Here is a small exerpt from Trans regarding the Milky Way ... http://cosserv3.fau.edu/~cis/AST2002/Lectures/C15/Trans/Trans.html It is only recently that theorists are considering whether BHs came before the formations of the galaxies. Ask yourself ... how could the ergosphere of a BH be rotating faster than c? Does it not dawn on you that space is being dragged by the SMBH? Surely you have heard of 'frame-dragging'. We know that all of the Milky Way galaxy is in the gravitational well of it's SMBH. From what research I have done, the spiral arms of the galaxy are not, on average, slowing down. This is significant. Space is trying to 'grab on' to the SMBH at the center of the MW. Instead of the BH slowing down, the BH is yanking space ( and matter contained in that space ) around at speeds exceeding c. Isn't it obvious that the BH is also dragging the entire galaxy around? And not just the visible matter, but all that dark matter, too. That has to be some serious spin, and some serious inertia. The confusion with scientists over the years has stemmed from the (quite possibly incorrect ) assumption that the galaxy came first ... then the SMBH. Put the SMBH there first, and now Keppler's laws apply. It appears that the rotation of our galaxy closely resembles that of a solar system. Ever wonder why the visible matter in our galaxy is in the shape of a flattened disc? Like other relatively mature galaxies? And like our solar system? Could it be that a SMBH with extreme spin, that formed at the center of the galaxy, shaped the galaxy, and created it's angular momentum? And the ultra-high frequency gravitational waves perturbed the dust and gas to get star formation going, and ultimately caused the spiral arms to form? It's something to consider ... PS : Our solar system's angular velocity relative to the galactic center is about 830,000 k/h, and I believe we are about 26,000 (other material suggests as much as 50,000) light years from the center. And again ... it does not appear to be slowing down much. Stars closely orbiting the BH have been clocked at speeds in excess of 5,000,000 k/h. And we have also discovered other stars (intruders) moving at speeds exceeding 14,000,000 k/h. Not only that, but we have clocked 'escapees' leaving the galaxy at speeds well over 1,000,000 k/h. Of course, if any of you have material contradicting this information, and/or my observations, I will be happy to examine it.
By the way, you still never got it. The last photon is not 'recalled' from space. You are aware that the intitial expansion after the BB occurred at a velocity significantly faster than c. 'Space' expanded faster than c. The crunch at the last black hole is a reverse of this. The final collapse of space containing those last photons ALSO occurred at faster than c. Just like GR allows. And for all we know, at the end, there were two black holes .... falling toward each other, dragging space along with them. How about a collision of the last two ubermassive black holes ... head on ... at near ( or above ) c? Will that cause a BB? Here we have a combination of spin, and kinetic energy. All within GR. Wonder what computer modelling of that would look like .... But whether it's just one monstrously big one pulling space 'down', or a collision of two, each pulling space with them ... I think the aftermath of either process would be very similar to the universe we have. And no magic required. But maybe you just can't get past the hypothetical 'evaporating' black holes ...... Or maybe you think like others I have talked to who insist that black hole will be found to evaporate, and that the time frame needed to evaporate is way shorter than the time it would take for black holes to find each other and merge. So let me remind you of some info Dr. Tyson gave me. Who knows. Maybe he made it up 10^140 years for a 50 million sol black hole to leak away. If it never eats another drop in all that time. No CMBR, no matter/energy ... visible, or dark. Nothing. Wonder how long it would take to evaporate a 50 billion sol black hole. I think an octillion years is 10^20 ... just for comparison.
I’ll grant you that I haven’t gotten it. But “it” keeps changing and I don’t think you have even “got it” yet. You are incorporating the latest theoretical physics and doing “what ifs”, not presenting a finished cosmological model. But forget that, I haven’t even contemplated your scenario because you haven’t given us your scenario. If the scenario, when presented, includes all the theoretical physics that you are tossing around like they are fact and then the facts are just part of the advanced theory that you need to make your model work, then not only am I not getting it, but no one will be get it. No one will be able to do the math for you if you can’t explain the complete and detailed physical picture and lock it in long enough for a whole host of actual physicists and mathematicians to buy into it and devote years to it to offer any comprehensible paper on the subject. If that is where your model stands today I suggest you begin to accustom yourself to letting go of your ambition to take your grasp of all the latest theory that you mention, advance it all in the direction you want to take it, enlist an army of mathematicians, physicists, programmers, and massive computer resources to do the real work for you, and then bring it to you for your signature. That is a scenario I can contemplate. I don’t see it and I don’t get it. So do you agree it needs work or am I just being negative about … what was it your model says now?
You ask good questions. 1st, my model does not specify the manner of the BB. It just explains how we get to that point, what came before that point, and what will happen at the end of the local universe. It does so without the need for new physical laws, or new mathematical structures entirely divorced from the universe as we are observing it. So you are incorrect in that it 'keeps changing'. These explanations are far superior to any *magical* models floating out there, and it obviously improves significantly on the current 'standard' model. 2nd, as far as being 'finished', I agree. I make no such claim, nor do I make any attempt to explain all the workings of the universe. The model is just a better 'overview' taking into account our latest observations. 3rd, there are no 'what ifs' in the model. As addendums, I speculate ( continuing to use the latest observations, and our current understanding of GR, and QM ) on 'real world' solutions for several functions and processes of the macro universe. 4th, again ... there is nothing 'theoretical' about Newtonian gravity, Keppler's laws, or GR in the macro universe. They are considered established fact. So no, I would not say it incorporates the 'latest in theoretical physics'. It does however, incorporate the latest in observations, and utilises a little understood, and rarely ( so it would appear ) used tool. Deductive reasoning. Just look at what the standard BBT 'explains'. Very little. In essence, it just says that a BB occurred at some point in the past. It makes this claim by 'winding the clock back', based on the ( then ) current understanding of GR, and observations. My model does exactly the same thing ... 50 years later. 5th, as more and more young ( and perhaps old, too ) scientists are exposed to the basic concepts of the model, and begin to realise that it provides rational, and logical explanations and descriptions of the macro processes of our universe, they will begin to form their 'own' armies. They will, in time, ( hopefully ) begin to see the merit, and possible validity of this description ... and in doing so they will want to explore it. If for no other reason than it's outlandish claim of relying totally on GR, and gravity as we observe it. I continue to work on describing the model in a more coherent, and linear fashion. At some point I will consider it sufficiently clear to re-post it. And I will also continue to move forward with my ongoing campaign of sending it to scientists the world over. If the model was/is equivalent to 'elves sprinkled fairy dust', then it would not be where it is today. It is a sound, and rational 'take' on the universe as we observe it today. And the reality is, many thousands around the world have now been exposed, and have yet to falsify it. This is a very good thing. Soon, many thousands more will be exposed. This is a process in itself. I have plenty of time, and patience ... and exposures such as this on SciForums are very productive. Even you have helped by pointing out areas of potential confusion. And I thank you for that assistance. Eventually, the model will garner sufficient support ( I am quite certain of this ) to attract it's own funding, and more interested researchers. Eventually that army will become a reality ... no less than the army currently working on strings. Look at Frampton's work today. Turok's. Guth's. They have made continued minor adjustments to their models over the years, and although they have had little success ( because the foundation they rely upon is rather shaky ), they still believe in their models and probably will do so until their deaths. If I am lucky, my model will replace the standard model ... before my death. If not, I will be dead, and I won't care.
Correct. It is not theoretical, it is simply wrong. Prattle on as you wish about approximations to reality and the like it is wrong and is known to be wrong. If your model is based, even in part, upon it, then it too is necessarily wrong.
Good grief. You have obviously don't have a clue about the model if you can make such a statement. Newton's Laws of Motion all wrong in the macro universe? Why do you people treat others in this fashion? Prattle? You should have known that was what I was referring to .... The model also employs GR, and QM. They all wrong, too? Nice try falsifying the model. Feel free to have another go at it. Maybe you should try to better understand the features of the model before you jump to conclusions. But I suppose it is more my fault than yours. I should have done a better job at describing my model. Well, I am still working on the 'clearer' version. The features are unchanged of course, but hopefully the newer version will eliminate such broad misconceptions. Thank you for pointing out my careless wording.
All I want to say is that I think that black holes are fairly stable. Although some mathematicians work out that their forces are infinite, my theory says that they are instantly filled with infinite Aether, which sort of dampens them quite a lot. I am nowhere near being a scientist however, I am a theorist, who studies science, and disassembles it more like Sherlock Holmes. So ignore my post if you like. But I had my say, and that's all.
OK Pincho, fine, but quit going around to other people's threads and posting your new theories. Post them on your thread and we will read them there.
meteoroids contains amino acid and proteins the main properties of seeds.so meteoroids are seeds of planets produced by old cosmic object.they are germinating in asteroids and some asteroids are converting in big planets with biological growth. this is complete mechanism only.i mean earth is growing and expanding with biological growth. sureshbansal342@gmail.com
I guess it's past time for me to update my model. The following is an example of what I have been sending out over the last few months. Lee is Lee Smolin. More evidence continues to emerge in support of my model. None appears to contradict it. Dear Lee, I hope you can forgive the intrusion. I have been reading some of your papers - such as this one - "Scientific alternatives to the anthropic principle" @ http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0407/0407213v3.pdf. and it is clear you not only have a high degree of intellectual scepticism, but also a high degree of professional integrity and ethics. I will get straight to the point. There appears to be mounting evidence in support of the formation of very early (within the first 200 million years) supermassive black holes. From reading many papers, it's apparent that simply changing some of the long-held yet unproved assumptions and parameters used in modelling could reveal new, previously undetected patterns in the radiological data we already have. Of course data is continuously streaming in from current instruments, and a host of newer and better technologies are soon to be deployed, which will give a much clearer picture of the early universe. However, I think I can make a good case in support of my model from observations already disseminated by the scientific community. Perhaps I have nothing to contribute. But perhaps I do. Of course, you are under no obligation to read it. Neil Tyson told me two years ago that unless there were ways to test my model, it was worthless. I think it is safe to say we now have ways to test any of the several predictions I have made, including ... Prediction: We should detect the presence of a remnant 'giga-massive' black hole at the Big Bang. Lee, I refuse (naively, perhaps) to believe that a plausible, realistic and testable theory could be discarded simply because of it's source. I hope you will at least take a look at the testable predictions. Thank you for your time. - James "Allow me to say ... that when you are on the frontier of knowledge ... between what is known and unknown ... reaching out into that abyss ... sometimes you do actually have to make stuff up that might be true, so you can organize a research plan to find out whether or not it is. This is the creativity of discovery that not everyone has. But those that do, all of society follows them into those directions." . "Einstein's best quote ... Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson - From The Daily Show with Jon Stewart ... January 18, 2011. Theoretical Cosmological Model Of The Universe ... 1/26/09 Abstract: In brief, there is mounting evidence that the Big Bang was likely a nearly instantaneous centrifugal partial release of mass from a black hole containing all the mass of the Hubble volume. Introduction: The search for viable, reasonable, and logical solutions to the problems inherent in the Standard Cosmological Model (Big Bang, Lamda Cold Dark Matter with Inflation) has spawned a menagerie of theories over the last half a century. While mathematically supported, they are all fantastically implausible theories. In just the last two years, a number of astronomical observations have confounded the astrophysical community ... observations clearly at odds with accepted theories and popular models, such as galactic superclusters and supermassive black holes ranging up to ten billions of solar masses found to exist much earlier than predicted. The following model which I proposed two years ago remains rational and sensible. It appears to follow all known laws of physics. There is no magic. No time reversals, or expanding bubbles of space, no 'empty packets', no 11 or 26 dimensions and colliding membranes, and no instantaneous, voluminous expansions of matter created uniquely or repeatedly from 'nothing'. It offers a simple solution ... not only for our Hubble volume ... but to the universe beyond. 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. It is eminently, and currently falsifiable. I include just a few of the many resources and relevant highlights from recently published articles and research papers in the addendum following the main body of text. This model appears to have no conflicts with current particle research, including the very latest from CERN's LHC (ALICE, ATLAS, CMS experiments) and Brookhaven's RHIC, and offers a reasonable physical causality for the initial extreme temperatures and subsequent transitioning states of matter. This model does not provide a mathematical solution for the Theory of Everything, but it does offer a potentially satisfying physical solution to several uncomfortable problems associated with the Standard Model, and the theorized isotropic end to the Hubble volume. These problems include the source of the matter/energy released from the Big Bang, the initial hyper-inflation, the accelerating recession, black holes, and the apparent lack of decaying matter. Included are several currently testable predictions of previously unknown objects or phenomena using available astronomical data and/or dedicated observations with existing instruments that, if confirmed, would strongly support this model ... to the full or partial exclusion of all other popular models. Of course, none of the predictions are obviously inherent in the Standard Model. Future planned observational instruments should provide additional confirmations. The genesis of our 'local' universe was quite probably the result of a near-instantaneous release of matter/energy from a 'giga-sized' black hole containing all the matter and energy of the Hubble volume. The accumulated evidence strongly suggests the Big Bang was actually the 'Big Spin'. I think the model deserves organized research. The Theory: 1. The Hubble volume has a presumed finite amount of mass. 2. Black holes have a finite mass limit. 3. That limit is exactly equal to the total mass (matter + energy) contained in the Hubble volume. The Process: 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. 2. Newton's gravity and Einstein's relativity dictate that black holes accrete matter/energy indefinitely. There is no longer any credible evidence to believe they are limited in any way. Galaxies will merge. Orbits will eventually decay. Although there will be galactic escapees, these phenomena are but a temporary respite. 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. Space has inherent energy, and black holes collapse and 'eat' space continually. The same eventual fate awaits any and all m/e temporarily escaping black holes through gamma rays or other radiant outflows. 3. Black holes are not anchored in place, other than being temporarily tidally locked at the center of galaxies, and therefore, once all nearby available m/e has been consumed, including all material in orbit, the black holes will seek out new sources of gravity, subject to and only initially delayed by inertial momentum. 4. All matter that was released from the Big Bang remains in gravitational communication regardless as to how tenuous, therefore Newtonian law requires that black holes will eventually chase down all matter irrespective of the accelerating recession. As black holes consume and consolidate matter, they become less and less gravitationally 'confused'. They are essentially pulled in fewer and fewer concurrent directions even as their individual angular gravitational attractions increase. 5. Current research indicates that black hole rotational spin generally increases with mass. 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. 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. 7. Eventually, as our visible/local universe nears the end of it's life cycle, only a few black holes remain, containing nearly all the mass of the Hubble volume, including the remnant left over from the Big Bang. 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. 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. 10. The Big Bang. 11. The hyper-velocity release of m/e, orders of magnitude of c, offers a physical explanation for the initial inflation, and also allows for ionization and instantaneous formation of H and H3. Space, no longer trapped by the immense gravity well, 'snaps back' to near-uniformity dragging along H and H3 with it ... and also dragging along preexisting (from the last black hole merger) microwave/x-ray/gamma ray radiation. Heavier molecular elements formed during the event should be rare. 12. The hyper-velocity release also offers a simple, straight-forward physical cause for an initial high temperature (on the order of T>10^13K) of matter consistent with the formation of the QGP phase of QCD. 13. The release of mass is not perfectly uniform, and countless smaller black holes are instantly spawned ranging from a few solar masses to perhaps trillions or quadrillions of solar masses. Mutual gravitational attraction and the remnant 'giga-massive' black hole impede their outward velocity. 14. Space begins to cool, and the newly created smaller black holes immediately begin to feed and the resulting jets ionize the atoms in space near the event, assisting in rapidly forming stars, galaxies, and superclusters, while star and galaxy formation lags behind in the outer regions being more generally dependent upon the coalescing clouds of H and H3. 15. This closed-loop process repeats eternally. It is also my hypothesis that the actual universe ... or omniverse ... is indeed infinite, boundless and eternal. Space, with it's inherent energy has always existed. That all observed/unobserved m/e, is simply 'borrowed' energy from vast volumes of the fabric of space. Dark energy is not a force that 'acts' upon space but rather a property of space, and is responsible for the observed accelerating recession, as recently theorized by 2006 Nobel Laureate George Smoot et al. I hypothesize that the laws of space are universal, and therefore dictate that each finite universe created will function in exactly the same manner as ours, with exactly the same physics, and that they must be identical in mass, distinguishable only by their age, relative evolution, and distribution of matter and energy. Every black hole will have the exact same critical mass point, and this identical process is going on throughout infinity, and has been eternally. As our universe is a closed loop, so too are all others. If there are any other universes beyond the Hubble volume, then logically, there should be an infinite number of them. Over eternity, with respect to Thomas Digges, if they are not all closed-loops, and not identical, photons or other exotic material from outside our universe should have leaked into ours. I hypothesize that space, with it's inherent energy, is in an eternal battle with gravity, constantly striving to 'smooth out the wrinkles' seeking 100% isotropy while gravity, manifesting from matter, is constantly seeking 100% entropy. Having had eternity to accomplish this, space keeps all finite universes generally equidistant, using the same physical processes currently at work that manifest in the accelerating recession. Therefore any contact between universes should be limited to the shock waves associated with Big Bangs rippling through space, as suggested by Einstein, but on a far greater scale of time and distance than he imagined. Per the first law of thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore, in this regard, it is not unreasonable to assume that the energy contained within space itself must be eternal, universal, generally isotropic and homogeneous ... and capable of performing the necessary work. The Logic: 1. 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. Supporting Evidence: 1. The laws clearly apply across the observable universe. 2. Quantum mechanics dictates that all matter has physical dimensions and occupies physical space. 3. There is no evidence that matter decays to zero. In any case, the estimated time for a black hole to evaporate far exceeds the time needed for the merging process to occur. We have already observed a black hole believed to be 18 billion suns. There is a high probability that black holes in excess of one trillion suns already exist. If the time it took for a trillion sun black hole to fully evaporate was reduced to the age of the Hubble volume, then it is a safe comparison that the time it would take for the entire H/v to merge into one black hole should be far less than a billionth of a second. 4. The apparent homogeneity evidenced in the COBE data, depicting the universe at 300,000 years after the Big Bang, is only evident on the large scale. It is clear that on the smaller scale it is anything but homogeneous. There might very well be in excess of trillions of supermassive black holes hidden within that picture. 5. The current isotropic chemical/radiological composition of the visible universe is consistent with the model. 6. The high numbers of black holes merging or set to merge were not generally predicted by the Standard Model or theorized isotropic death of the universe, but are inherently predicted by the model. 7. Virtually all galaxies appear to have massive, or supermassive black holes at their cores and this phenomena is also inherently predicted by the model. 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. Both hierarchical (majority) and non-hierarchical formations are predicted by the model 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. 15. The recent ergosphere/frame-dragging studies. 16. The recent discovery of a supermassive black hole exiting a galaxy at several thousand kps. 17. The recent Penrose et al. study indicative of violent events prior to the Big Bang. 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. 27. Appears to be entirely compatible with current particle research and generally accepted Standard Model particle theories. Predictions: Hypothesis A: Space has always existed, and hosted 'local' violent events prior to the Big Bang. Background: Preexisting space should still retain faint ripples from any phenomena immediately prior to our Big Bang that were violent enough to cause massive shock waves in the fabric or medium of space, and these ripples should manifest as subtle patterns in the CMBR. Similar to the Penrose et al. study, but we take it a step farther and look for echoes of collisions with greater amplitude resulting from far more massive collisions (and with perhaps far more subtle effects) than the comparatively 'minor' collisions Penrose has suggested occurred. Prediction: Patterns in the CMBR should show very faint overlapping ripples correlating to collisions of black holes containing variable masses in excess of trillions of solar masses prior to the Big Bang, but should not show patterns in the CMBR indicative of identical, comparatively minor violent events. Ancillary Prediction: The CMBR should not show subtle patterns indicative of prior identical Big Bangs as those specific waves/ripples should have propagated beyond our field of view long before our BB occurred. Hypothesis B: An infinite number of non-overlapping finite universes exist throughout infinite space, separated by vast and relatively consistent distances, and each universe contains exactly the same mass, and shares the same physics, as our Hubble volume. They are distinguishable only by relative age/evolution and their distribution of matter/energy. Prediction: The apparent faint patterns, characterized as 'bruising', believed to be detected (Feeney et al.) in the CMBR should not be the result of, or indicative of collisions with: 1. hyper-expanding universes, each with their own uniquely different physical laws, matter/energy composition and structure, 2. hyper-expanding universes with the same physical structure and laws as our universe, 3. 'glancing' blows from either type of universe (conforming or non-conforming), 4. residual shock waves from our own prior Big Bangs, 5. or residual shock waves from other massive collisions, internal or external to the Hubble volume. These should instead be indicative of shock waves proceeding in advance of, and emanating from, distant identical but staggered Big Bangs occurring at the appropriate times and distances to create the varied patterns observed in the CMBR. Ancillary Prediction: Furthermore, we should find that a closer examination of the CMBR with greater sensitivity (creating better computer algorithms, employing the variety of different instruments currently deployed with their differing capabilities of detection, doing experiments specific to the model's predicted parameters) may reveal additional faint patterns beyond those discovered by Feeney, et al. caused by the shock waves of other identical 'bangs' external to the Hubble volume, differing only by frequency, and strength, relative to time and point of origin. Hypothesis C: All black holes are physical 3-dimensional structures, rather than infinitely small/infinitely dense zero-dimensional structures, and will rotate surface matter in excess of c. The top angular velocity (spin) is only constrained by achieving sufficient rotational angular momentum to overcome it's own gravity and only under specific minimum conditions of mass, volume and surface area. Background: Einstein's mathematical work on collapsing bodies, current ergosphere and frame-dragging studies, and many other experiments show a black hole's gravitational force is sufficient to collapse normal space and exempt itself from space's normal limit to acceleration. This hypothesis also requires a radical departure from the questionable and problematic mathematical presumption of the infinitely small/infinitely dense 'singularity' and instead presumes a universal 'max' point where matter/energy can no longer be further compressed. This logical presumption stems from the reality that black holes are 'here'. If they could actually infinitely compress a finite or infinite volume of matter/energy then they should cease to exist in our universe, gravitationally or otherwise, at the instant they form. Prediction: Mathematical calculations/computer modelling should show that an extremely massive physical black body that achieves rotational hyper-velocity of the surface area in excess of c, under specific minimum conditions of volume, mass, and surface area, should achieve sufficient centrifugal force to temporarily overcome it's own gravitational attraction, and should shed a portion of it's mass before conservation of angular momentum reduces spin below the threshold. Ancillary Prediction: Computer modelling of the release of matter/energy at hyper-velocity rotation should correspond with the initial inflation of the Hubble volume. Hypothesis D: Black holes accrete matter and merge until all the m/e of the Hubble volume is contained in a single black hole. Background: It is not an unreasonable assumption that all mass released from the Big Bang has remained in gravitational communication regardless as to how tenuous. Furthermore, in light of the evidence of black hole mobility, we can assume they will always be free to seek the next strongest gravitational mass, subject only to inertial angular momentum. While inertial momentum will temporarily defeat the much weaker gravitational attraction, the gravitational bond will never be actually broken. As black holes continue to merge, slowly consolidating the mass of the Hubble volume, there will be fewer and fewer sources of gravity to 'confuse' them. As the merged black holes gravitational attractions increase, and there are fewer and fewer nebulous sources of gravity (gas and dust clouds, galaxies), they will, over trillions, perhaps even quadrillions of years, alter their inertial angular momentum away from each other, eventually reverse their courses, and seek each other out. Prediction: Computer simulations should show that the observed mobility of black holes will allow them to merge continually, irrespective of the accelerating recession until 100% of the m/e released from the Big Bang is recovered, and this 100% state of entropy will occur in a small fraction of the time theorized for an isotropic end. Hypothesis E: As with Hypothesis B, all universes beyond the Hubble volume share the same mass and physics. They are distinguishable only by their age and distribution of matter/energy, and are all closed loop universes. Prediction: The most recent and future data from instruments should not indicate any severe red-shift photons originating from outside our Hubble volume. This finding would only be relevant if other experiments and/or observations strongly indicate the existence of space prior to the Big Bang. Hypothesis F: The Big Bang was not a perfectly homogeneous release of matter and energy. Background: Heavier elements formed instantly upon release from the gravitational well would not have the hyper-velocity of lighter elements due to gravitational restraints and therefore the density of m/e should be far greater in close proximity to the Big Bang event. Smaller black holes should have been immediately created from the BB's release of m/e, and thrown into the nearby maelstrom of other denser matter also formed instantly upon release from the BB. This gravitational chaos should have quickly created black holes with masses ranging to the trillions of suns and beyond. Prediction: Extensive examination of the very early universe (within 200 million years) should find black holes with masses well in excess of 50 billion suns contradicting current Standard Model theories of a generally isotropic/homogeneous early universe. It appears unlikely that a different process other than spin could be responsible for a black hole to overcome it's gravitational attraction and release it's mass. Therefore ... Ancillary Prediction: Assuming sufficient instrument sensitivity, the creation of proper algorithms, and adequate computational power ... mined data from all currently available instruments should indicate, if not confirm ... The presence of a remnant 'giga-massive' black hole at the Big Bang. In Conclusion: 1. This model offers a physical solution to the accelerating recession problem. 2. This model offers a physical solution for the source of the mass released in the Big Bang. 3. This model offers a physical solution to the decaying matter problem. 4. This model offers a physical solution to the black hole problem. 5. This model offers a physical solution for the initial hyper-inflation. 6. This model appears consistent with current particle research specific to the evolution of matter. 7. This model offers a physical solution for the observed chemical/radiological composition of the visible/local universe. 8. This model offers a possible physical solution for the WMAP cold spot. 9. This model offers a possible physical solution for the Sloan, Pisces-Cetus, and CfA2 Great walls. 10. This model provides for 100% recycling of all matter/energy in the visible/local universe. 11. This model appears to violate no known laws of physics, or thermodynamics, including entropy build-up. 12. This model requires no new laws to function. 13. This model is well-supported by the accumulated observational evidence. 14. This model appears to be superior to the current Standard Cosmological Model, and other popular models. 15. It still leaves the question "What created space?" along with the solution to the 'Theory of Everything' to future theorists. Reasonable logic tells me that if a 'big bang' could, as theorized, simply materialize from 'nothing' ... or even 'something' ... with no reasonably explained origin (and sans God) then that same process could happen at any time, at any location. Such as two seconds from now inside the Moon's orbit, or at any other time in the history of the Hubble volume. That would appear, so far anyway, not to be the case. I fully understand my hypotheses regarding space and the universes beyond the Hubble volume fly in the face of popular beliefs, and I certainly do not deny that quantum physics allows for the possibility of alternate physics. However, I don't think space allows the 'macro' universe to function in a plethora, if not infinite number of ways, and it seems apparent that if there are indeed finite universes beyond ours, there must be an infinite number of them ... and they are remarkably quiescent. In any case, assuming the existence of space prior to the Big Bang, my model of the Hubble volume can stand alone. Addendum: On early star/galaxy formation inconsistent with accepted theories ... http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...526A.133G January 11, 2011 ... Abstract: We report evidence of a fully established galaxy cluster at z = 2.07, consisting of a ~20σ overdensity of red, compact spheroidal galaxies spatially coinciding with extended X-ray emission detected with XMM-Newton. We use VLT VIMOS and FORS2 spectra and deep Subaru, VLT and Spitzer imaging to estimate the redshift of the structure from a prominent z = 2.07 spectroscopic redshift spike of emission-line galaxies, concordant with the accurate 12-band photometric redshifts of the red galaxies. Using NICMOS and Keck AO observations, we find that the red galaxies have elliptical morphologies and compact cores. While they do not form a tight red sequence, their colours are consistent with that of a ≳1.3 Gyr population observed at z ~ 2.1. From an X-ray luminosity of 7.2×10 43 erg s -1 and the stellar mass content of the red galaxy population, we estimate a halo mass of 5.3-8×10 13 M_ȯ, comparable to the nearby Virgo cluster. These properties imply that this structure could be the most distant, mature cluster known to date and that X-ray luminous, elliptical-dominated clusters are already forming at substantially earlier epochs than previously known. Early clusters and 'astonishing luck' ... http://newswise.com/articles/astronomers-camera-reveals-early-galaxies 1/11/2011 5:05 PM EST ... AzTEC 3 was one of the very first objects discovered by the team using the AzTEC camera and one of the first few AzTEC galaxies to be followed up with detailed scrutiny by other telescopes. What are the chances of detecting something as important and rare as one of the earliest-known protoclusters in the universe on the first try? As Wilson sees it, “We either got extremely lucky, or the universe biased our search and provided a signpost, like the tip of an iceberg sticking up out of the sea, that attracted our attention. Because they are monstrously huge and unusual, I think it may not be so crazy to think that galaxies like AzTEC 3 tend to exist in special places in the universe and we just don’t understand the signpost yet. That’s one thing we’ll definitely be looking to explain in the future.” Most astronomers believe that such a massive cluster should not be mature until 2 to 3 billion years later, Wilson’s UMass Amherst colleague Yun explains. “Such a young cluster is really interesting. The current computer simulations of the universe suggest that we were extremely fortunate to find it.” Ancient supermassive black holes inconsistent with accepted theories ... http://www.subarutelescope.org/Pressrelease/2006/0 Japanese Researcher Finds Massive Black Hole 12.7 Billion Light-years Away Astronomer Tomotsugu Goto from the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has used the Subaru telescope to identify a distant quasar powered by a massive black hole. The quasar is almost 12.7 billion light-years away from Earth in the direction of the constellation Cancer the Crab. It is the most distant one ever found by a Japanese researcher and the eleventh most distant quasar currently known. The black hole is probably 2 billion times more massive than the Sun. So far, researchers have not yet proposed a theory of how such a massive black hole can form only 1 billion years after the birth of the universe. Object Name: SDSSJ084119.52+290504.4 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5318411/ A team of astronomers have found a colossal black hole so ancient, they're not sure how it had enough time to grow to its current size, about 10 billion times the mass of the sun. Sitting at the heart of a distant galaxy, the black hole appears to be about 12.7 billion years old, which means it formed just one billion years after the universe began and is one of the oldest supermassive black holes ever known. "The universe was awfully young at the time this was formed," said astronomer Roger Romani, a Stanford University associate professor whose team found the object. "It's a bit of a challenge to understand how this black hole got enough mass to reach its size." Romani told SPACE.com that the black hole is unique because it dates back to just after a period researchers call the 'Dark Ages,' a time when the universe cooled down after the initial Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. That cooling period lasted about one billion years, when the first black holes, stars and galaxies began to appear, he added. The research appeared June 10 on the online version of Astrophysical Journal Letters . Object Name: Q0906+6930 Surprising find ... http://news.discovery.com/space/obese-black-hole-110112.html Wed Jan 12, 2011 05:30 PM ET ... The black hole inside a neighboring galaxy, known as M87, is obese and filled with the equivalent of 6.6 billion of our suns, according to new measurements.These supermassive black holes are relatively rare, scientists suspect, so it is surprising that such a behemoth lives relatively close by -- just 50 million light-years away. More on galaxy formation ... http://science.gaeatimes.com/2010/08/26/how-the-first-super-massive-black-holes-were-born-21533/ Monday, January 10, 2011 ... "For more than two decades, the prevailing wisdom among astronomers has been that galaxies evolved hierarchically - that is, gravity drew small bits of matter together first, and those small bits gradually came together to form larger structures." “Together with these other discoveries, our result shows that big structures - both galaxies and massive black holes - build up quickly in the history of the universe. Amazingly, this is contrary to hierarchical structure formation,” he said. http://science.gaeatimes.com/2011/01/10/supermassive-black-hole-discovered-in-dwarf-galaxy-29820/ Monday, January 10, 2011 ... “Now, we have found a dwarf galaxy with no bulge at all, yet it has a supermassive black hole. This greatly strengthens the case for the black holes developing first, before the galaxy’s bulge is formed,” said Reines. Unexpected superclusters ... http://news.discovery.com/space/galaxy-cluster-universe.html Oct 15, 2010 11:53 AM ET ... Astronomers on the hunt for the biggest, most distant gangs of galaxies have landed a prize catch, a behemoth of a cluster 800 trillion times more massive than the sun ferreted out by a new cosmic fishing net from when the universe was half its present age. Lack of 'smaller scale' homogeneity in the COBE early universe ... http://p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue1/9801c.jpg http://www.kqed.org/quest/television/nobel-laureate-george-smoot-and-the-origin-of-the-universe On Spin ... http://www.universetoday.com/12408/black-holes-seen-spinning-at-the-limits-predicted-by-einstein/ The supermassive black holes that lurk at the hearts of the most massive galaxies might be spinning faster than astronomers ever thought. In fact, they might be spinning at the very limits predicted by Einstein’s theory of relativity. Perhaps it’s this extreme rotational speed that generates the energetic jets that blast out of the most massive and active galaxies. Astronomers used NASA’s Chandra X-Ray Observatory to study 9 giant galaxies that seem to contain rapidly spinning supermassive black holes. These galaxies have large disturbances in their gaseous atmosphere, so the researchers calculated that these black holes must be spinning at near their maximum rates. “We think these monster black holes are spinning close to the limit set by Einstein’s theory of relatively, which means that they can drag material around them at close to the speed of light,” said Rodrigo Nemmen, a visiting graduate student at Penn State University. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10611-spinning-black-hole-is-fastest-on-record.html "They found the innermost stable orbit around GRS 1915 is so close that the black hole must be spinning at nearly 1000 times per second - the fastest ever recorded." "But if McClintock's team is right, the black hole is spinning at 98% of the theoretical maximum rate, which is calculated by how fast stars can spin before they collapse to form black holes." Note: It does not take an academician to realize that if this black hole has actual physical dimensions, and has sufficient diameter, then relative to a fixed point in space, the surface matter will be rotating in excess of c. If earth, using the approximate equatorial circumference of 40,000 kilometers, was rotating at even half that velocity, 500 rps, assuming sufficient gravity, the surface matter would be moving past a fixed point in space at 20 million kps, or 66 times c. . So if this massive black hole spinning at 1,000 rps has a physical circumference no bigger than earth's, the surface matter is moving past a fixed point at 132 times the speed of light and it is not flying apart. On UHECR ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHECR The source of such high energy particles has been a mystery for many years. Recent results from the Pierre Auger Observatory show that ultra-high-energy cosmic ray arrival directions appear to be correlated with extragalactic supermassive black holes at the center of nearby galaxies called active galactic nuclei (AGN). nteractions with blue-shifted cosmic microwave background radiation limit the distance that these particles can travel before losing energy; this is known as the Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin limit or GZK limit. AGN have been proposed as likely sources of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, and results from the Pierre Auger Observatory suggest that these objects may be their source. However, since the angular correlation scale is fairly large (3 degrees or more) these results do not unambiguously identify the origins of such cosmic rays. In particular, the AGN could merely be closely associated with the actual sources, which may be found, for example, in galaxies or other astrophysical objects that are clumped with matter on large scales within 100 Mpc. Additional data collection will be important for further investigating a possible AGN source for these highest energy particles, which might be protons accelerated to those energies by magnetic fields associated with the rapidly growing black holes at the AGN centers. According to a recent study, short-duration AGN flares resulting from the tidal disruption of a star or from a disk instability can be the main source of the observed flux of super GZK cosmic rays. Some of the supermassive black holes in AGN are known to be rotating, as in the Seyfert galaxy MCG 6-30-15 with time-variability in their inner accretion disks. Black hole spin is a potentially effective agent to drive UHECR production, provided ions are suitably launched to circumvent limiting factors deep within the nucleus, notably curvature radiation and inelastic scattering with radiation from the inner disk. Low-luminosity, intermittent Seyfert galaxies may meet the requirements with the formation of a linear accelerator several light years away from the nucleus, yet within their extended ion tori whose UV radiation ensures a supply of ionic contaminants. The corresponding electric fields are commensurately small, on the order of 10 V/cm, whereby the observed UHECRs are indicative for the astronomical size of the source. Improved statistics by the Pierre Auger Observatory will be instrumental in identifying the presently tentative association of UHECRs (from the Local Universe) with Seyferts and LINERs. On the fabric of space ... http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1002/1002.4278v3.pdf Note: The following paper was originally submitted February 23, 2010. October 24, 2010 ... "To accommodate the observed accelerated expansion of the universe, one popular idea is to invoke a driving term in the Friedmann-Lemaitre equation of dark energy which must then comprise 70% of the present cosmological energy density. We propose an alternative interpretation which takes into account the entropy and temperature intrinsic to the horizon of the universe due to the information holographically stored there. Dark energy is thereby obviated and the acceleration is due to an entropic force naturally arising from the information storage on the horizon surface screen. We consider an additional quantitative approach inspired by surface terms in general relativity and show that this leads to the entropic accelerating universe." "In this case the tension does not arrive from the negative pressure of dark energy but from the entropic tension due to the entropy content of the horizon surface. This is equivalent to the outward acceleration aH = cH of Eq. (7). If we chose to put the information screens at smaller radii, then, associating entropy with information,we would have found a proportionally smaller pressure, and an acceleration that decreases linearly with the radius in accordance with our expected Hubble law. Thus, the acceleration of the universe simply arises as a natural consequence of the entropy on the horizon of the universe." - Paul H. Frampton, George Smoots Note: Unless I am in error, Frampton et al. is theorizing, in essence, that DE is actually just the fabric of space attempting to 'smooth out the wrinkles'. More fabric of space ... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101216095014.htm “The Birth of Time: Quantum Loops Describe the Evolution of the Universe” (ScienceDaily, Dec. 17, 2010) What was the Big Bang and what happened before it? Scientists from the Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw have attempted to answer the question. Within the framework of loop quantum gravity they have put forward a new theoretical model, which might prove useful for validating hypotheses about events prior to the Big Bang. This achievement is one of the few models describing the full Einstein's theory and not merely its greatly simplified version. Traditional cosmological models describe the evolution of the Universe within the framework of the general theory of relativity itself. The equations at the core of the theory suggest that the Universe is a dynamic, constantly expanding creation. When theorists attempt to discover what the Universe was like in times gone by, they reach the stage where density and temperature in the model become infinite -- in other words, they lose their physical sense. Thus, the infinities may only be indicative of the weaknesses of the former theory and the moment of the Big Bang does not have to signify the birth of the Universe. In order to gain at least some knowledge of quantum gravity, scientists construct simplified quantum models, known as quantum cosmological models, in which space-time and matter are expressed in a single value or a few values alone. For example, the model developed by Ashtekar, Bojowald, Lewandowski, Pawłowski and Singh predicts that quantum gravity prevents the increase of matter energy density from exceeding a certain critical value (of the order of the Planck density). Consequently, there must have been a contracting universe prior to the Big Bang. When matter density had reached the critical value, there followed a rapid expansion -- the Big Bang, known as the Big Bounce. However, the model is a highly simplified toy model. Note: Scientists at the U of W are supporting two of my hypotheses ... that singularities are a physical impossibility and matter/energy can only be compressed so far ... and space must have existed before the Big Bang. The real answer to the mystery of the Big Bang lies in a unified quantum theory of matter and gravity. One attempt at developing such a theory is loop quantum gravity (LQG). The theory holds that space is weaved from one-dimensional threads. "It is just like in the case of a fabric -- although it is seemingly smooth from a distance, it becomes evident at close quarters that it consists of a network of fibres," describes Wojciech Kaminski, MSc from FUW. Such space would constitute a fine fabric - an area of a square centimetre would consists of 10^66 threads. On preexisting space ... Note: According to Michio Kaku, mainstream scientists are now beginning to accept the probability of preexisting space. . Following is a short video: Michio Kaku, Andrei Linde, Paul Turok, Roger Penrose ... BBC series, early 2010. Please forgive the use of youtube ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVwirDNFQnI&feature=related In it, among other things, Kaku discusses the probability of our universe springing forth from 'nothing' at some point and says it's really not such a bad idea if you just re-define what nothing is. He suggests that it isn't a stretch that one of the materializing particles from preexisting space might have just 'kept going' and instantaneously shoved a rather large bunch of matter/energy into the existing space. And Andrei Linde posits an eternal (and apparently eternally accelerating) expansion of space, of which our Hubble volume is just one of the newly formed air bubbles in the Swiss cheese. On merging black holes ... Note: 33 pairs of merging black holes were announced in January last year by astrophysicist Julie Comerford. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21534105C Abstract: "Since nearly all galaxies host a central supermassive black hole (SMBH), mergers between two galaxies can bring dual SMBHs to the resultant merger-remnant galaxy. However, only a handful of dual SMBHs have been identified observationally, and here we present new detections of 33 dual SMBHs. We searched the DEEP2 Galaxy Redshift Survey for galaxy spectra with AGN emission lines that are offset in velocity relative to the mean velocity of the host galaxy's stars, suggesting bulk motion of the AGN within the host galaxies." "Within the set of DEEP2 red galaxies at 0.3 < z < 0.8, we find 32 AGN with statistically significant (greater than 3 sigma) velocity offsets, ranging from 50 km/s to 300 km/s. After exploring physical effects such as AGN outflows that could cause such velocity offsets, we find that these offsets are most likely the result of dual SMBHs. We also report on a z=0.36 COSMOS galaxy whose optical imaging shows a tidal tail and two bright central nuclei; with follow-up slit spectroscopy we confirm that the central nuclei correspond to dual SMBHs. Our sample of dual SMBHs provides a direct observational probe of galaxy mergers and the galaxy merger rate, as well as SMBH mergers that are expected to produce gravity waves observable by next-generation projects such as LISA." Not always anchored to galaxies ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24375102/ Stefanie Komossa ( Planck Institute ) and her team have now detected the consequences of such a merger: a 100-million-solar mass black hole in the process of leaving its home galaxy. The "kick" the black hole receives is akin to the recoil of a rifle. It can propel the black hole to speeds of up to several thousand miles per second, according to theoretical simulations. The escaping black hole Komossa and her team observed was racing along at 5,900,000 mph. On multiverses ... Note: In the following, Ms. Mersini-Houghton of Chapal Hill creates an entirely different universe, but apparently makes no attempt to describe it's physical laws, or structure, or how it would have left that 'imprint'. Or why there would be just 'one'. Maybe I missed all that. In any case, she is 'captivating' the astrophysical community, and worth mentioning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Mersin In 2007, Mersini-Houghton claimed that the observed CMB cold spot was "the unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own", just as she and her collaborator had predicted in her theory 8 months earlier. In Nov. 2008, a NASA team led by Alexander Kashlinsky observed the Dark Flow of clusters in the universe at exactly the velocity and alignment predicted by her earlier in the 'Cosmological Avatars of the Landscape I, II' papers in 2006. In the same year (2006) WMAP reached agreement with SDSS experiment, that the overall amplitude of fluctuation is less than 1. If these observational findings, predicted in the 2006 papers by Mersini-Houghton et al. are confirmed over the next few years, then they may offer the first evidence of a world beyond our own. Such confirmation would tie the standard model of cosmology into a more coherent picture where our universe is not at the center of the world, but part of it. After the observational confirmation of the three predictions (the Void, Dark Flow and Sigma8) her work continues to attract international media attention, GCHEP/UNC, and Discover magazine, October 2009. Two astrophysicists reported recently that they have found evidence of the northern hemisphere void in analysis of WMAP data. On October 11, 2010, Laura Mersini-Houghton appeared in a BBC programme What Happened Before the Big Bang (along with Michio Kaku, Neil Turok, Andrei Linde, Roger Penrose, Lee Smolin and other notable cosmologists and physicists) where she propounded her theory of the universe as a wave function on the landscape multiverse. The programme referred to three observational tests of her theory's predictions, which makes it the only theory on the origins of our universe ever to offer predictions and have them successfully tested. Mersini-Houghton's work on multiverse theory is discussed in the epilogue of a recently published biography of Hugh Everett III. Note: I won't argue whether or not the predictions were confirmed. I will argue that her theories and predictions are not based on known physical laws and could apply to any manner of phenomena. That the predicted phenomena could easily have other physical causes ... and her conclusions are hasty. Partial list of supporting research materials and articles available on-line ... http://www.sciops.esa.int/index.php?project=PLANCK&page=Planck_Published_Papers http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=48204 http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=48202 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Spectroscopic_Telescope_Array#Launch http://www.universetoday.com/12408/black-holes-seen-spinning-at-the-limits-predicted-by-einstein/ http://www.science20.com/news_articles/agn_3c_33_unraveling_black_hole_spin http://ttt.astro.su.se/groups/head/sara/node11.html http://susy06.physics.uci.edu/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHECR http://www.nscl.msu.edu/~austin/nuclear-astrophysics.pdf http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.2197v1.pdf http://notes.kateva.org/2004/01/news-of-fermi-paradox-abundant-mature.html http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/sauron/ http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.2024v1.pdf http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=48204 http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/2010/31/ "Hubble Astronomers Uncover an Overheated Early Universe" October 7,2010 ... The universe went through an initial heat wave over 13 billion years ago when energy from early massive stars ionized cold interstellar hydrogen from the big bang. This epoch is actually called reionization because the hydrogen nuclei were originally in an ionized state shortly after the big bang. Note: I believe the evidence is pointing more toward early massive and supermassive black holes than massive stars. But Hubble found that it would take another 2 billion years before the universe produced sources of ultraviolet radiation with enough energy to do the heavy lifting and reionize the primordial helium that was also cooked up in the big bang. This radiation didn't come from stars, but rather from quasars. In fact the epoch when the helium was being reionized corresponds to a transitory time in the universe's history when quasars were most abundant. "The Cosmology Prize honors a leading cosmologist, astronomer, astrophysicist or scientific philosopher for theoretical, analytical, conceptual or observational discoveries leading to fundamental advances in our understanding of the universe." - Gruber Foundation I hope you can at least understand my desire to participate. Thank you, James Pinkerton
Strange. I expected the scientists here to rip my updated model to shreds. Still no mathematical description. No intricate diagrams. Nonsensical predictions. Must be so worthless, it doesn't even warrant a dismissive contemptuous sneer .... Lol. I talked (by email) to Neil Tyson again. Two years ago, after many emails back and forth, he told me he wouldn't address the (not all that implausible) model again until I at least had some 'doable' testable predictions. Recently I sent him a slightly earlier edition than the one posted above including the new predictions. He wrote back ... Referring to predictions of specific patterns in the CMBR he said: "The date on the CMB are public. If you think this signature is there then go look for it. And if you find it then you can publish it. Would require a strong mathematical, falsifiable prediction for its appearance." Nice, huh? In other words, kiss off. Yikes. I assume he meant data by the way. He had told me before that math was not necessarily a requirement, but predictions absolutely were. Apparently he was not too interested in my predictions. He also said that if a black hole's rotational velocity exceeded c, it would fly apart, and we would have evidence of this having happened from radio pulses. I guess after all our conversations, he still didn't understand what I was saying. My hypothesis is that black holes are physical structures, and they will only 'fly apart' when the matter at the equator achieves sufficient velocity to overcome the gravitational attraction. And this phenomenon only occurs when the black hole contains all the mass of the Hubble volume. Anything less and the physical dimensions and rotational velocity are insufficient to overcome it's gravity. So naturally, there would be no existing radio pulses of such events as it only happens at a big bang event and such a pulse would have preceeded the expansion, already propogating far beyond the visible horizon. And of course conservation of angular momentum would have slowed the black hole below the critical rotational velocity almost at the instant it released a portion of it's mass. Just a 'one shot' deal. Until it starts all over again, anyway. This scenario seems to be the only one that gives a good physical mechanism for an 'early' inflationary period exceeding c. Nevermind. Just talking to myself. Please go back to ignoring me.
It was wasted effort last time so why should anyone bother pointing out you're still an idiot? Exactly, so why do you bother if you know its nonsense? You haven't got any predictions which are anything more than "I guess this, because I say so". If you're harassing him with plenty of emails its hardly surprising he's not terribly friendly. If your work had merit you'd not need to keep sending him stuff, journals would accept it. But instead you're stuck having to post your 'work' on forums and even on forums people can see it is crap. Rotational velocities aren't measured in linear velocity units. Or rather he understands you have nothing worth listening to. Provide the quantitative model from which those claims should be derived. You haven't demonstrated it in any way reflects any phenomenon in the real world.
Thanks Alpha. I appreciate the criticism. I guess now I can stop wasting my time and yours. I best leave the universe to the experts. Time reversal, empty packets of space blowing up into new universes, alternate dimension branes colliding, matter decaying to nothing, black holes evaporating in spite of accreting far faster than they could possibly evaporate. I'm sure that all of those theories have proven quantitative models as a sound basis, and fit the current data far better than my model. Not to mention, making solid predictions that have been verified through observation or experiment. Odd though, that other scientists have had the courtesy to treat my model with at least a minimum of respect. Not many, but a few. You have to think they must get several crackpot theories a month from people like me. Tyson never had to talk to me at all. Neither have any of the other scientists. Wonder why they respond at all. I don't think I have made any wild guesses here, but I could be wrong. I was kind of hoping that they were logical deductions based on our accumulated knowledge of astrophysics. Lol. Oh well. My bad.
Many of those are hypotheses, not theories. Theories are models with experimental validation. They are given a bit more notice than your work because they are based on experimentally supported models and their construction is worked through in clear logical steps, generally with a lot of mathematics. Their conclusions involve quantitative results, which can then be developed further or examined to construct testable predictions. Your 'work' lacks all of that, you have no logical derivations, not quantitative results, no models of any kind. You just have guesses and ignorance. Your comment just smacks of bitterness. Vague courtesy, perhaps hoping you'd listen to their advice and stop wasting your time. I've had nuts email me in the past and since its been done via my university email I've politely told them what my views and advice are. No one here on this forum is here in any professional capacity so the "I am representing my employer in a professional capacity" veneer of politeness towards hacks evaporates. I could just ignore every crank here, since I don't think what they say has much (if any) worth but I don't want them to infect other people with their stupidity and occasionally one of them, one of you, sees sense and stops wasting your time and in some cases money. You keep saying you have a model. Where is it? What can actually be modelled by your work? How did you construct that model? Precisely what does it predict, quantitatively, about the system(s) it attempts to model? How do those compare with precise observations? Those are questions any "Hey look at my new major model!" paper should address. Cranks never address those questions, either in their 'work' or when asked, thus demonstrating the worthlessness of their work.
So where does that leave string theory? A mathematical hypotheses instead of theory? For that matter there are large portions of the Standard Model of Particle Physics, that would also be demoted to the status of hypotheses, as well as some aspects of general relativity. If part of a theory meets 'the' standard required of a theory, should that portion that does not, be afforded equal status? I guess I start to sound like a broken record, but I believe that it is important to maintain an understanding of the difference between what we know and what we think we know. As long as a theory remains a theory it represents a guess, sometimes our best guess about the involved subject. On the other hand this thread is in the peudoscience portion of the boards. That suggests a lessor standard than would be required in one of the science folders. That said I had a hard time following the original post, myself.
Referring to Newtonian gravity.... Newtonian Dynamics (ND) is still valid and functional even to the scale of the solar system. It does not explain the gravitational lensing of light and a few other local phenomena, but it predates general relativity (GR) by about 250 years. You can still use Newton's work to get to the moon or Mars. I'm pretty sure that NASA does as attempting to use Einstein's field equations would be time and resource intensive and result in little if any benfit. GR addressed some of the issue ND could not, but is itself reaching the limit of its valid application. MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) though not widely accepted seems to be addressing issues that GR fails to. Does that make GR and Einstein wrong?
Yes, it should be called 'string hypothesis'. 'Large' portions? Hardly, we've validated it up to 100GeV for all three subatomic forces. As for GR we've validated it in a plethora of different ways in many different regimes. Yes, there's still predictions we haven't tested but that's always the case with any scientific model. It has been sufficiently tested to have graduated from hypothesis to theory, as has the SM. It depends how the theory is constructed. You can bolt QCD onto electroweak theory and you have most of the Standard Model but validating one doesn't imply the validity of the other, they can be decoupled. However, in something like GR the predictions involving say gravitational redshift originate from the same set of equations as the predictions of gravitational lensing. Therefore you can't separate them out. Once a significant number of predictions from a particular set of equations have been tested via experiments then you can say its a theory, despite not having checked them all. The testing and analysis would continue so its not like its declared 'true' and then never questioned again. You're confusing the scientific use of 'theory' and the layperson's use of 'theory'. The common everyday usage of 'theory' is pretty much synonymous with 'guess' or 'idea', ie "I have a theory as to why my football team sucks". A scientific theory is an hypothesis whose models of phenomenon have been compared to observations and found to match to the limit we can measure. Nothing ever gets higher than 'theory' in science. Saying "It's only a theory" is the battle cry of creationists, who are responsible for much of the misunderstandings in regards to how 'theory', 'model', 'fact' and 'hypothesis' are used in the scientific community. For instance, the existence of gravity is a fact. The theory of general relativity is the model which best explains and describes the gravitational phenomena we observe. Similarly evolution is a fact, change over time in populations is a fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection is the model which best explains and describes the observed evolution of populations. When someone claims to have a model, be it in the main physics forum or in pseudo, its then perfectly reasonable to ask them to provide it. If they can't then why did they claim they did? The thread starter wants to be taken seriously by the scientific community, as to many cranks here. In such threads I don't see anything wrong with me asking them for specifics. After all, if they can't satisfy me they have no chance of satisfying professors who review the work of people like me.
Experimental and/or observational. Note it's called 'string theory' not string hypothesis by the science community, and many (including several right here) consider it all but a 'given'. Just like Hawking radiation. What is the experimental or observational basis for treating H/r as a theory? None. Zero. Yet people all over the world consider it a given, too. And these hypotheses I mentioned have been the recipients directly or indirectly of literally billions of dollars in research grants over decades. So hypotheses can not be derived just from observation? Mind pointing out an instance where my logic failed? Have I grossly misinterpreted the available data? You are adept at sounding authoritative, but your comments are not supported by anything more than your own assurances. Those 'conclusions' you refer to have no such 'quantitative results'. Strings have been around for a lot longer than the last 30 years. Not a shred of evidence they are real yet. M-theory has a great following based on Greene's math (and reputation) yet still has no experimental or observational support. There is zero evidence alternate dimensions exist, or that they could contain membranes. Or that those membranes could collide. Or that such a collision would create a Hubble volume's worth of matter/energy in our 4 dimensions. When did these alternate dimensions come to exist? Where do they get their energy? Why would such a collision produce all the matter we observe? A whole lot of questions, a whole lot of problems. No answers. Hawking radiation is little more than a 'hail Mary' effort to rid the universe of black holes, so the universe can fade away like the majority of mainstream still believes; this hypothesis based entirely on our currently accelerating recession ... even though we still have that little problem of matter refusing to decay to nothing. Oh, and that little problem of what 'theoretically' happens at the end of this imaginary evaporation process. According to Tyson, a 50 million sun black hole would take (theoretically) 10^100 years to evaporate. The more massive the black hole the slower the rate of the (theorized) evaporation. How long do you think it would take that newly discovered supercluster of galaxies (800 trillion suns) to evaporate, once it has merged to a single black hole? Got some evidence this merging won't happen? Don't think so. Linde's emerging bubble universes, and Frampton's empty packets universes also have no basis what so ever in observations or experiments. Do I sound bitter to you? Hmm. I don't feel bitter. Frustrated at times, I guess, but I think excited about the near term prospects might be a better description. Each new surprising (to mainstream) discovery fits very well into my theory. Contrary to your breezy dismissal, my model does make fairly specific predictions of astronomical phenomena that are NOT predicted by the standard model, or any other model, for that matter ... that I am aware of, anyway. Do you know of one that makes the same astronomical predictions? Lame. Sorry. Professors are usually rather busy. They are under no obligation to respond to unsolicted direct emails (as opposed to inquiries or comments routed through departmental university websites). They are not representing anyone. Refusing (understandably) to respond to cranks could not possibly damage the university in any manner. Your inherent altruism is commendable. Try reading it before you ask such absurd questions. Obviously you never did. You have not taken one specific feature and attempted to falsify it. Poorly articulated or not, the model lays out numerous examples of supporting evidence, and the logical basis for my conclusions. Ok. Lol. I get it. I am nothing more than a crank in your world view. Still, I have ideas about how the universe operates on the very large scale, and those ideas are grounded in the known sciences. I am not making up laws that don't exist. I am not calling upon deities or magic to solve this particular question. I am not creating alternate universes out of 'thin air' to provide for the genesis of our own universe. If it's all the same to you, I will continue to waste my time, until some new observation falsifies my hypotheses. Seriously though, if you really feel a compulsion to effectively crush my model, thereby saving all the impressionable cranks from wasting billions on researching it, I suggest you do it the old-fashioned way. Falsify it.
By the way. What is the 'quantitative basis' for Guth's Inflation hypothesis? What physical mechanism does he use to explain this sudden expansion exceeding c by several orders of magnitude? Vacuum energy? Magic? What??? What laws of quantum mechanics, chemistry, gravity, or physics does he base this hypothesis on? What experiments support this? The Standard Model has some big problems and omissions. Guth's 'theory' deals with one of those problems. But is it a reasonable solution? Is it even plausible? My model is quite simple. The big bang was more likely the big spin. Nothing hard to understand about this concept. It provides a physical mechanism for the intial expansion exceeding c. One that already is well known in physics. Please point me to the experiments or observations that contradict this particular hypothesis of my cosmological theory. I have already posted numerous examples of supporting evidence. The recession's rate of acceleration is currently increasing. We still don't know what is causing it. We don't know if the phenomena is a permanent feature of our universe. We have no evidence that it will continue to accelerate. We have no evidence it will not slow down, and we can't assume it will not, because we don't know the mechanism involved. Our visible univere is still an infant, compared to it's estimated life span (whether you use the life of stars, or the googleplex orders of magnitude if we wait for black holes to evaporate). It's a bit premature to assume this current rate of expansion will continue indefinitely. I don't know about you, but I see a couple big problems with space expanding at an ever-increasing rate forever. Wrong, my model may be. Off the wall, it is not.
