the solar system with him at the planetarium for all we know. Just because he didn’t question your model you feel you can say he didn’t agree with my view that you need new physics to overcome observed expansion down to the last photon. I just don’t understand how it would work in the limited way you have expressed it. Expand on the explanations to show how it works. Don’t be sorry. You aren’t describing me in that paragraph. OK. That makes it THE “event” that is pivotal to each cycle. I’m asking how it happens. Put it into some words that address the known physics that are in play throughout each cyclical rendition. Some of your thinking makes sense but to claim a theory of cosmology, it is my thinking that you have to go further. Connect the pieces, tie together the ideas, put it into a presentation. Notice that it has changed since the original post and it changes as you think it through. Think it all the way through and firm it up. No, you do the research or document it if you have done it. Research can show a wide range of findings, even completely opposite findings. You have to narrow down the chase yourself if you want anyone to consider that you have more than just “look around out there, someone will agree with some of this”. You have not been clear on the concept of “space” that you are talking about. You might want to do some definitions of terms that you are using to explain how they take on a special meaning when you use them in your theory. To many “ifs”. I’ll let you have the last word.
Where is the smilie that shows a clucking chicken when you need one? pywakit, you say you are not a mathematician or a physicist. You also claim to have a cosmological model. Well, I'm just a simple Earth scientist, trans-morphed into an engineer, with some background as a failed entrepeneur and succesful people manager. I can't conceive of a meaningful cosmological model that is in a maths free zone, so, in the words of one of the Dragons I'm out.
I went back in the thread to where I last posted and scrolled up and down. Provide me a link to the questions you refer to and I'll answer them. When providing that link why don't you also answer my question about where the equations which can describe gravitational phenomena are. Is it too much to ask for you to provide a few links? I have repeatedly tried to engage you in discussion. The one behaving like a child and saying "Lah lah lah lah, I can't hear you" is yourself. Nice weasel word 'idol'. Do you think by putting 'apparent' in brackets you can magically make up false claims about me? You are (apparently) a sex offender. See, easy to do when you don't have to back that up with anything. Please provide evidence I idolise them. So you, someone who obviously doesn't know the history or details of relativity, quantum mechanics, cosmology and string theory, can say all you like about them and make claims left right and center but when I, someone who has proven first hand experience and knowledge of all of those, corrects you suddenly I'm making statements without weight. Why don't you provide me with evidence Einstein worked for 5 years on his own to develop GR. The fact his working relationship with Hilbert and it took 10 years go to go from his 1905 publication of SR to his 1915 publication of GR might be a problem for you. I think my hypocrisy gauge just exploded. String theory can provide quantitative predictions for the dynamics of stellar objects. Can your work? No. So your claim about your work 'Its consistent with GR' is you failing to distinguish your fantasy about your work from the reality of its complete lacking in any ability to describe Nature. Every criticism you have levelled at string theory has either been false or has been 10 times more applicable to your own 'work'. If you want to shut me up answer my questions. Tell me the equations which you have developed within your work which I can use to model the dynamics of stellar objects, as you claimed you've got if your work is consistent with general relativity. We know string theory is consistent with general relativity because it reproduces the fundamental equation of general relativity, the Einstein Field Equations. Can you do the same? Can you provide me with any method by which I can calculate the dynamics of stellar objects in your work which can then be compared to experiment or theory? You could silence my criticism of you by showing my criticism is baseless. You haven't. If you can't defend your work from the minimal effort of a student you are never going to get it published in a reputable journal. But then the fact you're pushing your work on an internet forum and not publishing it speaks volumes about its veracity. q_w has found another kindred spirit.
For the record I see no comparison between Kai’s “Total Field Theory, the Reinstatement of Steady State Theory”, and Py’s “New Theory of Cosmology”. I read Kai’s book and could find nothing inconsistent with known science fact or data, and could find no internal inconsistencies. It had all of the elements of a description of the universe. I made no statements that I thought it represented reality. Other’s ridiculed Kai and then me for carrying out a discussion of his book in a Pseudoscience forum. You have to expect that. Py’s theory is a different story. I took the time to examine it in detail with him. I cannot see it as a cosmology in its present form. It has internal inconsistencies and doesn’t deal with cosmology in any complete sense. Whether anyone wishes to say anything at all about whom I am kindred spirits with after they have ridiculed that person, only serves as an attempt to antagonize me. While I used to return the flames when people flamed me first, I see no benefit in that. Say what you will about me, and I will think what I will about you and neither of us will care much either way.
So you proposed your model four years after the first observations of what you claim your model predicts? . When I was a child (1980's) black holes had not yet been "seen" but, they were thought to be the cause behind the most energetic observations in the universe (next to the big bang). In Dr Joesph Silk's 1988 book The Big Bang, he states that a possible explanation for the observation of quasars (even back then) was the formation/merger of rotating black holes. This best explained the observed level of concentrated energy without introducing ad hoc models. Your "predictions are two decades to late. That being said you go on to "predict" the ultimate fate of the universe. Here you jump to some arbitrary time in the future (something a true model should be able to predict) where black holes are all that's left. And like the mythological Highlander, no matter how far separated, every black hole is drawn to each other until there is only one left. Unfortunately for you, there is something called escape velocity which prevents your "prediction". . Why couldn't the center of every black hole be the same place? In this respect all black holes need not merge to condense all the matter of the universe back into a single point. Here we can have matter falling into multiple black holes and, after being striped of its properties, the matter condenses back into its original pre big bang form. How is this any less likely than your story?
I never said the 'models' being proposed are anything alike, other than, I suppose, the fact they model nothing. You have engaged with Py the same way yoou engages with Kai, you have not used rational evaluation in examining their work in the same way you don't with your own work and instead pat each other on the back and enable one another by deluded each other about your respective works. "The Flying Spaghetti Monster did it" is not inconsistent with known science fact or data nor does it have internal inconsistencies but its complete nonsense and no one would view it as a serious attempt at science. Predicting nothing means you can't have any of your predictions contradicted by reality. Other than actually describing anything. You enable people who have as worthless work as your own. If a statement of fact antagonises you then I suggest you evaluate your work a bit better.
Here's my Google.doc that you refer to as my "work". It is a pass time doing something that interests me. It evolves Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! as I discuss it with people. You can PM me if you want.
I know where to find it. Doesn't mean I wish to read it. As I said to Kai, nothing in your posts makes me think any document you type up is worth the effort and time to read. Might I suggest wood work or painting. You get things worth looking at at the end. What possible reason would I have to do that?
Actually it is a good pass time. It keeps me busy if I want to be with it, and I enjoy updating it. The interesting part of cosmology to me is the part that science cannot tell us about. My Goodle.doc pretty much addresses the things you don't like about us amateurs. It isn't intended to be presented at the level that a professional would be interested in or would even be expected to take notice of. There are much better ways for those who have professional credentials to spend their reading and commenting time. I would think that if I was going to find any non professionals who would be interested in discussing the area of cosmology that science does not yet have the answers for, it would be here in Pseudoscience. I hope it is expected that we enable each other Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! to the extent that we would listen to each others ideas and comment honestly about what we think of them. Once we have done that we move on to the next discussion and new ideas.
Well, it's great that no one has come up with any actual flaws in the model so far. Yes, I still need to find a good mathematician to express the model fully, but that in no way 'falsifies' the model. I have not bothered to respond to the string theorist's comments as strings are still in the 'hypothetical' stage, after 40 years of intense research. I will reconsider this stance once the stringers have proven that the other 10^500 mathematical universes have any less validity than the than the ones they are currently focused on. I look forward to any further rational debate on this subject, but I will not respond to any more games, or incessant claims of superiority by the stringers. I have posted more than adequate 3rd party, peer-reviewed referenced material to put that argument to bed.
Pywakit, I tried to help you put your cosmological model into some presentable fashion. You were rude and mistaken about my motives. You didn’t even admit that your model needs work which is all I tried to tell you in my last response to you. Now you are posting in multiple threads with some “superior than the rest of us” implications which can only work against you getting useful discussions going on topics that you are interested in discussing. If you want discussions, lose the attitude and treat the rest of us as if we at least have brain one. Enlighten us all you want but don’t act like you have all the answers because you haven’t demonstrated that particular aspect of your persona.
QW, The model needs math, and a clearer description of it's features. Not 'work'. There is a difference. Your assesments were inaccurate, and based on your posts, I feel your help was disingenuous. You may claim it has 'problems', but your claim is not backed by the facts in evidence. Since you ignore the supporting evidence I have provided, there is no further reason to discuss my model with you. As far as having a 'know it all attitude', I can see why you would think that. At the same time, there is a reason for my method. Some things are best figured out on your own. That is because so many of you are much too comfortable in your world/universe views. You have stopped challenging yourselves, and just rely on old, or bad evidence, and assumptions. Trying to just 'tell' you where you went wrong in your thinking is a total waste of time. You will just throw old, dated evidence, and unsupported assumptions back at me, continue to ignore very real evidence you never considered before, and you will attack my 'credentials' ( of which I have none ) 'proving' ( in your minds ) that anything I say is 'worthless'. If you really want to understand 'detective work' you first must throw away everything you think you know. And unfortunately that is a near impossibility for any of you .... you just don't think that way. Anyway, you are much too smart to learn anything of value from someone like me. First rule of a good detective : Assume nothing. Take the Drake Equation. It made many assumptions regarding the 'mathematical' likelihood of other radio-capable races having developed, and having transmitted within a certain window of time. SETI fully expected to detect a signal in the 1st few years, using stupidly primitive equipment ( by today's standards ) and assuming the most likely frequencies to monitor. The CRIME? 50 years later, after 'glancing' casually at billions of stars, and monitoring hundreds of thousands of frequencies .... NOTHING! This is no mystery to an objective observer. One who has not repeatedly expressed unsupported assumptions/hypotheses so many times that they morphed into beliefs/theories ... and from there to 'scientific truths'. It's easy to understand why there have been no detectable signals. THERE AREN'T ANY. After checking billions of stars. Once we accept this evidence, we can then reassess the reasons for believing we would have detected some in the first place. That means re-examining our evidence for the likelihood ( and very existence ) of radio-capable life. There are many good reasons why there 'aren't any'. Factual, concrete reasons. But in all the posts on the issue of SETI, all I read were the same old excuses, parroted by one and all. None of you had a single original thought on the subject, nor did you show the intellectual 'will' to examine the problem with any objectivity or in any depth. This is not the correct thread for discussing this, but I will be happy to point anyone in the right direction if they so desire. I will look for your comments on the appropriate threads.
Angular momentum is conserved. Black holes don't spin faster when they merge. There is nothing in your model to cause the instantaneous expansion at the instant the last photon is recalled from the farthest reaches of space. The model needs work, not math. You are wasting your time trying to convince me what my motives are, and I agree with you that there is there is no further reason to discuss your model with me. Good luck with it.
I never said what your motives were. But here again is a prime example of ignoring current evidence, and GR. The ergospheres of black holes. Research them QW. Find out how fast they are rotating around the black holes. Centrifugal force will overcome gravity. Einstein, and our observations of the natural world/universe confirm this. Per GR, and Einstein, collapsing structures will spin. Merged black holes are NOT cancelling out each other's spin. This is not what the evidence shows. This is why it is pointless to continue a dialogue. You simply won't accept the evidence. Good luck to you, too.
So if you don't follow what's going on here, it ( a reduction in spin ) requires objects entering, and then escaping the BHs rotation. If no such objects ( or very few ) actually do this, then the rotational speed is not slowed. Or very little. Of course, anything it eats just speeds it back up again. Furthermore, this ( Penrose process ) is theory. We have no observational evidence of 'objects' slowing black holes down at all. Every new discovery of a black hole either shows us a BH with incredible spin ... no matter the size ( and this is very important ), or we have insufficient data present to measure spin. The importance of size is, SMBHs are generally thought to be the product of MERGERS, as are UMBHs. And virtually every one we have been finding in the last 5 years is rotating at incredible velocities ... up to 'near' c at minimum.
