toastywombel

Ah, revisiting this topic. I think most of us recognize that Fox is not a news organization.

It is good to consider the last couple years have been part of a low-energy solar cycle. We are actually at the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century. Many scientists predicted that the global warming would cause the earth to continue to heat even during this cycle, but it has not gone exactly that way. However, 2009 still is still in the top five hottest years on record so far. 2005 and 2007 are the hottest. That is according to NASA. So there is a trend of warming that has been going. Just because it is slow and subtle doesn't mean it is not happening. http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/24/nasa-hottest-year-on-record-2009-2005-2007/

Dogma- 1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church. Psychiatric treatment is based upon a Mental Health Evaluation. The test is reviewed by the World Health Organization. Since when did the WHO become a religious institution. Furthermore, have you not considered the benefits of the drug Chlorpromazine, which is considered to be one of the earliest triumphs of psychiatry? Chlorpromazine is a kind of sedation. It blocks dopamine receptors in the central nervous system through the process of receptor antagonism. By doing this it slows the reaction in of receiving nerve cells. It was first tested on lab rats in the late 1940's. The drug prevented these rats from acting violently to negative stimuli. In a study conducted in 1952 at Sainte-Anne Hospital in Paris 38 schizophrenic patients were treated with injections of chlorpromazine. They all saw dramatic improvements in their behavior and emotional health. This clinical trial was later the first published trial of chlorpromazine and it drastically changed the way doctors treated schizophrenic patients (Before this one of the most common treatments was electro-shock therapy). This is thanks to psychiatry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidopaminergic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorpromazine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry#cite_note-Turner2007-49 http://www.springerlink.com/content/d47821614063h70u/ The last link is nice because it is a scientific trial that shows the effects of chlorpromazine versus placebos. Showing that the placebos do not induce the same effects of chlorpromazine. Want more?

Yes, but there is no absolute test for parkinsons. According to that logic Isn't bi-polar disorder a measurable brain disease?

The largest certifiable record for a saltwater crocodile is 20 feet first off. Secondly that is a rather ridiculous question with the answer probably not. One could also ask, would a 20 foot saltwater crocodile survive a direct bite to the face by a great white shark? Again probably not.

What about the drug L-dopa? Do placebos work as well as L-dopa on providing relief for Parkinson's patients?

How long would the dynamo effect that causes geothermal heat last after we leave the solar system?

Welcome to the forum, hope you enjoy it! It is always nice to get new members although an introductory post would probably be more appropriate here, in the "Introduce Yourself Thread".

This is ridiculous. Is it really necessary to copy-paste "and ever" over and over again?

Yeah that is the book I am really interested in, first I am reading the second though. However, I am at chapter 3 and so far it has been a hundred page ass-kissing of Steve Jobs.

Got two new books for Christmas, one seems rather lame and hopefully you guys know what one it is: Googled: The end of the world as we know it by Ken Auletta How Google has changed over the last decade, and how it's innovations have changed the way media works. Inside Steve's Brain: Expanded edition by Leander Kahney A look inside the mind of Steve Jobs, former CEO of Apple.

How about the invention of the drug L-dopa? Lack of dopamine in the brain is the cause of Parkinsons disease. L-dopa is a drug that can slow the progression of Parkinsons disease significantly. If it was not for understanding the biology of the brain, specifically what biologically causes Parkinsons disease , we would have not been able to design the dopamine supplement, L-dopa.

Link?

This is completely over the top and seems like spam.

Perfection.

Hello everyone. New guy. I think this forum's rules are wound a little less tightly than some, but I will apologize anyway ahead of time ... just in case. And of course if you wish to throw me off the site .... I vigorously defend my thoughts on things, and I offer my criticism when asked. I have not been completely kind on my total review of your theory. This is partly because my emotions were involved in my criticism, this began at about my third response to you. I would like to apologize about that. I am going to now offer a completely logical review that is extensive and thoughtful. I need help. I am not all that bright even though I have been contemplating the universe for about 50 years. I find this could be viewed as a poor introduction to offering a theory about the universe. It can lead many to discredit you right off the bat. A fairly respected cosmologist/astrophysicist offered me 'serious consideration' and probable funding through his institute if I can devise an experiment supporting my model. ( not my first offer ) This in response to the letter I sent him that follows. Many scientists have looked at my model, and none have found ( or bothered to tell me ) a critical flaw. This is not good information to include when introducing a theory either, one may find these comments somewhat egotistical. However, let us move on. So if you are terribly bored, feel free to dismantle my model .... or better yet, don't find a flaw and suggest a direction I can take in exploring experiments. Thanks ... ...................................................................................................... I am writing to you because the science community does not make allowances for innovation, or insights from a layperson. ( non-theist version ) It's not my desire to annoy you, or waste your time. But it is my hope that in the spirit of open-mindedness, you might take a few minutes to read the following. It seems impossible to separate ego ( I have a big one, too ) and beliefs from an objective view of the universe. Having read a great deal about black holes, I am struck not by the consensus of opinion, but the lack of one. It fascinates me that the less someone knows about these structures the more authoritative they sound. I realize that my theory on black holes flies in the face of mainstream science, and undoubtedly your 'beliefs' too. Perhaps you have already traveled this road and found it desolate. If so, my apologies. I first proposed this on 1/26/09. It is short, and self-explanatory. Pinkerton Theoretical Cosmological Model Of The Universe 1/26/09 The Theory: 1. The visible/local universe has a finite amount of mass. Yes I completely agree. 2. Black holes have a finite critical mass limit. 3. That limit is exactly equal to the total mass ( matter + energy ) in the visible/local universe. Okay so if we were to formulate this into an equation. Lets substitute finite critical mass limit with the variable "x". And how about we offer "m" and "e" in the place of matter and energy, respectively. x=m+e. If this is true this must also be true: x-e=m x-m=e x-m-e=0 These are some important variations that you might want to keep in mind. They seem trivial, but if you plan to make this into a good theory they would be a necessity. The Process: 1. Black holes convert all matter/energy into sub-elemental hydrogen for uniform 'stacking'. Several questions here: What kind of sub-elemental hydrogen? Why not even more elemental particles? Are these black holes rotating black holes or Schwarzchild non-rotating black holes? Both of which are predicted by relativity. This is from Wikipedia: "Despite its invisible interior, a black hole can be observed through its interaction with other matter. A black hole can be inferred by tracking the movement of a group of stars that orbit a region in space. Alternatively, when gas falls into a stellar black hole from a companion star, the gas spirals inward, heating to very high temperatures and emitting large amounts of radiation that can be detected from earthbound and earth-orbiting telescopes." Hawking radiation is released by black holes and it can be recorded and observed at times. This would make it hard for a black hole, in your theory ever to reach it's critical mass limit. Also this it is good to keep in mind that the more massive a black hole the less dense it becomes. This is why the Hawking Radiation theory is so widely accepted. It predicts that black holes will eventually dissipate and spread apart. M87, which is considered by many astronomers to be a super-massive black hole is estimated to contain several billion solar masses, but its about the size of the solar system. While, V616 Monocerotis, is only about 11 solar masses, and it is only about the size of the distance between Venus and Mercury. Essentially the more mass "m", the less density is needed to create a black hole. As seen by the equation by Schwarzschild which was derived from relativity. R = 2GM/c^2. As you see the mass directly effects how large the radius of the black hole will be. This means the larger the black hole becomes the less dense it becomes. This would make it hard for a limit to exist. physlink 2. Black holes do not appear to be subject to normal laws of space ( rotational speed limits, inertia ) 3. Black holes ( to our knowledge ) currently merge at velocities 'tethered' by the rotational force and tidal forces of the satellite galaxy, or even just a single stellar companion. 4. Over eons of time black holes will grow in mass/gravity. 5. Although some escapes temporarily through x-ray/gamma ray bursts ( and possibly through Hawking Radiation ) they continue to grow in mass/gravity. 6. Eventually unencumbered by the rotational/tidal force of orbiting galaxies, black holes could theoretically achieve near infinite velocities. Therefore significantly speeding up the merging process and 'chasing down' gravitational sources at velocities far out-pacing the expansion of space. I would ask what force would be causing the black hole to move faster. Also keep in mind the more mass in a black hole the less dense it becomes. It could be inferred that the more massive the black hole gets the more it becomes gravitationally tethered down by itself because it loses so much density. 7. As the mass/gravity grows so does it's rotational speed, and potential velocity as it seeks other sources of gravitons. Actually, relativity implies that a black hole would have a limited rotational speed. As expressed by the equation: Jmax < M2G/c. "Whether a particular star has J over or under the limit depends on its mass, rotation speed, and spatial extent. Since real stars tend to have most of their mass concentrated near their centers, the internal distribution of mass, rather than just the optical diameter, is important. The Sun, due to its rather slow (25-day) rotation, has an angular momentum of about 1.63x1048 gm-cm-2-s-1 (assuming uniform rotation throughout, and standard models for the interior mass distribution; Allen 1970), which is only 0.185 of the maximum value allowed were it to somehow collapse to become a BH. But a rapidly rotating massive star will typically have an angular momentum exceeding its Jmax, and such stars must shed angular momentum and some mass before they could form BHs." Link Essentially the rotational speed of the black hole is limited by its gravitational power. If the rotational speed becomes to great the angular momentum will cause the black hole to dissipate. This is because the angular momentum of the black hole is greater than the gravitational force. Plus the tidal forces of the surrounding matter would rip the black hole apart. 8. The strain on space ( ripple effect ) increases with the growing mass. It is good to note that there is a rather large dearth of intermediate sized black holes. If you are implying that the black holes merge it would incline that all black holes form the same way and continue to grow. You would have to find a way of formulating your theory to fit the fact that most black holes are either relatively small or extremely massive. 9. As our visible/local universe nears the end of it's life cycle, only one black hole remains, containing nearly all the mass in the visible/local universe ( still within upper mass limits predicted by physicists ) 10. At this trigger point, all remaining space containing matter/energy collapses into the black hole. Again, this does not correlate with observations. The larger the black hole the less dense it is. The observations of black holes to date completely contradict the fact that a black hole, with all the mass of the visible universe, would become smaller than it originally was . 11. When the last sub-atomic particle reaches the point of singularity, critical mass is achieved. 12. The Big Bang. 13. Space 'snaps' back to near-uniformity taking hydrogen/microwave/x-ray/gamma ray radiation with it. Why would space snap back. What force would cause this? Also what would cause this force to stop once it has started? 14. Space immediately begins to cool, and star/galaxy formation begins. The Logic: 1. All things in the physical universe have a critical mass point. Except, so far, black holes. 2. I believe theoretical physics currently allows for such a process, and observations are beginning to bear out this reality. 3. At the time calculations were made regarding upper-mass limits, black holes were mere theoretical oddities, and even Einstein argued against the possibility of their actual existence in physical space. 4. Though we have never seen a black hole reach critical mass, that in no way suggests they don't. 5. The visible/local universe has yet to reach infancy compared to it's expected life span. It is premature to assume on such small evidence that the current expansion will go on forever. The Evidence/Proof: 1. The laws of physics, quantum mechanics. Please specify. Classical physics often views black holes as a point of no size with no observable physical properties, while quantum physics views black holes as objects with physical properties and specific temperature. Link 2. The observations, predictions and experiments providing adequate proof/accuracy of those laws. 3. The current chemical/radiological composition of the visible universe. 4. The current ( and upwardly mobile ) estimated mass of the visible/local universe now approaching the numbers derived for black hole upper-mass limits. 5. Recent observations of black holes merging or set to merge. 6. The recent acceptance that all galaxies have black holes, or super-massive black holes at their core. 7. The recent observations detecting more galaxies gravitationally bound to ours, and Andromeda. 8. No evidence to support the recent hypothesis that black holes are limited to 50 billion sols. 9. No evidence of black holes showing appreciable loss of mass over time. 10. No evidence that black holes 'shunt' mass anywhere else. 11. No evidence of branes, strings, 5th through 11 dimensions, etc. 12. Closed-loop obeys all laws of thermo-dynamics/entropy. A singularity where there is no size would imply that there is no temperature, which is impossible according to the final law of thermodynamics. The third law of thermodynamics, which concerns the entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero temperature, and implies that it is impossible to cool a system all the way to exactly absolute zero. 13. Not affected by hypothetical dark matter/energy. Predictions: 1. Black holes in excess of 50 billion sols will be discovered through the latest and soon to come optical/radio telescopes. 2. Every new discovery will fit within the parameters of this model. 3. This cycle will repeat endlessly. In Conclusion: 1. This model answers the question of the observed chemical/radiological composition of the visible/local universe. 2. This model provides for 100% recycling of all matter/energy in the visible/local universe. 3. This model explains where the big bang got it's mass. No it does not, it simply implies that the mass has existed forever either in the form of energy or matter. 4. This model appears to violate no known laws. 5. This model requires no 'new' laws to function. 6. This model is vastly superior to all flawed existing, and previous models. 7. It still leaves the question "How did it begin?" to future theorists. It is also my theory, however, that per Einstein's Uniformity of Space math ( born out by observations ), the universe is indeed infinite. That black holes are simply 'borrowed' energy from the fabric of space. That dark energy is not a force that 'acts' upon space but rather a 'property' of space. This process/cycle is akin to the sub-atomic particles that 'materialize' and are instantly annihilated by anti-particles ... but on a much larger scale. And I also suggest that this process is going on throughout infinity, and has been eternally. The distance between black holes would be equivalent to the distance between the 'materializing' particles. If the loop was not closed, then we would get photons from outside our universe leaking ( over eternity ) here into our universe. And of course if the loop was not closed ... meaning if even a single photon were allowed to escape, the 'next' black hole would be one photon short of critical mass. I don't think space allows this to happen. Logic tells me that if this theory is incorrect, then the universe did in fact have a beginning. And therefore it can not be either infinite, or eternal. That there really is nothing beyond the bubble of our expanding visible universe. That there was some metaphysical reason ( ie: God ) since it truly would have had to spring into existence from 'nothing' ... because there was no space with it's inherent energy to 'borrow' from. I think there is sufficient evidence in Einstein's math to safely conclude this is not a possiblity. The 'lines' of space would not have an 'endpoint'. It is possible that my supposition of black hole inertia-less velocities will not be born out by future observations, however this would not stop the process. Instead, it would merely slow it down. No matter how far space 'expands' the last black hole standing would warp space sufficiently to pull back any remaining mass/energy. Reasonable logic tells me that if a 'big bang' could simply materialize from 'nothing' ( 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. That would appear ( so far, anyway ) not to be the case. There must be a process. A function that allows matter to exist, if only temporarily. Logically, it took all the energy from our universe to create our universe. I hope this didn't take too much of your time. Thank you for your attention. James Pinkerton Copyright 2009 James Pinkerton After Galileo's conviction for heresy ... and his subsequent sentencing ... As he was being led away, he was credited with uttering these words under his breath ..... "But they move. They move!" As I am being led away I will quietly utter these words ..... "But they merge. They merge!" Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFor example ... take the recent measurements of the rotation of our visible universe. Einstein showed that a collapsing star's rotational speed would not be limited to C, and he used this argument to defend his denial of black holes. He said the heavier the mass/smaller the diameter, the faster the spin .... in theory to infinity. ( and the star would fly apart from angular momentum ... and so far he appears to have been wrong on this ) But he was also talking about 'infinitely dense' mass at a finite point in space. The total mass of our visible universe is rather large by standards we are comfortable with ... but certainly not infinite. So in the case of 'our' singularity neither would the rotational speed be infinite. But off the scale fast ... So what if this singularity containing all the mass of our universe 'went off'? Would it not be reasonable that something this massive spinning this fast would transfer major angular momentum to all the material expanding outward from the 'bang'? Is there a way to correlate the speed of the rotating singularity to the ( presumed ) current rotational speed of the universe 13.7 billion years later?

Egotistical much? You ranted so much earlier, and you admit you have no math to back this up, and you are just a laymen, yet you believe your model is the best for explaining how the universe works?

Hahahaha. Oh man Dr. Syntax, long time no see. It made me laugh that you mentioned primal therapy again.

What is space and time without light or mass? It is really nothing. It would be impossible to measure space or time without anything tangible such as mass or light. It is like trying to find a point south of the south pole, it is undefined. Plus I never said that we are the only universe, or that the universe was created just for us. The simple idea of the universe being finite but without boundaries has nothing to do with religion or "philosophical throwbacks". There are some very smart mathematicians and physicists who would agree with my view of the universe, and they may be wrong as I may be wrong. However, it seems much more wise to put my faith in theories that have extensive math behind them than a theory that has no math or evidence behind it. Also the majority of that post was completely off-topic, you went on quite a rant. However lets move on, you said, "If it can happen once, it can happen an infinite number of times." You also provided an example, saying that one could fuse a hydrogen atom with a hydrogen atom to create a helium atom an infinite amount of times. Well I say you can as long as you have enough hydrogen. There is a limit to how much hydrogen is in the universe though. So as far as being able to do it an infinite number of times, No that is impossible. Many, many, many times? Yes. Finally, lets cover your comments pertaining to how you said my math was flawed in the last paragraph in your post. I said the total mass of the "visible universe" just as you did in your premise. Super-massive black-holes are not part of the visible universe, because they are not visible. They can only be tracked by their effects on surrounding visible-matter. You said in the original premise of your theory this, "That limit (black hole critical mass limit) is exactly equal to the total mass ( matter + energy ) in the visible/local universe." I simply looked up some numbers and proved that black holes can be more massive than the visible/local universe. Therefore, your assumption of the critical mass limit of black holes is incorrect. Furthermore, you never answered how a positively charge black hole would merge with a negatively charged black hole. Let us try to stay on topic. You are asking if anyone can point out any flaws in your theory and I have so far pointed out several, but I am focusing mainly on the above two.

Pywakit, you said that my earlier statement was not logical, "The universe is finite, but without boundaries." That is a logical statement however. I would like to explain this to you so you can better understand the structure of the universe as I currently understand it. Imagine being a two-dimensional being moving around a sphere. There would be a finite amount of space on that sphere, but you would never run into a boundary. There would be no spot where you fall off. This is how many people, including Hawking, view the universe today. The universe is expressed in many dimensions, and we are only in the third. We can move around the universe and it would seem limitless, like how the sphere would seem limitless to a two-dimensional being. But, in fact the sphere and the universe are finite, but without a boundaries. It is just hard to comprehend that because we have a mind built for understanding the world in the third dimension. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnother problem I have with your theory; this is from wikipedia. "The No hair theorem states that, once it achieves a stable condition after formation, a black hole has only three independent physical properties: mass, charge, and angular momentum.[12] Any two black holes that share the same values for these properties, or parameters, are classically indistinguishable." How would a positively charged black hole merge with a negatively charged black hole? Furthermore, I noticed something else wrong with the initial premises of your theory. I took those initial premises and listed them below. My reviews of the premises are in blue. 1. The visible/local universe has a finite amount of mass. Correct. The amount of mass calculated in the visible universe is estimated to be around 1.59 X 10^55 kg, according to the Physics Fact Book. 2. Black holes have a finite critical mass limit. Super-massive black holes are estimated to have a mass equal to 10^5-10^9 solar masses. 3. That limit is exactly equal to the total mass ( matter + energy ) in the visible/local universe. As you can see the mass of the visible universe is 1.59 x 10^55 kg, yet super-massive black holes have a mass of about 10^5-10^9 solar masses. These are two different units of measurement so lets convert. 1 solar mass= 1.99x10^30 kg. Without having to do the math you can see that a super-massive black hole is more massive than the mass of the visible universe. This makes your third premise incorrect.

I love how someone sites something as constitutional or not. 1. The constitution is a document that is nearly over 200 years old, times change. 2. According to the one guy's interpretation of the 9th amendment: interstates, schools, FBI, military, medicare, medicaid, social security, FDA, and essentially any federal government program would be unconstitutional. Even if this was an accurate interpretation of the 9th amendment, it would be rather ridiculous. And I just noticed that I essentially reiterated iNow's point.

I believe I read something somewhere that the researcher did include this concern in a journal that was released to the public. I will see if I can find a link.

There are some games on pc that come on blue-ray. The only real difference is that blue-ray can hold more data than a DVD. I personally have a feeling that blue-ray is not going to last that long. I would not purchase a blue-ray player because I believe in the near future discs are going to become obsolete.

This theory is not too un-believable, but the problem is that the universe is not just expanding it is accelerating as well. Galactic clusters further away are moving away from us faster than galactic clusters closer to us. From what we have observed so far there is no force that could pull those galaxies back. Also it would be important to keep in mind that black holes may release hawking radiation. Essentially virtual particle pairs, which consist of an anti-particle and a particle, phase into existence than they come back together and destroy themselves. This happens all the time in what we use to think was empty space. Hawking theorized that since this happens everywhere it must happen at the event-horizon of black holes. So, when it does happen one of the particles gets pulled into the black hole and the other flies off into space. So as the black hole grows it also releases particles into the universe, thus it releases mass into the universe. This would make it hard for a black hole to consume all the mass in the universe. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnother thing, I don't think the universe is infinite. If the universe is infinitely large, space-time must be infinitely large. If space-time is infinitely large then it brings up several issues. The major one being, if time is infinite than it would have taken an infinite amount of time to get to the time we are at now, thus we would never reach the time we are at now. It is better to think of the universe as finite but without boundaries. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOne more thing, matter does not necessarily exist at all times. On the subatomic level, matter is assuming multiple positions, all positions, and no positions all at the same time (super-position). It is a wave of potentials, and the matter does not have a single point, until it is observed. Once observed the wave-function is collapsed and the matter exists in one specific place.

Wow, St. Germain you are some piece of work. This should be it for me in this thread unless you say something even more outlandish than the likes of, "Karl Popper doesn't believe in positivist approach." Furthermore, I doubt you watched the video, but I hope you enjoyed picking out the semantics. I also liked how you totally ignored that Stephen Hawking used the positivist approach in his "Origins of the Universe Lecture". I could imagine one would feel funny ridiculing a statement and then finding that the statement is from one of the most brilliant philosophers. You must have felt worse when you realised the statement was also cited in one of the most famous lectures of all time by one of the most brilliant minds of our time. Finally, when you said, "If the notions presented to you are too strange for you to accept, there is no problem about that at all, they are strange." You should have used a semi-colon between "all" and "they" at the end of that sentence, or you could formulate them into two separate sentences. However, what you did was a comma-splice. Just thought I would point that out for you.