ACG52

You have yet to post any. The repulsive force which is responsible for the universe's expansion is incredibly weak. The shorter the distance, the weaker it is. It generates a repulsive velocity of 78 km per 3.26 million light years. It is completely overwhelmed by gravity out to distances of 200 million lys from our galaxy. Gravity, on the other hand, increases as distance decreases. Given a constant mass, the smaller the radius from the center of the mass, the stronger gravity becomes. At a certain point, which is completely calculable, the force of gravity becomes so strong that gravitational collapse occurs. Once this point is reached, there is no force in the universe strong enough to prevent the mass from contracting to a singularity. Nothing can stop this, not electron degeneracy or quark degeneracy. When this happens, an event horizon forms around the singularity. This is the point where the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light, and nothing, matter or energy or light can get past and leave. That's what a Black Hole is. This is really very basic. There is no 'super solid', there is no equilibrium reached, matter does not become like cotton candy, and black holes aren't "so bright that any lens you point at them couldn't possibly see the brightness because it doesn't even disturb the lens." Your posts are nonsense.

I don't know why the moderators continue to allow you to post utter nonsense.

What's incoherent here is you. You have zero knowledge of physics.

Charming understatement.

Another topic cooked up while drunk in your room?

That crank nonsense is what you submitted to a peer reviewed journal, and then you wonder why they threw it out?

Neither is your 'theory'.

I've asked about your education, as it is germane to your supposed 'theory'. My criticisms have all concerned the fact that your 'theory' is a vapid piece of nonsense, which certainly doesn't meet even the lax standards of the speculations thread. So far, you've been unable to support it in any way, other than saying 'I know I'm right because I thought it up.'

Why don't you put it on the web somewhere and post a link to it.

So you have no educational background, you've simply made up your ideas with no background or support. Your 'theory' cannot make any predictions or explanations of experiment or observations, and in fact, contradicts everything that mainstream science says. My arguments against your 'theory' is that is says nothing, has no scientific support, and is simply gibberish.

And you just made mine. Your ideas have no scientific basis, they seem to be the result of late night drinking sessions in your room.

So in other words, no. Your 'theory' can't produce anything. If it can, show us the math. Show how your 'theory' predicts the ratio of primordial elements. Do you even know what the ratio is? Show how your 'theory' (a sad misuse of the word) predicts the black body spectrum of the CMB. Do you even know what a Black Body spectrum is? Show, don't just say it does.

Article submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal must have at least some degree of scientific accuracy. Crank ideas are rejected out of hand. So if you want to suggest that electrons don't exist, or that nuclear explosions were faked, or that little green men live in your basement, you're out of luck. Thus your submissions went in the circular file.

I'm not really concerned with you taking me seriously. I certainly don't take you seriously. Perhaps I should return my degree in physics in favor of making bad youtube videos. Do you have any evidence at all in support of your ideas? Any predictions? Any calculations? The Big Bang theory exactly predicts the ratio of primordial hydrogen, helium, lithium and deuterium, and the mechanism which produced it. Does your nonsense do the same? If so, let's see it. The Big Bang theory exactly predicted the black box spectrum of the CMBR, so closely that the error bars are smaller than the data points. Does your idea do that? The Big Bang theory explains cosmological red-shift. Does your idea do that? The Big Ban theory predicts the uniformity of the CMBR. Does your idea come even close to doing anything? You don't even seem to know the difference between the universe and a galaxy. What are your educational credentials?

You can't seem to keep straight the difference between a galaxy and the universe. The universe doesn't have spiral arms. Nor does the universe have a center. Nor is there a black hole at that non-existent center. Your idea doesn't have enough cohesiveness to be parsed. It's as though random words and badly misunderstood popularizations were strung together, and you saying argue against this. There is no 'this' to argue against. There are no white holes. Things do not enter black holes and come out somewhere else. There are no 'time shifts'. The Big Bang is well supported by a wealth of evidence and prediction which you seem to be totally unaware of. The universe did not come out of a black hole.

Your idea is not a theory. It's a totally incomprehensible word salad of misused buzz words which lack any kind of scientific value. Dark flow has nothing at all to do with black holes, and there is no center of the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow

This doesn't seem to make any sense. Are you under the impression that electrons cause cancer? BTW, did you bother to read this? http://www.wired.com...erfect-spheres/

When your incredulity springs from ignorance, it is a bad thing. Newton's gravitational laws are only an approximation with a limited range of applicability. You need to apply Einstein's equations.

When an object compresses down past a certain limit, there is no force which can prevent a gravitational collapse. This is an outcome of the Einstein field equations. All your objections are arguments from incredulity, and all your arguments are made from ignorance. I'd say something not making sense to you is a point in it's favor.

No, science is about describing how the physical universe works. A hypothesis which does not correspond to physical reality is wrong. One which does, and makes verifiable predictions is more correct.

There are a number of computer simulations of the BB. http://www.space.com/17530-universe-dark-energy-supercomputer-simulation.html http://io9.com/5846159/a-computer-simulation-of-the-universes-complete-14-billion+year-evolution http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120412133058.htm No, it's an argument of fact.

And you get one bigger black holes. Black holes are not solid objects.

That would be the M-M experiments which did NOT find an aether.

Since they are the only carriers of negative charge, there's no 'supposed' about it. This sums up every thread you've started.

From http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/electrons-are-near-perfect-spheres/