Cosmological Model of The Universe

pywakit · December 22, 2009

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 need help. I am not all that bright even though I have been contemplating the universe for about 50 years.

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.

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.

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.

The Process:

1. Black holes convert all matter/energy into sub-elemental hydrogen for uniform 'stacking'.

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.

7. As the mass/gravity grows so does it's rotational speed, and potential velocity as it seeks other sources of gravitons.

8. The strain on space ( ripple effect ) increases with the growing mass.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 merged

For 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?

toastywombel · December 22, 2009

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 merged

Another 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 merged

One 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.

Edited December 22, 2009 by toastywombel
Consecutive posts merged.

pywakit · December 22, 2009

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.

Yes, I am fully aware of the accelerating expansion. Forgive me but you are apparently assuming a 'static point' for gravitational attraction. Judging by the observational evidence, *and assuming black holes exist at all*, black holes are not stationary. They merge. Whats to keep them from growing, merging, and moving toward any gravitational source?

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.

Very much aware of Hawking Radiation. He hypothesized this in the late 70s I believe. To date, highly speculative. The science community is hopeful that experiments with the new collider will support his hypothesis. This after 30 plus years of no experimental proof of any kind. Secondly, Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson was talking to me about this earlier in the year, and although he is on board with the one-way universe, and supports his friend Hawking, he admits there are a few problems. Such as the length of time it would take to 'evaporate' a 50 m sol mass .... 1 followed by 140 zeros. About a quadrillion or so times the expected life span of the universe. This assumes no more 'feeding' in all that time. It also has no solution at hand for the end of the process *total evaporation, or remnant?* Furthermore recent measurements suggest we have discovered a black hole in excess of 18 BILLION sols. Wonder how long this one might take to evaporate?

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.

Again, no proof that they leak at all ... yet.

By the way ... we have no evidence of 'empty space' meaning 1. either devoid of the properties we are familiar with, or 2. that space itself does not contain energy. Again, Einstein's math says space IS energy.

Merged post follows:
Consecutive posts merged

Another 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.

Don't follow your logic. Math says space is uniform. This does not suggest an endpoint. Why wouldn't space/time flow in a linear fashion?

It is better to think of the universe as finite but without boundaries.

This is not a logical statement. Better how? By whose definition?

Merged post follows:
Consecutive posts merged
One 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.

Yes, I agree ... but there is a big difference between Planck scales and the scales in which matter exists within the confines of our visible universe. We have no evidence that anything other than sub-atomic particles 'materialize' ... and even those are instantly annihilated. There is no evidence of matter spontaneously popping into our universe and staying.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

By the way, thank you for your input. And your 'compliment'. It is important to remember that although discovering the cosmological holy grail would be cool, all I am really trying to accomplish is replacing the current seriously flawed ( working ) model with a better one.

If you are familiar with various models such as Turok's, Greene's, and Frampton's ... and our current one, you know that all require 'new' physics. Physics that doesn't exist after 80-90 years of attempts.

Mine has no such requirement. And I have yet to have had a 'fatal' flaw pointed out to me since I first introduced this to cosmologists and astrophysicists 10 months ago.

I'm very serious about this ... and I would like to devise an experiment that would clearly support this model.

Edited December 22, 2009 by pywakit

ajb · December 22, 2009

A model is a mathematical construct. You have presented a list of ideas etc. Great. Now can you write out your model a bit more explicitly please?

You talk about black-holes, strain on space etc... So your model is based on General Relativity or similar? Plus what? (Not higher dimensions and strings and branes as you clearly state.)

Then can you calculate anything interesting that can (lets say at least in principle) be measured?

pywakit · December 22, 2009

A model is a mathematical construct. You have presented a list of ideas etc. Great. Now can you write out your model a bit more explicitly please?

You talk about black-holes, strain on space etc... So your model is based on General Relativity or similar? Plus what? (Not higher dimensions and strings and branes as you clearly state.)

Then can you calculate anything interesting that can (lets say at least in principle) be measured?

Plus nothing. Just GR. The discussions I have had with people such as Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson have not unearthed a flaw with the model. But to assume I must have a mathematical construct that you find 'interesting' is not valid. If it's ok with you, I would prefer those more qualified to formulate such math. Everything I understand about the universe comes from minds much brighter than mine. Why change now?

Perhaps you could come up with a computation for angular momentum/rotational speed of the universe that would support this model.

The other area of interest is the theoretical upper mass limit of a black hole, and the estimated total mass of the visible universe. This is beyond me ... but not beyond others.

Hope this doesn't annoy you excessively. Shouldn't science be a collaborative effort? Or am I required to do it all by myself? All I'm trying to do is add to humanity's knowledge .... ( too plaintive? )

Edited December 22, 2009 by pywakit

ajb · December 22, 2009

The discussions I have had with people such as Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson have not unearthed a flaw with the model. But to assume I must have a mathematical construct that you find 'interesting' is not valid. If it's ok with you, I would prefer those more qualified to formulate such math. Everything I understand about the universe comes from minds much brighter than mine. Why change now?

This is not how cosmology or physics more generally works. You will need to formulate things in away that physicists understand. This is mathematics. Without it you do not have a model.

I also claim that without some understanding of the mathematics involved in cosmology, your understanding can only be superficial. If you really want to make advances in cosmology you need to be happy working with (at least ) general relativty.

Perhaps you could come up with a computation for angular momentum/rotational speed of the universe that would support this model.

A rotating universe would violate isotropy. It would single out a prefered direction, the axis of rotation. (It may also have closed time-like curves).

Have a look at the Gödel metric. It is not realistic, it does not have Hubble expansion but it is rotating. It may give you something to play with. It also violates the cosmological principle.

The cosmological principle: the universe is isotropic and homogeneous (on cosmological scales).

It is a "working" hypothesis, it could be violated. If so, we could not extrapolate what we know about our observable universe to the whole universe.

Hope this doesn't annoy you excessively.

I am always happy when someone is intersted in science and in particlular physics.

Shouldn't science be a collaborative effort? Or am I required to do it all by myself? All I'm trying to do is add to humanity's knowledge .... ( too plaintive? )

You are expected to do a lot of the work yourself. Especially when trying to create new models. Unless you can easily justify why you expect the model to work well or demonstrate novel features (maybe just mathematically novel), I would not expect anyone to do the hard work for you.

Testing the model is different. There may be data avaliable that supports/falsifies the model. Otherwise, someone would have to devise experiments/observations that can be tested based on the model. This is well beyond what we are discussing right now.

Edited December 22, 2009 by ajb
Consecutive posts merged.

michel123456 · December 22, 2009

So you are supposing that black holes grow faster than the expansion of space.

Mr Skeptic · December 22, 2009

1. The visible/local universe has a finite amount of mass.

This is a serious proposal. To find out, we measure the curvature of the universe.

2. Black holes have a finite critical mass limit.

I don't know what that means.

3. That limit is exactly equal to the total mass ( matter + energy ) in the visible/local universe.

How is this calculated?

4. Over eons of time black holes will grow in mass/gravity.

Not if there is Hawking radiation and the universe keeps expanding. For now, large black holes still absorb more energy from cosmic background radiation than they would emit from Hawking radiation.

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 don't think so.

10. At this trigger point, all remaining space containing matter/energy collapses into the black hole.

The Big Crunch model (usually having a bounce at the end) is also a serious model, though I don't think it involves black holes.

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.

What justification is there for this? A bigger black hole would be that much harder to rip apart, would it not?

----

Anyhow, to be a scientific model it would have to be able to make predictions, and the predictions have to be made by the model, ie you need to show that the predictions necessarily follow from the model, not just your own interpretation of it.

To be able to be taken seriously the predictions need to be tested, so unless you want to wait for the end of the universe before your idea can be considered anything but an untested hypothesis, you need predictions we can test now or soon.

pywakit · December 22, 2009

So you are supposing that black holes grow faster than the expansion of space.

No. I am suggesting that black holes are not fixed points. They are not 'anchored' in place, forcing everything to 'come to them'. I am suggesting that the more massive they get, the more they will seek each other out to satisfy their gravitational hunger.

I am futher suggesting that 'space' has a breaking point beyond what we observe in smaller black holes. When almost all the matter/energy of our visible universe has been swallowed, space 'caves' on a much larger scale. A scale we would never witness, so there will have to be other ways of 'proving' this beyond reasonable doubt.

I can appreciate the request for mathematical formulas to explain my model, but I guess I would use the Wright brothers to defend myself. They were conceptualists. Not serious mathematicians. Not physicists. Yet they visualized the concepts well enough to build an airplane. Beating out the 'actual' scientists of their day, I might add.

Edison never went to college. He was another conceptualist. Doubt he could have put together a mathematical formula that would satisfy today's demanding 'purists'. Interestingly ... he was given an honorary degree 60 years after he was buried. I think this was just a CYA move on the part of the embarrassed 'learned men'. I don't think Edison would have wanted it.

I have been studying the universe for many years. There are many aspects of physics that are far beyond my cognitive abilities. That doesn't prevent me from 'visualizing' from the knowledge attained to date.

After studying our current model, and many others, it was clear to me that we just 'might' be looking at this from the 'wrong end of the telescope'.

I have never seen my model expressed in any science journal ... anywhere, and it was just my hope to inspire new ways to look at the problem.

If my inability to provide you all with a satisfying theorum prevents you from anylizing my model on your own ... and thereby is sufficient grounds for rejection, then so be it.

But to be fair about this ... you should stop using electric lights, and never fly again.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This is a serious proposal. To find out, we measure the curvature of the universe.

Please do.

I don't know what that means.

Stars go through stages, and a black hole is nothing more than a very dense star. Each stage of a star's life has a 'critical mass point' depending on chemical composition, and mass. Is a nova, or super-nova something OTHER than a 'critical mass point'? I don't think so.

How is this calculated?

Wish I knew. Any good mathematicians here?

Not if there is Hawking radiation and the universe keeps expanding. For now, large black holes still absorb more energy from cosmic background radiation than they would emit from Hawking radiation.

Hawking Radiation is still no more than a 'hypothesis'. As is 'string theory'. Both are totally unsupported constructs designed to make black holes 'go away' to satisfy the one-way universe model. Dr. Tyson was telling me that there are serious problems with 'evaporating' black holes even if proven to 'leak' particles. I think I have already gone over this. We do not know the 'universe' is expanding. We know that galaxies a great distance from ours are moving away at an ever-increasing velocity. I guess if you say 'expanding space' enough times it becomes a reality ....

I don't think so.

It doesn't matter if this is correct. It would just slow the process down if those 'near infinite' velocities can not be achieved. But we know one thing for certain ... if black holes DO exist, they merge.

The Big Crunch model (usually having a bounce at the end) is also a serious model, though I don't think it involves black holes.

Actually, there is more than one 'big crunch' model out there, and some do utilize black holes ... but not as a cycling universe. As a dead-end.

What justification is there for this? A bigger black hole would be that much harder to rip apart, would it not?

Tell that to the next object about to go super-nova.

----

Anyhow, to be a scientific model it would have to be able to make predictions, and the predictions have to be made by the model, ie you need to show that the predictions necessarily follow from the model, not just your own interpretation of it.

Or ... some brainiac who has never considered my model before might be inspired to make predictions on it's behalf. Science shouldn't be dependant on any one human's abilities.

To be able to be taken seriously the predictions need to be tested, so unless you want to wait for the end of the universe before your idea can be considered anything but an untested hypothesis, you need predictions we can test now or soon.

Hawking's hypothesis was 'untestable' and could make no satisfying 'predictions' and yet ... even with all the inherent lateral problems ... it was 'taken seriously' for over 30 years. Greene's for about 25.

However, I agree. It needs to be tested. Just because I can't think of a useful test at this moment, should we just reject it?

Again, my model should not be measured against my abilities, or inabilities. It should be measured against the current model, and the other 'serious' models being floated.

If you find it lacking by comparison, then explain why. It seems odd that you would reject this model out of hand, when it appears NOT to need magic, or 'super-physics' to work. Where all others do.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

ajb wrote ...

You are expected to do a lot of the work yourself. Especially when trying to create new models. Unless you can easily justify why you expect the model to work well or demonstrate novel features (maybe just mathematically novel), I would not expect anyone to do the hard work for you.

I didn't have a 'Eureka! moment' here two minutes ago. This has been 50 years of studying the universe. Countless hours poring over models, and observational evidence. It didn't seem all that easy to me to come up with this. Want me to sweat blood?

Testing the model is different. There may be data avaliable that supports/falsifies the model. Otherwise, someone would have to devise experiments/observations that can be tested based on the model. This is well beyond what we are discussing right now.

There is already a great deal of data supporting this model. How do you think I arrived at it to begin with? You make the implication that it has all the value of "Elves sprinkled fairy dust." I have discussed this with many astrophysicists already. Most are/were angered by it. Understandable since it clashes with their 'pet' theories.

If I was aware of ANY evidence falsifying this, I would never have proposed it to begin with.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Most of the astronomical objects in the universe (planets, stars or galaxies)

have some form of rotation (differential or uniform). Hence the possibility that

the universe itself could be rotating has attracted a lot of attention. But even

though observational evidence of cosmological rotation has been reported, it is

still a controversial subject [7–11]. Our present day universe is rotating very slowly,

if at all. However, the existence of such a small rotation, when extrapolated to

the early stages of the universe, could have played a major role in the dynamics

of the early universe, and possibility also in the processes involving galaxy

formation [9]. Recently, Nodland and Ralson reported to have a discovered a

cosmic axis. Kühne argues that their axis is supported by an earlier independent

observation on the spin axis of galaxies in the Perseus- Pisces supercluster. The

large alignment of this supercluster (over a distance of at least 130 million light

years) cannot be explained within the framework of conventional models of

galaxy formation. He explaines this approach of the subject within the framework

of Gödel’s cosmology [10, 11].

Are we entirely certain that rotation violates isotropy? Would not the elapsed time have a bearing on this?

Edited December 22, 2009 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

Mr Skeptic · December 23, 2009

So, basically you have an uncoutably infinite number of hypotheses? No mathematician can put formulas to something until you can tell exactly how it works. Tell exactly what happens, step by step, and someone can draw a formula from that. And how that is derived from your model. If you are vague, there is no formula and you have many many hypotheses. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but you have to note that you have more than just one.

pywakit · December 23, 2009

So, basically you have an uncoutably infinite number of hypotheses? No mathematician can put formulas to something until you can tell exactly how it works. Tell exactly what happens, step by step, and someone can draw a formula from that. And how that is derived from your model. If you are vague, there is no formula and you have many many hypotheses. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but you have to note that you have more than just one.

Yes, I do. But my primary hypothesis is extraordinarily simple ...

The critical mass point ( flash point ) of a black hole is exactly equal to the total mass/energy of the visible universe.

Testing it? Maybe not so simple. How was Hawking's hypothesis tested?

And did I not spell out the process clearly enough in my model? And is it naive of me to present it in this fashion when I read other models expressed in far less specific terms?

Again, I am no mathemetician. I don't have access to supercompters to calculate likely upper mass limits of black holes, nor total mass of the visible universe. But this does not mean that there are not many other ways ( predictions, tests, experiments, and formulas ) that would either validate, or knock the legs out from under it.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Another example ....

13. Space 'snaps' back to near-uniformity taking hydrogen/microwave/x-ray/gamma ray radiation with it.

Is there a formula available that could quantify chemical/radiation dispersion/isotropy of the visible universe based on the above?

Edited December 23, 2009 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

Mr Skeptic · December 23, 2009

Yes, I do. But my primary hypothesis is extraordinarily simple ...

The critical mass point ( flash point ) of a black hole is exactly equal to the total mass/energy of the visible universe.

But this is untestable. Therefore you must show how to derive this from accepted physics, or no one can accept your hypothesis.

Testing it? Maybe not so simple. How was Hawking's hypothesis tested?

Just by looking at a black hole. In practice, we cannot see them clearly enough yet. But the test is simple and can be done at any time, and not only that but his hypothesis is derived from accepted physics. If it were not, no one would give it a second glance without confirmation. Edit: Also, because his hypothesis is based on accepted physics, all he had to say was that one of a particle/anti-particle pair gets absorbed by the black hole, and everyone should come up with the same equation.

And did I not spell out the process clearly enough in my model? And is it naive of me to present it in this fashion when I read other models expressed in far less specific terms?

No, you did not. It's not just that it lacks a formula, it is that there is no formula -- your explanation is so vague that it allows infinitely many formulas. That makes it essentially useless -- all it can be is a starting point for a clearer hypothesis.

Again, I am no mathemetician. I don't have access to supercompters to calculate likely upper mass limits of black holes, nor total mass of the visible universe. But this does not mean that there are not many other ways ( predictions, tests, experiments, and formulas ) that would either validate, or knock the legs out from under it.

True, but you are the one who has to set up an example of such. In any case, no one knows the mass of the universe because the curvature of the universe would be the only way to find the size of it. So for example, your hypothesis would have to state why this unknown number exactly equals your critical black hole mass.

Another example ....

13. Space 'snaps' back to near-uniformity taking hydrogen/microwave/x-ray/gamma ray radiation with it.

Is there a formula available that could quantify chemical/radiation dispersion/isotropy of the visible universe based on the above?

No, there are several. Infinitely many to be exact.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Mr Skeptic

iNow · December 23, 2009

I have a small request, pywakit... Can you please avoid the red font? It makes your posts difficult to read. Feel free to ignore my request, but I'm rather confident that I'm not the only one here who that rubs the wrong way. Cheers.

pywakit · December 23, 2009

I have a small request, pywakit... Can you please avoid the red font? It makes your posts difficult to read. Feel free to ignore my request, but I'm rather confident that I'm not the only one here who that rubs the wrong way. Cheers.

Of course. I'm sorry. Plain black? Or blue acceptable, too?

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Mr Skeptic (Scientist) Today, 7:21 PM #12

Originally Posted by pywakit

Yes, I do. But my primary hypothesis is extraordinarily simple ...

The critical mass point ( flash point ) of a black hole is exactly equal to the total mass/energy of the visible universe.

But this is untestable. Therefore you must show how to derive this from accepted physics, or no one can accept your hypothesis.

Of course 'this' is untestable. We would have to blow up a black hole. That doesn't mean there is no other way to quantify it.

Testing it? Maybe not so simple. How was Hawking's hypothesis tested?

Just by looking at a black hole. In practice, we cannot see them clearly enough yet. But the test is simple and can be done at any time, and not only that but his hypothesis is derived from accepted physics. If it were not, no one would give it a second glance without confirmation. Edit: Also, because his hypothesis is based on accepted physics, all he had to say was that one of a particle/anti-particle pair gets absorbed by the black hole, and everyone should come up with the same equation.

Forgive me, but you apparently have different information than me. Dr. Tyson ( again ... fully supportive of Hawking ) told me there WAS NO WAY to test it. They were hoping the super-collider would accomplish this. I have not read where this has occurred. If what you say is true, then Hawking's hypothesis has been proven though the math, and 'simple' tests. Nobel Prize here we come ... I just tried to find evidence to back up this asertion, and all I find is 'Highly speculative'. 'Not all on board with this.' 'Math questionable'. 'Unproven'. ?????

And did I not spell out the process clearly enough in my model? And is it naive of me to present it in this fashion when I read other models expressed in far less specific terms?

No, you did not. It's not just that it lacks a formula, it is that there is no formula -- your explanation is so vague that it allows infinitely many formulas. That makes it essentially useless -- all it can be is a starting point for a clearer hypothesis.

Ok. Using my hypothesis, what would be your first step in making it 'clearer'?

Again, I am no mathemetician. I don't have access to supercompters to calculate likely upper mass limits of black holes, nor total mass of the visible universe. But this does not mean that there are not many other ways ( predictions, tests, experiments, and formulas ) that would either validate, or knock the legs out from under it.

True, but you are the one who has to set up an example of such. In any case, no one knows the mass of the universe because the curvature of the universe would be the only way to find the size of it. So for example, your hypothesis would have to state why this unknown number exactly equals your critical black hole mass.

My model does not require this 'unknown number' to EXACTLY equal it. All I need it to do is APPROXIMATELY equal it. As we get a better and better idea of the actual shape of the visible universe, we can extrapolate from what we can see, and super-computers can calculate the approximate mass.

Another example ....

13. Space 'snaps' back to near-uniformity taking hydrogen/microwave/x-ray/gamma ray radiation with it.

Is there a formula available that could quantify chemical/radiation dispersion/isotropy of the visible universe based on the above?

No, there are several. Infinitely many to be exact.

Hmm. Really. Would these be the same formulas that can't explain isotropy? Hydrogen levels? CMBR? Based on the current theory of course ...

Edited December 23, 2009 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

iNow · December 23, 2009

Of course. I'm sorry. Plain black? Or blue acceptable, too?

Well, since you asked, use of the quote tags is really what I'm after. It's a rather simple syntax like the below:

Stuff that person said is quoted in this section. Then, you end the section like this.

Which would render thusly:

Stuff that person said is quoted in this section. Then, you end the section like this.

Thank you, btw, for your willingness to even contemplate a change in format. It's really rather refreshing.

Now, let me apologize for my own distraction from the content of your thread. Please excuse my interruption, and do carry on.

michel123456 · December 23, 2009

Very interesting hypothesis.

It is a mess between infinitely small and infinitely big. A singularity eating the entire Universe, then blowing it up.

It is really a mess. Small & big usually do not come together. Expansion & contraction are messed up also. But I remember a comment from Greene's Elegant Universe driving into the same direction. I'll have to look back, cannot recall exactly for the words at this moment.

.........

It had to do with the definition of a singularity.

J.C.MacSwell · December 23, 2009

I don't see a problem other than it seems current interpretation of observations are not pointing in the "Crunch" direction.

And this is a Crunch model, is it not?

The only point where it seems to diverge from standard physics is at your critical point. (Some of your claims are somewhat vague or ill defined but what can you do in a post already stretching my casual reading limits)

Other than that, if you claim it uses standard physics, what is there to test?

Edited December 23, 2009 by J.C.MacSwell

pywakit · December 23, 2009

Mr. Skeptic ...

I appreciate your immense patience. I am not an academic. Untrained. Life didn't go along with my wish to be an astrophysicist. I apologize.

I was under the impression that this site is to help those less skilled but seriously interested in the sciences and offer useful suggestions.

So if I may ask this hypothetical question ....

Say you were standing around having a beer with your 'learned' buddies talking about your favorite pastime ... black holes.

And you suddenly thought ... "What if black holes DO have a critical upper mass limit?"

(perhaps you had already considered this in junior high)

But pretending this is a brand new thought to you ....

What would you do next ... as an academic?

Would you ... ?

1. Laugh and instantly forget about it.

2. Consider it ... then decide it is a ludicrous solution.

3. Consider it ... then look for obvious reasons why it couldn't work

4. Consider it ... then quickly decide it would be an impossible hypothesis to test.

5. Consider it ... then examine potential or possible ways to test certain aspects of it.

If you think this is a brainless hypothesis, then feel free to say so. But if it was your idea, and you felt it might have merit, what step would you take next?

How would YOU have handled it?

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I've looked at a lot of 'crunch' models. None to my knowledge use the mobility of a black hole to scavenge mass. None have a fixed point where a black hole will release all it's stored energy. None consider the possiblity that what came from the big bang is the amount of mass that CAUSED the big bang. None require that the ENTIRE mass of the visible universe be recycled ... to the atom. ( Well, I guess the Turok one does ... sort of ... but it aso requires MAGIC and it doesn't actually recycle it. It repeats the exact same universe over and over. ) None appear to offer a good solution to isotropy. ( Well, again in fairness let's say that there is not complete agreement on the mechanisms involved for the isotropy ) None appear to offer a good solution to hydrogen and helium levels. None appear to offer a good solution to CMBR.

And it doesn't require strings, or time flowing backward. And it gets rid of all those pesky neutron stars, and 'leaking' black holes.

And the coolest thing of all is it makes our constituent particles immortal. I like this idea much more than ... it's a one shot deal, and then we fade away for eternity. Or repeat Groundhog Day for eternity.

I don't think it matters that physics breaks down at the singularity. I think that understanding is a ways off. But I do think there must be many ways to test this hypothesis. Perhaps I am wrong. But this is one of the reasons I'm here. If someone finds the hypothesis intriguing, then maybe they will want to find a way to do experimental tests.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

ajb wrote ...A rotating universe would violate isotropy. It would single out a prefered direction, the axis of rotation. (It may also have closed time-like curves).

Have a look at the Gödel metric. It is not realistic, it does not have Hubble expansion but it is rotating. It may give you something to play with. It also violates the cosmological principle.

The cosmological principle: the universe is isotropic and homogeneous (on cosmological scales).

It is a "working" hypothesis, it could be violated. If so, we could not extrapolate what we know about our observable universe to the whole universe.

I forgot to mention this ajb. My model does not require angular momentum/rotating universe. I don't believe this is part of my model. So therefore the cosmological principle is not violated. It does require space to 'uncollapse' suddenly. The abrupt FTL release of mass in the big bang is required. A near infinite rotational speed of the singularity at 'bang' would do the trick. And it seems to me this would be an excellent solution to the uniformity of hydrogen/helium.

My earlier comments about a rotating universe were really more thinking out loud, as someone had just mentioned a few hours earlier the possibility it WAS rotating. Clearly I didn't think it all the way through before I started typing.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I should look this up first, but what the heck. I'll just ask. Regarding the new gravitational wave detector that didn't.

If the black hole is spinning at near infinity would not the frequency of gravitational waves be far above any detectors capability?

Second stupid question. If an ordinary photon skirts the event horizon of a supermassive b. h. would this not give it a rather large boost in kinetic energy? Thereby transforming it into one of those highly energized particles that can go through our planet?

Edited December 23, 2009 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

Mr Skeptic · December 23, 2009

Of course 'this' is untestable. We would have to blow up a black hole. That doesn't mean there is no other way to quantify it.

Well, what other way is there to quantify it? And I though you said not only that you could blow up a black hole, but that you needed approximately the entire mass of the universe to do so.

Forgive me, but you apparently have different information than me. Dr. Tyson ( again ... fully supportive of Hawking ) told me there WAS NO WAY to test it. They were hoping the super-collider would accomplish this. I have not read where this has occurred. If what you say is true, then Hawking's hypothesis has been proven though the math, and 'simple' tests. Nobel Prize here we come ... I just tried to find evidence to back up this asertion, and all I find is 'Highly speculative'. 'Not all on board with this.' 'Math questionable'. 'Unproven'. ?????

There's a very easy way to test it, but in practice we can't test it now because of limitations of our telescopes or space ships. All you have to do is look at a black hole.

Hawking radiation is not proven through math, but is derived from the laws of physics as we now know them. Unlike math, it still needs testing because we don't know for sure that the laws of physics as we now know them are in fact accurate.

Ok. Using my hypothesis, what would be your first step in making it 'clearer'?

One way is the explain how you derive your conclusions from known laws of physics, if possible. This would give specific formulas to work with -- the laws of physics. Or you can invent your own laws of physics, but to do that you probably have to make a formula yourself, and of course find some evidence for it.

Hmm. Really. Would these be the same formulas that can't explain isotropy? Hydrogen levels? CMBR? Based on the current theory of course ...

Yes, those and also infinitely more formulas as well. It's like if you were trying to guess my real life name, based on my username and my writing style. There's just too many possibilities that all fit the known evidence.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Mr. Skeptic ...

I appreciate your immense patience. I am not an academic. Untrained. Life didn't go along with my wish to be an astrophysicist. I apologize.

I was under the impression that this site is to help those less skilled but seriously interested in the sciences and offer useful suggestions.

So if I may ask this hypothetical question ....

Say you were standing around having a beer with your 'learned' buddies talking about your favorite pastime ... black holes.

And you suddenly thought ... "What if black holes DO have a critical upper mass limit?"

(perhaps you had already considered this in junior high)

But pretending this is a brand new thought to you ....

What would you do next ... as an academic?

Would you ... ?

1. Laugh and instantly forget about it.

2. Consider it ... then decide it is a ludicrous solution.

3. Consider it ... then look for obvious reasons why it couldn't work

4. Consider it ... then quickly decide it would be an impossible hypothesis to test.

5. Consider it ... then examine potential or possible ways to test certain aspects of it.

If you think this is a brainless hypothesis, then feel free to say so. But if it was your idea, and you felt it might have merit, what step would you take next?

I always go with first trying to find obvious reasons why it couldn't work, then move on to less obvious ones. If I still couldn't find a reason it wouldn't work, I would ask some more knowledgeable people if they can find fault with it (if it was not my own area of expertise), and if they cannot, then look for ways to test it. If it passed the tests, then it would be time to publish.

But before any of that I need to arrive at a hypothesis, one clear enough to consider. Even for myself this could be difficult, even though I know what I mean. Trying to do so for someone else is kind of like trying to find a formula for "I propose that the laws of physics are based on math, what do you think of my discovery?".

If you are not trying to find reasons why your idea couldn't work, you are not doing science.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

Sisyphus · December 23, 2009

In addition to looking for reasons why it isn't true, you should reexamine the reasons for why you think it might be.

For example, your reasoning seems to be that because there are other things that can be too large to be stabile, black holes can be too large to be stabile. But that doesn't logically follow. There are specific reasons why stars go nova (i.e., the physical laws in play are not "some things are too big to live"), and those reasons don't apply to black holes. There is no known mechanism that might make an upper size limit on black hole stability, and you're not proposing one, either. Just asserting that one exists.

And that's just one hypothesis. You've made several others, and I don't see how each follows from the next. Black holes will "merge," the proposed "upper limit" on mass just happens to be the same as the combined mass of the observable universe, etc. You're offering not one hypothesis, but many unrelated ones (or at least you don't offer a relationship), and don't really support any of them. Because you don't give reasons, there is no reasoning to evaluate.

pywakit · December 23, 2009

Well, what other way is there to quantify it? And I though you said not only that you could blow up a black hole, but that you needed approximately the entire mass of the universe to do so.

I don't know. I am not an academic. I have no formal training in the pertinent sciences. I have no choice but to rely on those who do.

There's a very easy way to test it, but in practice we can't test it now because of limitations of our telescopes or space ships. All you have to do is look at a black hole.

Hawking radiation is not proven through math, but is derived from the laws of physics as we now know them. Unlike math, it still needs testing because we don't know for sure that the laws of physics as we now know them are in fact accurate.

Yes. I mispoke. Still, there is no consensus on Hawking's hypothesis. If it is 'derived' from the laws of physics as we know them, then you would think it 'settled' until proven otherwise. Instead there is a great deal of disagreement over this. And I am unable to follow your logic. In theory it would be easy to test ... if we had a way to test it. But we don't.

One way is the explain how you derive your conclusions from known laws of physics, if possible. This would give specific formulas to work with -- the laws of physics. Or you can invent your own laws of physics, but to do that you probably have to make a formula yourself, and of course find some evidence for it.

Let's assume I lack sufficient knowledge to do so. But if the idea is a reasonable one, and appears ... at least on the surface ... to have advantages over other models, then what avenue is available to me? Should 'good' ideas be discarded if the originator of the idea lacks the ability to properly investigate?

Yes, those and also infinitely more formulas as well. It's like if you were trying to guess my real life name, based on my username and my writing style. There's just too many possibilities that all fit the known evidence.

Merged post follows:
Consecutive posts merged

Yes, I see your point. Yet all we are talking about is replacing a model clearly flawed ( according to many respected and learned scientists ) with a model that appears to better fit the available evidence.

I always go with first trying to find obvious reasons why it couldn't work, then move on to less obvious ones. If I still couldn't find a reason it wouldn't work, I would ask some more knowledgeable people if they can find fault with it (if it was not my own area of expertise), and if they cannot, then look for ways to test it. If it passed the tests, then it would be time to publish.

Well? You are obviously skilled in the appropriate sciences. Are there obvious reasons why my model wouldn't work? Are there less obvious ones? If the answer is no, how would you 'ask' more knowledgable people if they won't allow the question because they do not care for the manner in which it is asked? ( meaning not following proper academic form ) And again, if the answer is still no, what ways would you look for to test such a hypothesis?

But before any of that I need to arrive at a hypothesis, one clear enough to consider. Even for myself this could be difficult, even though I know what I mean. Trying to do so for someone else is kind of like trying to find a formula for "I propose that the laws of physics are based on math, what do you think of my discovery?".

Again, how would you have presented such a hypotheisis? You understand what I'm trying to get across. What language would you use to better delineate the model's basic premise?

If you are not trying to find reasons why your idea couldn't work, you are not doing science.

I could not agree more. This is exactly what I am trying to do. Trying to find a reason why it wouldn't work. The people who COULD answer this for me have either been unable to, or choose not to.

This is not an 'elves sprinkled fairy dust' hypothesis, as I am sure you realize. It does not appear to conflict with observations. I have been told by respected scientists that my model has some reasonable merit, and that it does not appear ( at least on cursory examination ) to violate known laws.

Should I just throw it away? Or just assume there is no way to make accurate predictions, or create ( potentially ) corroborating experiments because the 'learned men' can't be bothered?

If it's a useless idea because it defies logic, or physics, or is contradicted by observations, then it needs to be discarded.

If the only problem is that you can't immediately think of a way to test, or corroborate the hypothesis, or you are irritated by my lack of training and inability to express the supporting physics, or that it conflicts with your own theories, then what avenue is available for me to proceed? Who can I talk to that might want to explore this hypothesis?

Or is it a hypothesis considered and correctly ( meaning no new evidence to resurrect it ) discarded long ago?

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

In addition to looking for reasons why it isn't true, you should reexamine the reasons for why you think it might be.

I have. I continue to do so. This has been the subject matter of many conversations with scientists all over the world. Many have agreed it appears to violate no known laws.

For example, your reasoning seems to be that because there are other things that can be too large to be stabile, black holes can be too large to be stabile. But that doesn't logically follow. There are specific reasons why stars go nova (i.e., the physical laws in play are not "some things are too big to live"), and those reasons don't apply to black holes. There is no known mechanism that might make an upper size limit on black hole stability, and you're not proposing one, either. Just asserting that one exists.

Not just 'other' things. 'Every' other thing. Yes, of course there are specific reasons for supernovae, and they differ from the processes of smaller objects, but there ARE mechanisms in place for all matter to be converted to energy and vice versa. Except so far ... apparently ... black holes. But black holes are just extremely dense stars. Not infinitely dense. So this does not seem to be an illogical extrapolation. Because we don't understand the mechanism does not preclude the existence of such a mechanism. So far there is no 'known' mechanism for a universe's worth of mass to materialize from nothing. Yet this is the currently accepted model.

And that's just one hypothesis. You've made several others, and I don't see how each follows from the next. Black holes will "merge," the proposed "upper limit" on mass just happens to be the same as the combined mass of the observable universe, etc. You're offering not one hypothesis, but many unrelated ones (or at least you don't offer a relationship), and don't really support any of them. Because you don't give reasons, there is no reasoning to evaluate.

No. First, there is adequate evidence that black holes merge. All of my assertions are related. You apparently do not see that. And it doesn't 'just happen to be the same'. My hypothesis assumes that all the mass that came 'from' the big bang was all the mass that 'made' the big bang happen to begin with. Now how is this an illogical starting point? How is this an irrational assumption AS A WORKING MODEL?

Better to assume it came from 'thin air'? Now what law of physics supports that? Better to assume God did it? What law supports that? Better to assume time runs back and forth? Better to assume space expands eternally at ever increasing acceleration? Wouldn't the logical result of that be 'magic'?

I have given reasons. I have run into this many times already. I would respectfully suggest you did not read the model carefully, and furthermore you were/are so predisposed toward scepticism, and your own contrary 'beliefs' that you never fully thought the process through. My inability to express this model in the accepted academic way only gave you more reason to discard it.

Prove me wrong. You are a 'learned man'. Should be easy to find the 'fatal flaw'. Which law does it violate? Which observation contradicts it? Surely people as intelligent and trained as you are should be able to dismantle this by proving it is no better than 'fairy dust'. Prove it has less validity than the current model. Prove it less rational and has less validity than Greene's, or Framptoms, or Turok's.

Prove the hypothesis is a waste of good neurons ... please. Don't throw it back at me and just say ... you are an idiot.

Look. I understand what you are trying to get across. All I am saying is, you understand physics. You are trained in GR and the other applicable sciences. I am not. To ask me to explain it in the manner of a physicist is to ask the impossible. But clearly I have spent a great deal of time on something that I have reason to believe is a better alternative to the current model, past models, and other 'new' models.

Since you have such a good handle on physics, why should I need to explain them to you? Or any other physicist? All you need to do is say something like ... "Hey. Interesting idea. But it won't work because ..... "

Then I can go on with my life. Is this too difficult a request?

Edited December 23, 2009 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

toastywombel · December 24, 2009

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 merged

Another 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.

Edited December 24, 2009 by toastywombel
Consecutive posts merged.

pywakit · December 24, 2009

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.

You are absolutely correct. I mispoke. I am very familiar with that view of the universe. But that wasn't what I meant. I apologize for the misunderstanding. That is the same view that Einstein had.

I disagree with that view. I consider it a ( forgive the expression ) throwback to the philosophical and/or religious viewpoint that the universe was created for us, and only us. That the universe ... the local one we reside in ... was the first to ever exist. That time did not exist before our universe 'magically' popped into existence.

I contend the infinite universe ... space and time ... have always existed. Einstein appeared to either have religious views of his own ( there is some ambiguity here ), or he was concerned about the 'unpopularity' of a truly infinite universe, as this would contradict 'conventional wisdom'.

But his math said space was uniform unless disturbed by mass. And there has been ... to my knowledge ... nothing to contradict this.

Tell me, if you don't mind. Why do you believe our universe is the only one? Because it's the only one we can see? This may make sense from a 'purist's logic' but it makes no sense to me at all.

Fact. We exist. Fact. Our local universe exists. Fact. Space is uniform, unless disturbed by mass. The truly logical conclusion ... as far as I can tell ... is that infinite space is already there, and always has been. And our universe is simply a denser local area.

If our universe exists, then it happens. It is the most arrogant, and egotistical twisting of the 'construct of logic' to assume this was and is the only such occurrence in an infinite universe.

Einstein was brilliant. But he was wrong on many things. Galileo was brilliant. But he was wrong on many things. Copernicus was brilliant. Newton was brilliant. BRUNO was brilliant. But they were all wrong in their thinking in one way or another.

Hawking is a brilliant man. But he is wrong, too. I have no expectation of changing your views on this matter, but the 'safety in numbers' defense is a poor gambit.

There is absolutely no evidence that space ends at our borders. This viewpoint has been science's since it was first invented. Lord Kelvin once stated that we had learned pretty much all the important things, and he was sad because there were no more mysteries to unravel.

'Logical' scientists 50 years ago ... when I was 7 ... were quite sure that we would not find much beyond the few thousand galaxies beyond our own. They were pretty sure the MW had around 250 million to about 2 billion stars.

But at the same time, they talked of all the mysterious 'possibilities' that might lay 'just beyond our field of vision'. Matter might form in completely new and unforeseen ways. Photons might operate completely differently from the photons we were used to dealing with.

An interesting, but illogical dichotomy. I was there, and paying close attention to all this. I may not be all that bright, but I worked out the 'transit method' at age 6 ... unaware that Struve had written a short paper on this the year I was born. By age 10 I finally got up the nerve to write to NASA and describe this method. Why? Because I was sick of them saying we would never be able to discover an exoplanet. Yes, yes, there 'probably' were some out there ... but there was no way to know for sure. This was their official position.

NASA ignored this 'non-learned' 10 year old. Never even sent me a card. But I knew with absolute certainty that there had to be endless numbers of stars, and I knew with certainty that OUR star could not POSSIBLY be the ONLY one in the universe with satellites. You would not believe the number of beatings I endured for expressing this. Christians on the island where I grew up considered such talk heretical. And they meant it.

True infinity may be hard for most people to comprehend. But not for me. I comprehended it when I was 6. Every single prediction ( at complete odds with the 'learned men' ) I have ever made regarding the structure of the universe has been born out. I have never been wrong on the 'big picture'. Not once. If you can show me one solid reason why the universe ends at the farthest point of our 'bubble' I will be happy to admit my error. But I suspect you can not do that. You have a belief. So does Hawking.

If it can happen once, it can happen an infinite number of times. Any other stance is based on nothing more than ego. No matter what your, or science's 'logic' says. I don't have beliefs, although everyone with beliefs will tell me I do. I just follow the facts. I extrapolate from facts. Not wishes. Not ego. Not under the illusion that we are 'special'. I don't believe in the supernatural, or metaphysical. I do not believe that 'anything is possible' just beyond our field of vision. Crush 2 hydrogen atoms together and you get helium. Here, or across the visible universe. 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom of oxygen make water. Here, and across the visible universe. What makes you think that some other 'mysterious' physics might exist 'just around the corner'?

Ps. I also know for certain ( 99.99999999999999% probability ) why SETI has not detected a signal. And I suspect they are finally figuring it out. They expected to detect one in the FIRST FEW YEARS! I was there. I listened to their 'logic'. 50 years later and not a peep. Do YOU know why we haven't detected a signal? I'm guessing you don't. SETI was built on flawed logic. Flawed assumptions. And Drakes dreams.

Too off topic? Sorry.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

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 merged
Another 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 will be back a little later, but before I go, I think I better point out a glaring error on your part. Supermassive black holes are PART of the total mass of the universe. So the universe can't very well have less mass than a supermassive black hole, now can it? There are other problems with your rebuttal. I will cover them in a while.

Edited December 24, 2009 by pywakit

toastywombel · December 24, 2009

You are absolutely correct. I mispoke. I am very familiar with that view of the universe. But that wasn't what I meant. I apologize for the misunderstanding. That is the same view that Einstein had.

I disagree with that view. I consider it a ( forgive the expression ) throwback to the philosophical and/or religious viewpoint that the universe was created for us, and only us. That the universe ... the local one we reside in ... was the first to ever exist. That time did not exist before our universe 'magically' popped into existence.

I contend the infinite universe ... space and time ... have always existed. Einstein appeared to either have religious views of his own ( there is some ambiguity here ), or he was concerned about the 'unpopularity' of a truly infinite universe, as this would contradict 'conventional wisdom'.

But his math said space was uniform unless disturbed by mass. And there has been ... to my knowledge ... nothing to contradict this.

Tell me, if you don't mind. Why do you believe our universe is the only one? Because it's the only one we can see? This may make sense from a 'purist's logic' but it makes no sense to me at all.

Fact. We exist. Fact. Our local universe exists. Fact. Space is uniform, unless disturbed by mass. The truly logical conclusion ... as far as I can tell ... is that infinite space is already there, and always has been. And our universe is simply a denser local area.

If our universe exists, then it happens. It is the most arrogant, and egotistical twisting of the 'construct of logic' to assume this was and is the only such occurrence in an infinite universe.

Einstein was brilliant. But he was wrong on many things. Galileo was brilliant. But he was wrong on many things. Copernicus was brilliant. Newton was brilliant. BRUNO was brilliant. But they were all wrong in their thinking in one way or another.

Hawking is a brilliant man. But he is wrong, too. I have no expectation of changing your views on this matter, but the 'safety in numbers' defense is a poor gambit.

There is absolutely no evidence that space ends at our borders. This viewpoint has been science's since it was first invented. Lord Kelvin once stated that we had learned pretty much all the important things, and he was sad because there were no more mysteries to unravel.

'Logical' scientists 50 years ago ... when I was 7 ... were quite sure that we would not find much beyond the few thousand galaxies beyond our own. They were pretty sure the MW had around 250 million to about 2 billion stars.

But at the same time, they talked of all the mysterious 'possibilities' that might lay 'just beyond our field of vision'. Matter might form in completely new and unforeseen ways. Photons might operate completely differently from the photons we were used to dealing with.

An interesting, but illogical dichotomy. I was there, and paying close attention to all this. I may not be all that bright, but I worked out the 'transit method' at age 6 ... unaware that Struve had written a short paper on this the year I was born. By age 10 I finally got up the nerve to write to NASA and describe this method. Why? Because I was sick of them saying we would never be able to discover an exoplanet. Yes, yes, there 'probably' were some out there ... but there was no way to know for sure. This was their official position.

NASA ignored this 'non-learned' 10 year old. Never even sent me a card. But I knew with absolute certainty that there had to be endless numbers of stars, and I knew with certainty that OUR star could not POSSIBLY be the ONLY one in the universe with satellites. You would not believe the number of beatings I endured for expressing this. Christians on the island where I grew up considered such talk heretical. And they meant it.

True infinity may be hard for most people to comprehend. But not for me. I comprehended it when I was 6. Every single prediction ( at complete odds with the 'learned men' ) I have ever made regarding the structure of the universe has been born out. I have never been wrong on the 'big picture'. Not once. If you can show me one solid reason why the universe ends at the farthest point of our 'bubble' I will be happy to admit my error. But I suspect you can not do that. You have a belief. So does Hawking.

If it can happen once, it can happen an infinite number of times. Any other stance is based on nothing more than ego. No matter what your, or science's 'logic' says. I don't have beliefs, although everyone with beliefs will tell me I do. I just follow the facts. I extrapolate from facts. Not wishes. Not ego. Not under the illusion that we are 'special'. I don't believe in the supernatural, or metaphysical. I do not believe that 'anything is possible' just beyond our field of vision. Crush 2 hydrogen atoms together and you get helium. Here, or across the visible universe. 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom of oxygen make water. Here, and across the visible universe. What makes you think that some other 'mysterious' physics might exist 'just around the corner'?

Ps. I also know for certain ( 99.99999999999999% probability ) why SETI has not detected a signal. And I suspect they are finally figuring it out. They expected to detect one in the FIRST FEW YEARS! I was there. I listened to their 'logic'. 50 years later and not a peep. Do YOU know why we haven't detected a signal? I'm guessing you don't. SETI was built on flawed logic. Flawed assumptions. And Drakes dreams.

Too off topic? Sorry.

Merged post follows:
Consecutive posts merged

I will be back a little later, but before I go, I think I better point out a glaring error on your part. Supermassive black holes are PART of the total mass of the universe. So the universe can't very well have less mass than a super-massive black hole, now can it? There are other problems with your rebuttal. I will cover them in a while.

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.

Edited December 24, 2009 by toastywombel

pywakit · December 24, 2009

This from http://www.astro.umd.edu

Regarding your second question, YES, black holes can have a charge if they eat up too many protons and not enough electrons (or vice versa). But in practice this is very unusual, since these charges tend to be so evenly balanced in the universe. And then even if the black hole somehow picked up a charge, it would soon be neutralized by producing a strong electric field in the surrounding space and sucking up any nearby charges to compensate. These charged black holes are called "Reissner-Nordstrom black holes" or "Kerr-Newman black holes" if they also happen to be spinning.

Hopefully this will ease your mind over the charge issue.

If two black holes collided they would indeed become one black hole. No X-rays, gamma rays, or other electromagnetic radiation would be released, but there would be a lot of gravitational waves. �To understand these, consider the usual concept of Einstein's gravity: spacetime as a flat rubber sheet, which warps when a massive object is present (e.g., the dent produced by a bowling ball on a rubber sheet). �If a couple of massive objects are near each other and moving, the dents move and produce ripples. �These spacetime ripples are gravitational waves, and they might be detected in the next five to ten years with various experiments.

There are several sites with a wealth of info on black holes. Good reading. Are there scientists who don't believe black hole exist? Certainly. But I think if you dig into it, you will come down heavily on the side of 'existing'. There is simply too much evidence.

By the way, no 2 black holes will be identical. True, if they shared the exact same mass, charge, and angular momentum they would be 'indistinguishable'. Can't happen in the real universe. The chances would be nearly infinity to one against.

So now we come to another problem. The visible universe has been calculated to be anywhere between 90 billion light years and 156 billion light years in diameter. The shape of the visible universe is still in question. And that shape will directly affect the cubic volume numbers. ( sphere, bulging disc, etc.) So the number you produced would be highly questionable at best.

Anyway, I hope I haven't upset you. I can be rather abrupt. But let me make this clear. I can be wrong. I'm wrong all the time. I wouldn't be working so hard on this though, if some nice scientist would just point out an actual flaw.

My model has been floating around for 10 months. I've gotten emails from all over the world from very respected scientists. None have pointed to a critical flaw. None have pointed to a not-so-critical flaw. Most were pretty upset with me. Not an unexpected reaction since I was basically saying they were wrong.

But a few have offered support if I can figure out a couple of good experiments. And they have said it's a reasonable model. A couple said it's a good model. I find this very encouraging.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

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.

What makes you say this? Space itself has energy. Space is energy. There is nothing to suggest that an absolute vacuum is even possible.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

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 must not have read the model. And therefore you entirely missed the equation. I will repeat. "The critical mass point of a black hole is EXACTLY equal to the total mass ( matter+energy ) of the visible/LOCAL universe." This would oddly enough include EVERYTHING contained within the 'bubble'. Dark energy, dark matter, normal matter, normal energy, BLACK HOLES ....

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

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.

Sorry about my rant ...

What in the world are you talking about here? My point was that the universe operates under the same laws of chemistry and physics WHEREVER we look. Are trying to suggest that 'anything is possible'? If we were to fuse two hydrogen atoms together an infinite number of times and then somehow come up with something other than helium, that this would have any bearing what so ever on my model or how our physical universe operates? This is irrational. I hope that's not what you were saying.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

However lets move on, you said, "If it can happen once, it can happen an infinite number of times."

What this means is ... if our local ( finite ) universe can exist, there is no logical reason why an INFINITE number of ( finite ) universes can exist ... in an INFINITE universe.

Unless you have reason to believe somebody created us, and only us, and made this universe just for us.

Again, I really do appreciate your input, and I'm sorry for being a jerk.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

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.

There is no math that says the universe ends at the border. You are incorrect. This is an unsupported hypothesis by very bright people. You make the incorrect assumption that just because very bright people have taken a stand that it must be correct. Would you have gone along with Einstein on his cosmological constant ( steady state universe )? Most did. They were wrong. What makes you think people like Hawking can't be wrong? Because we 'know better' now? In science, there is no safety in numbers. There is safety in truth.

Secondly, you have already shown that ( no offense ) you can make rather ridiculous statements. Why on earth would I not include the mass of black holes in my model when 1. They are part of our local universe. 2. They are integral to the model? Could I really be that stupid? I suppose so ....

Third, there is a great deal of evidence. You just might not be aware of it.

And fourth, to the best of my knowledge, the 'math' and the laws of physics AS WE KNOW THEM NOW support my model. At least ... no one has ever pointed out a law my model violates.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Bottom line here, is I have deconstructed your arguments. You were incorrect in your mass of the universe numbers. You were incorrect on your positive/negative charge black holes merging. You didn't really understand the model. You somehow thought that the total mass would not include ALL the mass ( and energy ) which of course is the crux of my model. You made several statements that have no bearing on my model at all. But so have I. And I have been less patient than I should have been. I am very sorry.

There is still no flaw. Yet. I am not a man of 'faith'. I just follow the evidence. I don't care what other scientists 'believe'. I care what they can prove. The brightest people can blind themselves. And do. Over and over. But not this time, right?

I hope you still don't think you made a valid argument here.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

There is no math that says the universe ends at the border.

There is, however math that says space is 'curved'. But only by mass/gravity. The farther you get from the mass, the straighter the lines of space get. And this point is where so many people have a problem. They have seen the pictures of 'curved' space/time and make the assumption that 'nothing' exists out side that curved space.

You made the point that without light ( photons ) or mass, there is nothing to measure 'against'. So 'nothing' is there. Well, from a human perspective, even with all our wonderful machines ... yes. It would appear to be nothing. It would be totally black. No photons. No matter radiating energy that we are used to detecting. But that does not mean there is nothing there. The fabric of space is there. Unless again .... you think that 'space' does not enjoy it's own independant existence. That only our universe's 'space' exists. That space did not exist before WE came along to observe it. There is nothing rational or logical in that concept.

In my model, the loop is closed. ( Every universe's loop is closed. They all operate the same way, because there is no evidence that other universes would interact any differently with space than ours does.) No photons escape from the final collapse of 'local' space. This solves so many problems that have vexed the scientists.

This model also gives us the mass for the big bang. Scientists keep looking for 'magical' ways for matter to materialize from nowhere, and they have been looking for the last 90 years. There are respected models that have this feature. Greene's. Frampton's. After 26 years of trying to find 'magical' means for matter to pop into existence ( branes? ) they are no closer today than they were 90 years ago ... with thousands of people working on it ... with the most sophisticated technology that Einstein could never have imagined. And by the way he did GR in about 5 years on a chalk board.

In my model we never get photons leaking into our universe, not because there is no space between universes, but because each one is closed. And very very far apart. If they were NOT closed ...

1. Our BB would have had to pull a rabbit out of a hat.

2. It would be a one shot deal. Nothing ever existed before we came along. Nothing ever will again.

3. Space would exist solely for OUR existence.

4. If space is infinite, and eternal, then we would get photons leaking into our universe right now. From somewhere. Unless you would assert that our universe, out of an infinite number, is the only one with physics, and photons. That would not stand the logic test. Logically there would have to be an infinite number of ALL possibilities, including ours. So we would be bombarded with photons.

No, if the universe is infinite, and eternal, my model answers the questions better than any other. If the universe is not infinite, it still answers the questions better than any other.

Edited December 24, 2009 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

Sign In

Cosmological Model of The Universe

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Mr Skeptic

pywakit

michel123456

Important Information