shmengie

I have plenty of mathematical knowledge. I never discovered a phenomena that was easy to describe in math. However, I have learned enough about QM & GR to realize what hasn't been described by the master himself with his formulas. Hard to know what others don't when you can't read their minds. Physics is complicatedly simple. New formulas will be written once I show the links.

OMG. I found the link... My [latex]\lambda[/latex]pot cracked when I hit the QM & GR missing link. I derived it trying to argue a point w/u guys. Been thinking I couldn't prove my point. I already did. I linked QM & GR. I don't need to prove the other point, will follow when the world realizes my discovery. In about 5 days, I'll be in the news. Been fun!!!!

If we must discuss LCDM as the best fitting model. We should also point out its the most actively worked model not necessarily the best in any respect because we do not know what all we do not know. LCDM is the most active because it is the most accepted. Its kinda a defacto-standard. IMO GR is the best model, from which many aspects of LCDM is based, ironically they were only taken into consideration because GR happens to be the simplest to date model of time-space-and-gravity for the Universe ever developed by man (Einstein). I've been working to understand it. Why my last post was removed, is a joke, because it was directed to be on topic, not a high slapping I might have made it sound to be. Did prove what I was expecting. There's little room for opinions when the obvious is hidden in plain text. Tho, I guess I don't fit the model of a utopic [latex]\lambda[/latex]pot.

I don't know Quantum Mechanics that well. Why would I ever go there? Do you know what QM describes? The Atom. Sounds like a curiously similar place to start looking for something different than inflation, try a bounce instead.

You're missing the point. None of the theories answer the whole story. While that might be what we want, a complete story, we don't have a thesis that completely matches everything. To say one thing is wrong because nobody works on it, doesn't make it wrong. To say one thing is right because most ppl work on it, doesn't make it right. 100 things that can't complete the story, are 100 things that are incomplete, none of which are wrong or right (yet!). But when ppl suggest Lambda be brought to question, one should ask why, not stfu you don't know what you're talking about. Go read abook and learn why 1+1=1 ( OMG ). I've seen ppl post like that. They know Lambda so its the only right. Its not complete. Its the most worked on, but it doesn't add up to the observations. Hmmmm.... Still right! Inflation started by thinking the way things work on Earth could possibly be how stars work. We have little experience in a vacuum of space. We have a lot of good work in progress. I applaud the work toward Lambda/inflation, there's a lot of thought in that body of work. But in the end, it asserts a number of sequences that cannot ever be witnessed. If any one of them are wrong we'll never know. We aren't going to look because we simply cannot. Its basically defined that way. We need CMBR to be right and every observation that doesn't fit gets corrected with a new postulation to make everything alright. Problem is Dark Energy doesn't fit, after doing the math. It's close. But it doesn't fit the expansion model, unless the universe is non-flat. Pop-Sci only points it out because its the truth. Not because they're trying to be misleading, we simply don't know the whole story. Inflation is a good model. But has a lot of premises that can never be tested. That's a flaw IMO. DE is another flaw... Call it what you want. It doesn't fit. Einstein was one of the best at figuring stuff out. He never bought into inflation. Fred Hoyle didn't like it, tho he called it "Big Bang" because its what the model looked like to him. I don't know the whole conversation, but it was an attempt to deflate what he refused to believe. Didn't work tho. It exploded. In your face Fred, he played it down in the interview tho, because it gained traction. inflation started with the idea of space expanding from a point. I don't buy it. but that's my opinion. Not right / wrong, just my personal fact.

Lambda-CDM doesn't answer a lot of questions. You can point out what doesn't fit the model as not according to Lambda... Science isn't based on Lambda-CDM. While Lambada-CDM is based on scientific principles. Seems there's a hidden argument in that, for the mentality. Some scientific developments have come from Lambda-CDM. But on the whole, not many, if any. I've suggested Lambda isn't right and told I don't know what I'm talking about. That doesn't leave much room to support a logical argument. I find it frustrating, as I suspect others do. Lambda-cdm is basically the science behind supporting inflation theory. It matches a lot of theory to observations and works out the difference. There are lot of differences that don't make sense, ie Dark Energy.

Gotta love the A-Team. Hannible Simth "I love it when plan comes together" He never coulda been part of the L-Team. or was it B-Team. Bang was meant to be a derogatory term. But it sounds (not so quite at the time) Big. The plan failed from the start, but had a big name like Trump and been gaining momentum ever since. Started out much faster stopped? (we have a lot of evidence? no) doesn't matter, it either stopped because it ran into nothing nothing but a weak force of gravity or it kept going we don't know which, need evidence to prove everything anyway. Wait and see... What's that I hear. bird shiat. No it's the hand of god.... We have heard evidence of a background noise. Comes from everywhere. That explains it all!!! There was a (quite sort of) bang. Better come up with a confusing name, that one sounds good but its wrong. We have a piece of evidence that proves 8 - 10 premises we can never see happened the way we figured. (But it's a scientific guess). Man what's a lot of evidence? Got 1. Yay, what else happened, why'd it stop happening. Gravity. Gravity is weak. Okay, maybe it didn't stop. What did it inflate into? Unimportant. Did it stop, w/weak gravity? Uh.... We have lots of 1 piece of evidence. Gotta have faith. Look at stars we can see what's going on. Everything darker than we expected. Looks like it's all running away. Deodorant? Na, too far away. Why's it running then? Weak gravity. Oh! 2nd piece of lots of evidence. Whats that you say, Einstein predicted gravity shift. Hmmm.. Might make a difference. Lots of equations later... It's not running away like we thought. Hmm.. We have lots of 1 piece of evidence and some 2nd that's wrong but must be right (we don't need faith we have lots of evidence). The universe is still expanding, but its at a stopped and speeding up again and sorta not accelerating depending on how you look at it. That's it any who disagrees is wrong, we got it all figured out now!!!! That might as well be Adam eating forbidden fruit to me. I asked what's all the evidence I got 2 answers and a lot of contrived equations to support 200 different reasons 2 pieces of evidence are right and 1 defiantly not wrong. Because I cannot explain CMBR differently that it's been explained by 10 different premises that are verified by 1 non nonnegotiable piece of proof. Huh... Guess a little faith of others is all accepted as proof needed. Because matter once heated to really high temp (had to be a bang) cooled and be explained no other way. Sounds like evolution of some form to me. Not that I don't buy it, but lots of evidence is lots when its about 2, nearly impossible 1, 2 to believe. It does boil down to a lot of work to make 2 evident phenomena be lots. We won't talk about why they call it Lambda CDM. It sounds scientific, that's all that matters about a Cold Dark (invisible and hush hush can't see it so we won't think about it) Matter beginning. Wait you skeptics are like the climate deniers. You can't even figure out 1=1 is wrong. What's a the matter with you, go read a book.

I did ask "What's all the evidence for expansion" or lambda, in a separate thread. I didn't venture to this thread to ask questions. Found the an answer I wasn't looking for, and it does have me going in odd tangents... Deprivation of sleep does that to me. Sorry. Ppl ask questions about stuff I've studied, I will offer what I can and suggest potential realities that aren't well explained by "science" as I understand. I enjoy making assertions. It affords a feel of empowerment. Guess I'm an empowerment enabling junkie. I did elude to my answer. Those weren't meant to be clearly defined as assertion. We don't know expansion is correct or incorrect. <- assertion I still have questions I cannot answer, nor believe others can. That doesn't mean neither I nor others won't make progress, but asserting that one asserts when one eludes is poor assessment of fact presented in fashion of opinion or suggestion. <- referring to self, as to reference one's own opinion. But you do seem to belittle those you seem to believe are of lesser education. <- Not an assertion. leads toward a conclusion in similar fashion, wanted to avoid anticipated confusion. When one contradicts your faith, why do you not provide a supporting argument. It does lead others to believe you understand your faith well and there's no room for argument nor clarification that it is or is not clearly a: Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing; or the observance of an obligation from loyalty; or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement; or a belief not based on proof; or it may refer to a particular system of religious belief, such as in which faith is confidence based on some degree of warrant.

How could it expand even if there isn't some place to expand into? If there's an enclosing infinitely large verse of universe, why aren't they the same? To expand implies there is a method of expansion and an unfilled area that can be expanded into. I don't know how you can claim a thing to expand w/out other things to be defined to accommodate such action. If it started out infinite size. What's expanding? Energy? Dark Energy. It's a flawed conclusion that begins at the start with incomplete branes yet to be defined. How can one not see that as flaw? The beginning premise is defined a stack of premises later as all previous can never be observed, so the next CMBR premise must be true to lend any validity to any number of premise defined and undefined to solidify. I see that as approach hypothesis by means of faith not a scientific endeavor started by looking at infinity as a plausibly correct answer to a singularity. I can see pointing out flaws in reason. I cannot see pointing out flaws in reason, due to one's inability to question one's faith. But there's a lot of good verses in scripture that would have ppl believe otherwise... I understand the mentality. I don't have to accept it purely by convenience faith affords. Its a mentality that stifles ones imagination. Just think, where we'd be if Adam never sought knowledge, nor dare to take one little first bite. (not that I study stuff that doesn't interest me. I need to know what I don't know, so I have clues about whatever else might be unknown.) But the, w/out false claims, how can knowledge ever develop or evolve? Ever think we haven't answered GR & QM mission connection because only one of many premise cannot be verified by any means of direct link? I see flaws only because I look for places to look. I'm not always right. I accept that.... But I'm always not not right. How many lefts does it take to make 1 right? I have a sudden urge for a tootsie! POP How many wrongs? A point not taken but offered, harms not the provider. I sought knowledge not offered, when I posed a question I believed I knew all answers for. I assumed by default principle of quest for knowledge, I didn't know all what else otheres might know. It's an easy posture to take to afford filling voids vacant of progress. (good grief I need sleep. I started writing in poetic terms, lacking sleep imagination protrudes clear thought. I finally believe I know one thing others do not, its irritating, but I may survive. I really do not like this state of being. ((needing sleep, specifically, hopefully the poetic bs will wane, too))).

I got sidetracked by Lambda-CDM not explaining a multiverse scenario of development it describes. It cause me to question which verse of universe could be static if any. If there's an expanding universe, there must be a lager verse for it to expand into. Don't know what to add or subtract from the brane concept. I've not studied strings. I think that's sorta a flawed direction too, but I've not studied it, certainly would qualify my guesses of plausibility as pure guess work. I've discovered at least two flaws in Lambda-CDM modeled thinking. Presently I'm in a distinct minority, that may change within a year of publication. Less likely. Depends on acceptance speed factors and how well the Internet can accelerate the process. I have no control of such acceptance. I've struggled with it. I have another curiously pertinent prediction: Once a connection is made with QM & GR and have been explained in "English" terms. It will quickly become accepted that Lambda-CDM is inherently flawed, by starting at Infinity and postulating inflation. Seems Steady State might have been the better model to extend. But I used Lambda CDM as a crutch to develop my thesis, so who knows what would happened if the same mistakes weren't made way back when 'ol Albert gave us Relativity in an equation with a greek letter or so. I've theorized GR has missed hints of another shift hidden in infinities by a dark hole. I found it Yesterday. Will have a paper in rough draft competed shortly I hope. I put in about 15 hours working on it yesterday. Been trying to relax and sleep.... That was about 3-4 hours ago... I'm so excited and ampped on coffee, I don't know how "short" shortly might be. Did post a prediction I tried to post here, when the "moderator" or someone terminated the thread I started as I was working on it. The thread has links to where the prediction that lead to my breakthru, is posted. Its over at http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66046.0 Added a poll, so if anyone wants to chime in on the poll or prediction, fell free to gander in that direction. I never meant to tie GR & QM. A curious development I didn't see coming till it hit. I can't wait to see what happens next.

I don't know how to define my anxiety in plain terms. I don't really wish to, but seems there's little other choice. I derived a conclusion that goes against Lambda-CDM (in a generic sense) acceptance. I battle with that internally (begin anxiety) in effort to resolve the differences in validity which I intended to imply. I have spent considerable amount of time learning to justify my conclusion on a basis of fact. For my conclusion to be correct there may be a conflict between acceptance and logic, I find difficult to resolve (logic of a sorts, while anxiety interjects emotion). You point out all the reasons I understand cause/effect of anxiety of emotions being the issue. I believe others have similar constraints as I. My conclusion still has qualities of NON-acceptance. After a fairly exhaustive search for answers. My anxiety between acceptance (for self and others has persisted). I've concluded that to change accepted math, I must change acceptance of a change of application thereof. I know where the math is. I don't know how to straddle this void of change I cannot clearly define. (anxiety ends ~ never ~). I want ~never~ to stop being an issue, in very many more than one way(s). But what I want only matters... And what I need depends a lot on what I want. In the end I might change everything. But in the end it amounts to a lot of nothing. -oxymoroonish (and spelling) intended. (not necessiarly a self analysis, yet difficult to avoid). NO argument. Agreement implied. Potential source of anxiety... (yet to be completely defined (((((by self)))))).

I started this thread with a curious approach toward education. I think I know enough to draw a valid conclusion. My process of thought has been milled through a process of self education, for which there is no certification (of nor for) such process other than ones own self assessment. You cannot, will not, might not never be able to view things from my prospective. (I would state I understand that, but....) You don't seem to realize it applies to you, regardless of certification YOU might possess. "Acceptance" is the implied key, for which a lock I hold, yet remains difficult to find. I need to work on that last phrase, that strikes a hint of "coin" like status. The Dhrump one (I claim coinage now! it stands as is), I'd like to see it go viral on phase book... But what one would like... often remains purely subjective. I have proof!!!! I can accept being self corrected. I just posted my (coined) "phrase" but adjusted it, in the process: Having just posted, presumably for the first time ever... I offer such evidence: "Ever feel the need to seek assistance from Donald Dhrump to learn proper application of rubber and glue?" Seems (to me) a reference to the president or a presidential like quality could find utility in verbal application. (at the moment of current contemplations). "Is there everything else we should be afforded ability to bounce off a presidential candidate?" BAH, sorry. politics.... Q: Is there any existing evidence that might lead toward establishing a black hole formation time lines? I haven't begun delving thru links Strange provided. This question has pertinence. I doubt potential determination of ~reliable~ fact. Tho I suspect hole formation is a function of the course of gravity combined with space-time, based on an evolutionary thesis within Lambda-CDM... I question, my question, to the need for lack of question.

You're deriving a subjective conclusion, based on personal interpretations of facts (you possess) that defy logic to resolve elusive validity of facts for others. Yet you present such results as if derived, deprived of emotion. ( a loop I reject to contemplate further. Please? help? What? -- are you trying to help or hurt my issues with anxiety?-) I feel I need to seek assistance from Donald Dhrump to learn proper application of rubber and glue.

At the moment my needs are meager. I don't know how long this state can be maintained. If I make the wrong choice and waste too much time, not achieving more practical goals, I might have wasted nothing but time in effort to change everything, in the end, it boils down to nothing other than justifying one belief to one self. I see a clear path toward the goal. I don't know how much TIME is involved. The end result is ABOUT the same regardless. Mostly a personal conflict, momentarily, I only contemplate (time ~ marginal import) ((logic: implied, understood: subjective)).

I want to define a source of a force termed Dark Energy. I believe it lies in gravity. My belief does not seem to be accepted in general terms, by others. I started a quest in justifying my belief which has caused anxiety (within myself,) I find need to rid (this one's) self of. If I choose one path, more anxiety will be a result (for a while)... Its a difficult choice, I'd like assistance, but help cannot be demanded, only requested, for it to achieve reliable results. When one applies logic and emotions are involved, results are often questionable.

I had to solidify my understanding of concepts (for myself) through the course of my investigation. I still have not applied my meager grasp of calculus, in effort to avoid additional time consumed on determining validity of such understandings, via neglect to deal with my meager understandings. Not typically considered acceptable. I get that. But if I don't have a practical application, I don't bother. I'm lazy and justification for laze I justify using a practicality scale of my own design. I've never really needed calculus, for my work, tho I've used the concepts of function well before I learning it originated from development of calculus (Newton era). Cosmology has been a hobby, I've only flirted with, till now. Now I see a practical reason to apply what's only been a hobby. However I do still have issues with the whole idea of: Even if I change everything, I change nothing, in the end. I want to understand better. I see a method to do that, but it goes against an established grain of acceptance. I don't have enough self confidence to believe I can achieve the task I must to resolve issues that are too complex for me to grasp. (At the moment I'm Quacking my anxieties, in text form, why trying to justify proving my self right or wrong about many varying possibilities.) Not the smallest, of which is: do we need a new model? -I don't know. I don't like contemplating the ramifications. It's too much work... I cannot justify, nor ever expect a payment for efforts. (payment might be considered exactly: self acceptance for reward). Tho learning is something that will happen, regardless... Effort worth something... Don't know how to interpreting this argument. I don't wish to engage, quipping many specifics of interpenetration of definitions. Seems like you're attacking my use of logic by means of logic. I fear a loop developing I don't wish to address, nor contemplate further. (My interpretation of logic suggests this argument has a potential result of a loop, with no eventual resolution of pertinent topic at hand.) Having never sought in earnest, investment toward (my) formal education. Lacking a justifiable need (of and) for such, has afforded a nonchalant attitude in this one's self toward such outcome. Encountering a precipitous point where the determination of course might depend on such need... is daunting... Beliefs are so difficult to justify, (or can be) at times.

Well... Logic has a specific definition. But how one applies its use is somewhat left to self interpretations. Use of precept where premise is better, was pointed out by Strange. Hopefully that helps... ???

I have asserted some effort to construct readers opinions toward plausibility of my arguments (tho mostly personal I believe readers might share). Establishing shared trust in agreement is difficult when the concepts or gamut thereof within Lambda-CDM are difficult to grasp for any individual. For a while I believe I gained such trust. Anxieties for ones self often arise when one considers the consequences of what one's views might be as viewed from the eyes of another. I've relied on such trust, for establishing answers for which I might rely upon. Strange has offered an interesting yet strange prospective for me to analyze these concepts. That's been somewhat of a unique experience for me. Thanks for being there Strange!

You have not been laxed toward urging me to feel insignificant. I started out near enough a point of feeling that way..... It's been hard for any distance to change from my personal view of "self". So I've been able to resist any urging I've perceived. Now you have provided a nice compilation of work. For which I am grateful or hope to be.... However, it will take me a while to disseminate which are applicable and how. There is one other question I haven't posed which is highly pertinent to my quest. But if I leave now and discover something useful in the mean time which is pertinent to the question I haven't yet posed.... Can I come back and ask even though I haven't finished COMPLETELY complying with orders as stated? I have suggested I need some information about black holes, but may not be clear (to me, or you the reader), exactly what information I need, nor how it might be plausible to attain such information. In other words, you have me fearing to leave for I might not be welcomed back. (thy might just fear to QUACK, yet question thy wish to ATTACK).

I consider logic a tool for deriving the a reasonable conclusion based on the information at hand. Mixing logic with precepts is a difficult but necessary part of the tenets of science, especially when more than ONE precept is involved. Leads toward progress. Lambda-CDM used as a generic term and use there of is difficult with logic, IMO.

When one chooses to accept only a portion of the whole body of Lambda-CDM to develop a thesis... it goes against the grains of logic to a degree. I've had a personal struggle with that from the start. Tried to explain it to this thread. But I understand how it might sound QUACK.

I reasoned out what a "potential" cause of variation in a "CONSTANT" termed cosmological. I think I know how to prove it, but I need access to specific numbers NOW! I would really appreciate, if ANYONE could show me where they are. I've got one name in my head that I'm going to google in a moment, which is a good place for me to start, given help or not, to narrow my search. Steve Darcy (sp?) his team showed the universe is expanding when we thought it might be shrinking, prior to their work. That seems like a good place to start (to me). They might have the numbers I've NOT seen. I've seen other "personalities" explain what it means. They've got some familiarity with what I need... Don't know how to strike a conversation with them.

Not the best. No notable body of work. Just lots and lots of practice doing it. What I'm saying is I'm familiar with recent developments, thanks to pop-sci. Figuring how what I agree with what's agreed, is a personal problem we all get to handle in our own ways.

Phi. I've said in various terms. I program logic in computer languages. I like logic. It's something I'm good with.

The constant in question is the COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT that Einstein said was wrong, but has managed to be proven questionable, thanks to Dark Energy. I've not seen the numbers that have been complied that suggest Dark Energy exists but has no standing description other than it's evident the universe is expanding. The numbers are multiple measurements in distance and compared to excepted belief the shifts should all line up, but they don't. Based on current understandings of the principles at hand. Its not easy to figure out what it means. I think I have. Might be able to prove it. But now I need to look at the numbers instead of "think" I understand POP-SCI explanations. Google won't tell you if they understand. They've been good at showing the do, even when you don't... That helps. I would like to see a specific compilation of work that indicates variation in shift rates over time-distance. Accuracy is expected to be within acceptable statistical error rates. I've not worked out any of the math on my own, heard descriptions from unreliable source: POP-SCI. Haddn't worried about the numbers because they're all complicated by means cosmological origins and lacking a clear definition of what it all means. I don't know if google can help. cosmologists that have had the numbers or know where they are, could. Others that have view the numbers might be able to point me toward where they are. But it's complicated, so I don't know if there's a publicly available repository for them or not, having not searched for them before. Google might be able to help. But when it can't, there's a lot of links that show it doesn't matter to them what you need. I really need to speak to a cosmologist. I don't think1987a is the closest hole I know of, but it has formed recently. That's a direction I want to look but I have no means to view in with the tools that may be available. I'm so outside the fringes of sciences I like to speculate about..., I'll have to write papers... After I finish one I think I need to finish first. Argh. There's a lot of work involved in all of this. I don't expect to get paid for it, nor wish to pay, because I have no clue if I'm right or wrong.