Sisyphus Posted January 24, 2010 Posted January 24, 2010 Hey, they're talking about me! I actually thought it was in Speculations. I navigate mostly through SFN spy, so I don't always pay attention to what subforums things are in. As a moderator, I should have.
Klaynos Posted January 24, 2010 Posted January 24, 2010 I have a short science question. Up there^^^^ somewhere you draw an analogy to the solar system and say something like "when the protostar exploded it left the larger mass near the centre" this causes two issues with me, protostars do not exploded, they are the start of stars and contract leaving a disk of non-star material behind, most of the lightest elements (hydrogen and helium) are in the centre of the solar system, this is undeniably true as the sun is mostly hydrogen and is very massive indeed. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe above break down explanation of your idea seems down to 5 to fit, and be consistent with mainstream ideas. But I have some problems with the points past that, how do you get the superluminal spinning? That seems like a serious issue. You also need some method to go from that to another big bang type event. It should also be noted that bang - collapse - bang - collapse - bang... etc... is accepted as one of the possible universe cycles...
mooeypoo Posted January 24, 2010 Posted January 24, 2010 I don't appreciate you insulting my intelligence. I don't appreciate your disingenuous remarks. I don't appreciate your dismissive, rude demeanor. pywakit, if you can't handle people talking to you, then seriously, take a breather, take a breath, and come back when you're calmer. The fact your theory is not mainstream - a fact you conceded to - doesn't mean people offend you. I'm getting a bit weary from your insistence to take everything so personally. I feel like there's a need to walk on eggs when a point is presented to you, and that's never good in debates. Chill. No one has their lifetime mission to beat you down or offend you, and swasont's note was *explanatory* not rude. He came here to post a note because I asked him to. He is a physics expert, and I wanted someone who participated in the debate to tell you why the theory is not mainstream, seeing as I *didn't* participate in the debate and could only give you general explanation. Stop having us walk on eggshells when we debate you. Always assume people mean GOOD before you are offended, that's a good rule for life in general, not just a science forums. ~moo
pywakit Posted January 24, 2010 Author Posted January 24, 2010 (edited) whats the problem, he merely said that you answered your own question as to why it belongs in speculations. he wasn't rude condecending or disdainful about it. Let me ask you a question. Have I proven to be an erratic, easily ruffled, scientifically obtuse, rude, unapologetic, insensitve, uncaring, disrespectful, unappreciative, inconsiderate, and/or irrational jerk? No. I don't think I have. And I don't appreciate someone repaying my thoughtful behavior by blowing smoke up my a--. It's all about perception, insane ... From MY perspective, he WAS rude, condescending, and disdainful of both my feelings, and level of intelligence. It was entirely unecessary for him to post what he did. He was ... as they say ... a day late and a dollar short. Moo had already handled the situation more than adequately. What was his purpose, or intent in that post? What benefit did it achieve? All it did was piss me off unecessarily. If he had any grasp of human nature, he would have weighed in with some consideration, and tact. He hides behind his 'authority' implying that it was 'necessary' for him to come off as 'heavy handed, or impersonal'. Clearly, I was an out-of-control, loose cannon needing to be reigned in. And now he has the audacity to complain about my 'lack of civility'. His last post just further illustrates his poor understanding of the original situation, his lack of tact, and his capacity to use irrational/ridiculous justifications/arguments for his actions. ajb was/is quite capable of discerning my model didn't conform with 'established mainstream theory', regardless of his 'official' title. sisyphus doesn't need to be a physics expert to have some vague inkling of the current, accepted standard model. swansont's insistence to the contrary is disingenuous, and insulting. What an odd coincidence that my model was moved within minutes of my posting 20 scientifically valid ways in which my model could be falsified. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ... it's a duck. Until proven otherwise. And swansont makes a very weak case against it being a duck. So I am 'expected to know the rules'. Fine. Got it. My sincere apology for straying. It won't happen again. I have had my say. Swansont has had his. Now let's drop it. Unless swansont chooses to either escalate the situation, or ban me for 'lack of civility'. I'm sure he has that right under 'strict adherence to the rules'. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedpywakit, if you can't handle people talking to you, then seriously, take a breather, take a breath, and come back when you're calmer. The fact your theory is not mainstream - a fact you conceded to - doesn't mean people offend you. I'm getting a bit weary from your insistence to take everything so personally. I feel like there's a need to walk on eggs when a point is presented to you, and that's never good in debates. Chill. No one has their lifetime mission to beat you down or offend you, and swasont's note was *explanatory* not rude. He came here to post a note because I asked him to. He is a physics expert, and I wanted someone who participated in the debate to tell you why the theory is not mainstream, seeing as I *didn't* participate in the debate and could only give you general explanation. Stop having us walk on eggshells when we debate you. Always assume people mean GOOD before you are offended, that's a good rule for life in general, not just a science forums. ~moo Thank you for your advice. I have somehow managed to stumble through life unaware of my incapacity to 'handle people talking to me'. I never heard the sound of cracking eggshells during my month of debating here on your forum. I'm sorry you have that perception. I think it is unfounded. I have treated people here with respect in general, and have been sincere in my apology when I was in the wrong. I am also sorry you grow weary of my 'antics'. He did NOT explain WHY my theory was not mainstream. That is an inaccurate statement. He just stated catagorically that is 'wasn't mainstream'. "Alternative theories go in Speculations. The main science forums are for discussing accepted science." My model strictly adheres to 'accepted science'. It uses that 'accepted science' to draw a more rational conclusion from the known evidence. There were/are many areas of reasoned debate that could have arisen from this. Nothing in my model is 'out in left field' and/or an inarguable assertion. You gave me a reasonable, and considerate explanation. I had already accepted it, and was appreciative of it. He insulted my intelligence. I called him on it. End of story. If none of you are willing to, or able to see this, then that's how it stays. You want me to go away. Fine. I'm gone. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI have a short science question. Up there^^^^ somewhere you draw an analogy to the solar system and say something like "when the protostar exploded it left the larger mass near the centre" this causes two issues with me, protostars do not exploded, they are the start of stars and contract leaving a disk of non-star material behind, most of the lightest elements (hydrogen and helium) are in the centre of the solar system, this is undeniably true as the sun is mostly hydrogen and is very massive indeed. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe above break down explanation of your idea seems down to 5 to fit, and be consistent with mainstream ideas. But I have some problems with the points past that, how do you get the superluminal spinning? That seems like a serious issue. You also need some method to go from that to another big bang type event. It should also be noted that bang - collapse - bang - collapse - bang... etc... is accepted as one of the possible universe cycles... Klaynos, I will stick long enough to answer your question. You're memory may be faulty. I was referring to the process of our solar system's formation, where the denser materials ( rocky planets ) remained closer to the sun, while the lighter elements that formed the gas giants were blown farther away. In fact, the sun contains over 98% of the mass of our entire solar system, if I am not mistaken. Again, it was just for visualisation purposes. The BB started with different materials than our sun did in achieveing this current incarnation. The recent evidence of near c rotational velocity of SMBHs, Einstein's math that predicted extreme rotational velocities of collapsing stars, the evidence/predictions of collapsed space through GR, all combine to lead to a not-irrational hypothesis that black holes could achieve superliminal spin. But it is not necessary for the model to function. If QM is correct, and infinitely small, or infinitely dense is not possible, then a black hole with the mass of 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 sols will have a monstrously large physical volume. Rotating at, or near c could easily have produced the universe we see today if that mass let go from angular momentum overcoming the gravitational attraction. Hope this is a satisfactory explanation. And Moo is correct in one sense. Even if I am in the right, it was also unecessary for me to speak my mind. I apologise to all. Including swansont. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHey, they're talking about me! I actually thought it was in Speculations. I navigate mostly through SFN spy, so I don't always pay attention to what subforums things are in. As a moderator, I should have. Sisyphus, I am not, nor was I ever offended by anything you said. Nor was I offended by anything ajb said. I appreciated his input. Sorry to drag you, and ajb into it. I was out of line in doing so. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedPS: I was pretty sure my post in "One World System" was adequate evidence of my ability to find humor in my situation. And my acceptance of it. I'm sorry Moo didn't see this. I genuinely like her. But then, I genuinely like most everyone. A character flaw, I suppose .... But yes, I do take things personally at times. Like you all do. It's a flaw we all share. Edited January 24, 2010 by pywakit Consecutive posts merged.
swansont Posted January 24, 2010 Posted January 24, 2010 He did NOT explain WHY my theory was not mainstream. That is an inaccurate statement. He just stated catagorically that is 'wasn't mainstream'. It's true my model doesn't conform to mainstream. … reasoned alternative to the standard cosmological model I don't have to explain when you ADMIT YOURSELF that it is not mainstream. Now please get back on topic and drop the melodrama.
pywakit Posted January 24, 2010 Author Posted January 24, 2010 I don't have to explain when you ADMIT YOURSELF that it is not mainstream. Now please get back on topic and drop the melodrama. The 'melodrama' as you tactfully put it, was not intentional. I'm human. A situation arose that I found personally disturbing. I dealt with it in the most rational, and logical way I knew how. I have not acted irrationally, and you know it. Don't order me around. I am a 57 year old man who has worked his ass off his entire life. I have earned the respect of my peers ... whether or not you are aware of this. Try asking nicely. Or better yet, if you can't facilitate a constructive and positive outcome, just leave me alone. Like anyone else, I do not respond well to poor treatment. I apologised to all concerned. You should have the decency to acknowledge that apology. Not fan the flames further. If you find my attitude intolerable, ban me. That said ... I have been wating for weeks for someone to make additional intelligent arguments against my model. Until that happens, all I can do is post 3rd party referenced material to either support, or undermine my theory. I continue to keep an open mind, and welcome any further arguments.
mooeypoo Posted January 24, 2010 Posted January 24, 2010 The 'melodrama' as you tactfully put it, was not intentional. I'm human. A situation arose that I found personally disturbing. I dealt with it in the most rational, and logical way I knew how. I have not acted irrationally, and you know it. Don't order me around. I am a 57 year old man who has worked his ass off his entire life. I have earned the respect of my peers ... whether or not you are aware of this. pywakit KNOCK IT OFF!!! Good lawrd, my friend, enough. Okay, you had your say, and we're not giong to beg you to believe us that we don't mean anything bad. You asked why I say we are walking on eggs -- it's becuse you nitpick our answers, DECIDE that we're against you, and choose to get all offended. I am not going to have a discussion with you if you choose to pluck my emotional string every time you disagree with me or vise versa. Knock it off. ENOUGH with the melodrama. ENOUGH. We don't mean to order you around, we actually mean to LISTEN to your theory and see if it is valid, but to be fair here, this is a science forum, in which we are staff. We actually *can* "order around". When a debate goes awry, it's our job to bring it back on the right track or CLOSE IT. Enough with the personal stuff, enough. It's time to debate your theory or move on. ~moo
pywakit Posted January 24, 2010 Author Posted January 24, 2010 pywakit KNOCK IT OFF!!! Good lawrd, my friend, enough. Okay, you had your say, and we're not giong to beg you to believe us that we don't mean anything bad. You asked why I say we are walking on eggs -- it's becuse you nitpick our answers, DECIDE that we're against you, and choose to get all offended. I am not going to have a discussion with you if you choose to pluck my emotional string every time you disagree with me or vise versa. Knock it off. ENOUGH with the melodrama. ENOUGH. We don't mean to order you around, we actually mean to LISTEN to your theory and see if it is valid, but to be fair here, this is a science forum, in which we are staff. We actually *can* "order around". When a debate goes awry, it's our job to bring it back on the right track or CLOSE IT. Enough with the personal stuff, enough. It's time to debate your theory or move on. ~moo Yes. You are correct. I apologise again. Now if someone will actually initiate further debate with the theory ....
Klaynos Posted January 24, 2010 Posted January 24, 2010 I don't think any more real progress can be made on this concept without a good knowledge of quantum gravity, which we don't have. Once that exists mathematical predictions can be made about whether this is even feasible.
pywakit Posted January 24, 2010 Author Posted January 24, 2010 (edited) I don't think any more real progress can be made on this concept without a good knowledge of quantum gravity, which we don't have. Once that exists mathematical predictions can be made about whether this is even feasible. Well there you are. Case closed. But before I leave forever, perhaps you might explain why you think it necessary to have a good knowledge of quantum gravity. Is it because you think all black holes can't merge to one? Is it because you think 'infinitely small' or 'infinitely dense' is possible? ( which would then preclude my last remaining black hole containing the mass ... and then some ... of 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 sols from ever releasing it's energy ) Or do you have some other reason? Of course, if this is true ... this creates a host of problems. Which have already been addressed, or are trying to be addressed through the use of hypothetical mathematical constructs such as SST/M-theory. Perhaps you might also explain why mathematics can't simply use GR to make predictions on the scale of which my model addresses. py ( one foot out the door ... lol ) Edited January 24, 2010 by pywakit
vuquta Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 Well there you are. Case closed. But before I leave forever, perhaps you might explain why you think it necessary to have a good knowledge of quantum gravity. Is it because you think all black holes can't merge to one? Is it because you think 'infinitely small' or 'infinitely dense' is possible? ( which would then preclude my last remaining black hole containing the mass ... and then some ... of 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 sols from ever releasing it's energy ) Or do you have some other reason? Of course, if this is true ... this creates a host of problems. Which have already been addressed, or are trying to be addressed through the use of hypothetical mathematical constructs such as SST/M-theory. Perhaps you might also explain why mathematics can't simply use GR to make predictions on the scale of which my model addresses. py ( one foot out the door ... lol ) OK, I read your stuff. You do not have a list of axioms such that your system can construct deductions based on your axioms. Here, theory (set of sentences) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_theory This definition is primitive though but will start this discussion. In reality, a theory is a set of L formulas. Now, when you develop a theory, then you must find a model so you can prove your theory is consistent. "Gödel's completeness theorem (not to be confused with his incompleteness theorems) says that a theory has a model if and only if it is consistent," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_theory If you cannot produce this model, it is on you, then your theory is useless. It is not on others to prove your theory is consistent. That is the deal.
pywakit Posted January 25, 2010 Author Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) OK, I read your stuff. You do not have a list of axioms such that your system can construct deductions based on your axioms. Here, theory (set of sentences) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_theory This definition is primitive though but will start this discussion. In reality, a theory is a set of L formulas. Now, when you develop a theory, then you must find a model so you can prove your theory is consistent. "Gödel's completeness theorem (not to be confused with his incompleteness theorems) says that a theory has a model if and only if it is consistent," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_theory If you cannot produce this model, it is on you, then your theory is useless. It is not on others to prove your theory is consistent. That is the deal. I always love comments like yours. You may have read it. But it would appear you have failed to grasp it. And with that apparent failure, you have made several assertions that are flawed simply because the underlying assumptions are wrong. So let me spell it out for you. My model is a MODIFIED BBT. It removes the hypothetical inflation addendum, and replaces it with a reasoned, and logical solution that does not appear to conflict with accepted physics, or our current level of understanding of QM. I say it does not APPEAR to, because I have had discussions with scientists from all over the world, and none of them were able to point to any contradictions with GR, QM, or physics in general. Several ( from very prestigious universities ... like Columbia, and MIT ) DID however make such well thought out arguments as "Black holes don't merge, you idiot!" Or "Everyone know the universe is going to expand forever!" Or by far the most popular ... "Your model is in conflict with generally accepted string theory, and Hawking radiation." Good grief. I conversed for about a month early last year by e-mail with Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson. We discussed several aspects of the model. ( I must assume he is fairly knowledgable about the universe, GR, QM, physics, and black holes ) His only real issue was that it needed to be experimentally tested, and at that time he could not think of a way to do this. I countered this with the fact that Hawking radiation ( also based on accepted physics ) could not be experimentally tested either ... yet it was still considered a viable theory. He either chose to ignore this reality, or was unable to rationally address this apparent contradiction. But the fact remains ... after 30 plus years, Hawking radiation is still experimentally untestable. I have paid close attention to the LHC website, and I have seen nothing on the subject of Hawking radiation ... yet. Unlike you, Tyson understood that since the model closely follows BBT, there was no need for new math, or new physics to allow the model to function. The model ( when I first proposed it one year ago ) relied on all known observations to date. Since that time there have been a few discoveries that were/are 'predicted' by my model. There have been NONE that contradicted it. This does not lend strength/credibility to your assertion that it is 'useless'. I am not a mathemetician. All I did was derive a better solution than the BBT for the workings of our universe on the large scale. In case you have not noticed, there is a small disparity between pure mathematics, and the actual observations of the universe. You can claim it's useless. You can insist anything you want. That does not make you correct. Please forgive me if I don't throw in the towel based on your assessment of the model, or my inability to express it mathematically. As I have said many times ... I have studied virtually every other publicly available model in existence. I don't pretend to understand the math, so I research other opinions of those models from respected, and learned men from all over the world. I feel very confident that my model correctly describes, in terms we all can understand, how our universe operates on the very large scale. I have had more than one offer to put a mathematical theorem to the model. For various reasons, I have yet to accept any of these offers. I will soon, though. My goal ( as I have also stated repeatedly ) is to get the scientific community exposed to this model. To get them to consider it's validity, or to falsify it. As several respected scientists have said ... it's a good model. Again, sorry you think it's useless. You are welcome to your opinion. But I suspect you will find that you are on the wrong team. I wish you luck in your career. By the way, I am currently working on reconstructing my model ( using the list of axioms ) with the help of a very bright cosmologist. I am looking forward to posting this new version soon. Edited January 25, 2010 by pywakit
vuquta Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 I always love comments like yours. You may have read it. But it would appear you have failed to grasp it. And with that apparent failure, you have made several assertions that are flawed simply because the underlying assumptions are wrong. So let me spell it out for you. My model is a MODIFIED BBT. It removes the hypothetical inflation addendum, and replaces it with a reasoned, and logical solution that does not appear to conflict with accepted physics, or our current level of understanding of QM. I say it does not APPEAR to, because I have had discussions with scientists from all over the world, and none of them were able to point to any contradictions with GR, QM, or physics in general. Several ( from very prestigious universities ... like Columbia, and MIT ) DID however make such well thought out arguments as "Black holes don't merge, you idiot!" Or "Everyone know the universe is going to expand forever!" Or by far the most popular ... "Your model is in conflict with generally accepted string theory, and Hawking radiation." Good grief. I conversed for about a month early last year by e-mail with Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson. We discussed several aspects of the model. ( I must assume he is fairly knowledgable about the universe, GR, QM, physics, and black holes ) His only real issue was that it needed to be experimentally tested, and at that time he could not think of a way to do this. I countered this with the fact that Hawking radiation ( also based on accepted physics ) could not be experimentally tested either ... yet it was still considered a viable theory. He either chose to ignore this reality, or was unable to rationally address this apparent contradiction. But the fact remains ... after 30 plus years, Hawking radiation is still experimentally untestable. I have paid close attention to the LHC website, and I have seen nothing on the subject of Hawking radiation ... yet. Unlike you, Tyson understood that since the model closely follows BBT, there was no need for new math, or new physics to allow the model to function. The model ( when I first proposed it one year ago ) relied on all known observations to date. Since that time there have been a few discoveries that were/are 'predicted' by my model. There have been NONE that contradicted it. This does not lend strength/credibility to your assertion that it is 'useless'. I am not a mathemetician. All I did was derive a better solution than the BBT for the workings of our universe on the large scale. In case you have not noticed, there is a small disparity between pure mathematics, and the actual observations of the universe. You can claim it's useless. You can insist anything you want. That does not make you correct. Please forgive me if I don't throw in the towel based on your assessment of the model, or my inability to express it mathematically. As I have said many times ... I have studied virtually every other publicly available model in existence. I don't pretend to understand the math, so I research other opinions of those models from respected, and learned men from all over the world. I feel very confident that my model correctly describes, in terms we all can understand, how our universe operates on the very large scale. I have had more than one offer to put a mathematical theorem to the model. For various reasons, I have yet to accept any of these offers. I will soon, though. My goal ( as I have also stated repeatedly ) is to get the scientific community exposed to this model. To get them to consider it's validity, or to falsify it. As several respected scientists have said ... it's a good model. Again, sorry you think it's useless. You are welcome to your opinion. But I suspect you will find that you are on the wrong team. I wish you luck in your career. By the way, I am currently working on reconstructing my model ( using the list of axioms ) with the help of a very bright cosmologist. I am looking forward to posting this new version soon. I think you are confused with models and axioms. They are different. And if you have found others that support your "thinking" good. I am providing you the modern way of operating with theories and models. I am quite certain you can find many dark age thinkers that have yet to evolve to the modern methods of mathematical logic. Personally, I would never present anything new without my list of axioms and then a model to prove its logical consistency. Hey, that is just me. Then, if you are going to toss out names and some human concensus logic as some replacement for mathematical logic, go for it. There were many flat earthers at some time but that concensus is not a replacement for the rules and discipline of logic. Clearly, you are not in the mainstream thought for mathematical logic. If you want to debate concensus and democracy, I will take you to a political site and we can operate on that style there. If you want to debate mathematical theories (physics is a sub-branch) and the models that satisfy them, then we will talk logic. You choose.
pywakit Posted January 25, 2010 Author Posted January 25, 2010 I think you are confused with models and axioms. They are different. No doubt. I will look them up. And if you have found others that support your "thinking" good. I am providing you the modern way of operating with theories and models. You have provided me with nothing. I am not a mathemetician, and will never be one. Your assistance to this point is useless. I am quite certain you can find many dark age thinkers that have yet to evolve to the modern methods of mathematical logic. Congrats. In one sentence, you have managed to strongly imply that my model has no more validity than a geocentric universe, and insult the credentials and reputation of one of America's most respected astrophysicists. Personally, I would never present anything new without my list of axioms and then a model to prove its logical consistency. Hey, that is just me. You work with what you got. Then, if you are going to toss out names and some human concensus logic as some replacement for mathematical logic, go for it. There were many flat earthers at some time but that concensus is not a replacement for the rules and discipline of logic. I have said this before. In science there is no safety in numbers. There is safety in truth. Clearly, you are not in the mainstream thought for mathematical logic. Considering I am not a mathemetician, that would be axiomatic. ( Did I use that word correctly?) If you want to debate concensus and democracy, I will take you to a political site and we can operate on that style there. If I was interested in consensus, I wouldn't be here taking your abuse. If you want to debate mathematical theories (physics is a sub-branch) and the models that satisfy them, then we will talk logic. I have no desire to communicate any further with you ... on any subject. You choose. There is no need to choose. You have already proven to be incapable of correctly assessing the situation, and understanding my limitations, offered reasoned arguments against the model. ( as many others here have patiently done ) Instead, you prefer to belittle me, and my model, thereby showing the world your obvious superiority over me. I concede. You are a fantastic person. As I said before, I wish you luck in your chosen field.
vuquta Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 Congrats. In one sentence, you have managed to strongly imply that my model has no more validity than a geocentric universe, and insult the credentials and reputation of one of America's most respected astrophysicists. Logic insults? I have no desire to communicate any further with you ... on any subject. I accept your surrender. There is no need to choose. You have already proven to be incapable of correctly assessing the situation, and understanding my limitations, offered reasoned arguments against the model. ( as many others here have patiently done ) Instead, you prefer to belittle me, and my model, thereby showing the world your obvious superiority over me. I do apologize that I did not fully understand your limitiations. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedNo doubt. I will look them up. You have provided me with nothing. I am not a mathemetician, and will never be one. Your assistance to this point is useless. Congrats. In one sentence, you have managed to strongly imply that my model has no more validity than a geocentric universe, and insult the credentials and reputation of one of America's most respected astrophysicists. You work with what you got. I have said this before. In science there is no safety in numbers. There is safety in truth. Considering I am not a mathemetician, that would be axiomatic. ( Did I use that word correctly?) If I was interested in consensus, I wouldn't be here taking your abuse. I have no desire to communicate any further with you ... on any subject. There is no need to choose. You have already proven to be incapable of correctly assessing the situation, and understanding my limitations, offered reasoned arguments against the model. ( as many others here have patiently done ) Instead, you prefer to belittle me, and my model, thereby showing the world your obvious superiority over me. I concede. You are a fantastic person. As I said before, I wish you luck in your chosen field. OK, advice, if you back down with your theory, and do not stand up to me, then you are not confident in it. You should have sucked down my data and then used it to support your "true" theory. You ran instead.
mooeypoo Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 Stop with the attitude, please. Discuss science, not mutual insults.
pywakit Posted January 25, 2010 Author Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) vuquta writes: OK, advice, if you back down with your theory, and do not stand up to me, then you are not confident in it. You should have sucked down my data and then used it to support your "true" theory. Well, of course I disagree with Moo ... Lol. In principle anyway. Obviously I don't like being belittled, or otherwise abused. But in the interest of fairness, why don't you show me the 'data' you are referring to. I looked at the links you provided, and ... surprise ... I would have to be a mathematician to follow it. So that avenue is not going to be much help. Since I am going to need a serious mathemetician to provide a theoretical model in the academic manner .... If you would care to provide mathematical theorems/models that either support, or falsify my model, that would be a great help. Then I can run them past other physicists who have offered support in one fashion or another, and see how they feel about your mathematical constructs. Who knows? Maybe we can share a Nobel. Lol. Or maybe we will just become friends in the process. In either case, there would be an improvement. Thank you. And sorry for any perceived insults. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAlright. Not hearing back from Vuquta. So Moo wants me to discuss science. Ok. Let's start with this. As you all know, my model's most basic tenet is that the critical mass point of a black hole is equal to all the matter/energy in the v/l universe. And you also know that I have not stated specifically in the model the exact mechanism for release of energy ie; the BB. However, per Einstein's math, I assume it was probably angular momentum ( spin ) finally overcoming gravity with the final boost to angular momentum accomplished by the collapse of space. I also do not address in the model, the actual physical construction of the mass contained in that last ( or any ) black hole, other than assuming that the mass is in the form of particles in their most reduced and homogeneous form. However, you may know that I tend to accept QM's prediction of infinitely small, or dense not being possible in our physical unverse. So I assume therefore that a black hole containing 40^21 sols mass ( at minimum ) would have a very large physical construction ... the actual flattened sphere ( due to spin ) that could be many light years in diameter. What I have not discussed here is what may have actually happened at the BB. So I will now give you my version of events. This is, after all ... speculations. I actually expected one of you to bring this up but I don't recall anyone doing so on this forum. If you have already, my apology. I think it is entirely possible that the BB was not a complete BB. Particularly if the mechanism was spin, then when the BB happened, the spin would have slowed very rapidly as the material was thrown off. Enough was cast out ( in those first microseconds ) to form the universe as we know it ( the finite visible/local one ) but once the spin slowed, gravity took over again. As I posted recently, we have just discovered evidence that black holes have formed much sooner in our history than we had thought. This is in keeping with my model, of course, as ( however the material was released ) the overall density of matter would have decreased the farther away from the BB you got. Anyway, it had occured to me that ( as in the possibility of Hawking Radiation ) that there could, or even should have been a remnant left over from the BB. In this case a vey large remnant. I don't know, obviously, enough about gravity to calculate such things, but I think it is entirely possible that after the BB, just like our sun, the vast majority of the black hole remained behind. There could still be a black hole at the center of our universe that contains 98% plus or minus of the total mass of our visible/local universe. Maybe our universe could not be expanding if this were the case. Or maybe there would be gravitational waves propagating from such a monster through space right now that we should detect ... unless ... as I have mentioned before, the spin is so fast we have nothing capable of detecting such a high frequency. Maybe there would BE NO plasma that we can't look through if this were the case. Again, I am not qualified to answer such questions. But the reality is, our view beyond about 700 million light years after the BB is still obscured, and it is only through mathematics, and GR that we can 'see' back to the earliest moments after the BB. So there could be a pretty massive ( in all probability non-feeding ) black hole ( likely still gravitationally 'tethered' to it's plasma/matter accretion disc ) that we just can't see, and it is spinning very rapidly dragging plasma ( and space ) around with it. The nice thing about this possibility, is that it doesn't change my model one bit. That uber black hole is still part of the total mass/energy of our v/l universe. But nonetheless, it is interesting to speculate about this possibility. Perhaps one of you geniuses ( and I am sincere in this ) would know whether this scenario is possible based on observational evidence. I am fairly confident it would fit within the parameters of GR. And the other scenario I wanted to hypothesize is the Spin/HR scenario. This is where we ( obviously ) have a combination of spin, and rapid 'evaporation' whereby the sudden release through spin is augmented by Hawking radiation, allowing for a more 'homogenized' ( and potentially complete ) dispersal of mass than through spin alone. I would be curious to see which of these 4 possibilities would best describe the universe as we know it today. Recap: 1. CMP Model ( spin alone ) with total ( or near total ) release of energy. 2. CMP Model ( spin + HR ) with total ( or near total ) release of energy. 3. CMP Model ( spin alone ) with minimal release ( 2% ) of energy. 4. CMP Model ( spin + HR ) with minimal release ( 2% ) of energy. Edited January 25, 2010 by pywakit Consecutive posts merged.
Klaynos Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 Well there you are. Case closed. But before I leave forever, perhaps you might explain why you think it necessary to have a good knowledge of quantum gravity. Is it because you think all black holes can't merge to one? Is it because you think 'infinitely small' or 'infinitely dense' is possible? The current understanding of black holes (which we know to be incomplete) clearly shows that the singularity of the black hole is both infinitely small and infinitely dense, this should be resolved by a quantum theory of gravity.
pywakit Posted January 25, 2010 Author Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) The current understanding of black holes (which we know to be incomplete) clearly shows that the singularity of the black hole is both infinitely small and infinitely dense, this should be resolved by a quantum theory of gravity. Hmm. Ok. But I see a problem. Maybe you can clear this up. Your statement seems rather contradictory. GR is incomplete as it breaks down. True? And QM which has shown to be extremely accurate experimentally does not allow for a 'singularity' at all in a black hole. So 'clearly' isn't so clear. Not only do we have a math problem with a singularity, but we have an observational problem in that we are finding more and more massive black holes ... stretching the limits of rational deduction/logic ... and making it harder and harder to hold to the 'theory' that so many suns ... like several billion suns worth, could fit into an area 'infinitely small' or 'infinitely dense'. And it couldn't be both infinitely dense ...yet still have an actual 3d structure, as all the mass would have to be inside that singularity, continuing to get smaller and smaller and smaller .... From Wiki:The appearance of singularities in general relativity is commonly perceived as signaling the breakdown of the theory. This breakdown, however, is expected; it occurs in a situation where quantum mechanical effects should describe these actions due to the extremely high density and therefore particle interactions. To date it has not been possible to combine quantum and gravitational effects into a single theory. It is generally expected that a theory of quantum gravity will feature black holes without singularities. So where are we really? Is the prevously accepted belief that black holes could be infinitely small about to fall by the wayside? It appears we are running out of options, doesn't it? I think Hawking lost that bet over information gone forever. Meaning we know longer accept the 'theory' that black holes divert their mass through worm holes to other dimensions, or elsewhere in our universe. So what goes in ... for now ...stays there, in our universe .... perhaps leaking out by Hawking radiation. But otherwise ( currently ) always gaining more mass than it is losing. Do you think the universe will allow a 50B sol black hole to have zero dimensions? Can that much matter actually be compressed by gravity down to zero? It seems only yesterday that we thought black holes ... with masses maxxed out at around 2 or 3 million sols were probably shunting their mass somewhere else. Even then we were having trouble with the concept of that much mass occupying zero volume. Just trying to visualize this. Anyway, your thoughts? Edited January 25, 2010 by pywakit
Klaynos Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 So wp sums it up quite well. GR gives us a prediction that there is a singularity at the centre of the black hole. Singularities as it says are indicators that the theory breaks down, it is not complete. For very small things (not quite true but it'll do) we know that quantum effects dominate. This indicates that when you get close to the singularity (what 'close' is we don't know) we need to understand how gravity works within a quantum framework. A quantum theory of gravity. I'm not sure you could have a dense enough star set to form a 50B solar mass black hole before it evaporates. Once you are outside the event horizon black holes do not gravitationally look any different to any other object of that mass.
pywakit Posted January 25, 2010 Author Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) To put this in perspective for me klaynos ... When I was a kid in the 50s, black holes probably did not exist per Einstein. ( mainstream science ) In the mid-60s we decided that they do exist. And are maybe a few sols in mass. In the 70s, Cygnus x-1 is deemed a likely candidate. In the 80s, we discover more and more candidates. But they are still just stellar, or massive black holes. In the 90s, supermassive black hole candidates are being discovered. In the 00s, ultramassive candidates. In the 10s, researchers are attempting to arbitrarily limit mass to 50 billion sols. During this progression, starting in the 60s, we, the general public, were being told that all that mass was fitting into a space smaller than an atom. Infinitely smaller than an atom. GR predicted it. And the astrophysicists were very confident that this was the case. I sense a growing doubt as we start this decade. Am I incorrect? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedklaynos writes: I'm not sure you could have a dense enough star set to form a 50B solar mass black hole before it evaporates. Once you are outside the event horizon black holes do not gravitationally look any different to any other object of that mass. No disrespect intended, but what research I have done says that 10 billion sols is extremely likely. 18 billion is very likely. 50 billion is quite possible ( but no more ) based on new findings about black hole formation in the early universe. So let's just go with 10 billion. Do you think a 10 billion sol black hole could have zero volume? Is this still 'mainstream' science's working model? And klaynos ... there is a problem with your statement. We don't have any evidence they evaporate. I can find references that call it to this day ... extremely speculative. Yes, I understand it is based on 'sound' theory, but it still has not been observed. And if I'm not incorrect, there was a telescope that went up in 08 that was supposed to measure it. But didn't. And the other problem, is that Dr. Tyson told me last year a 50 million sol black hole would take ...and I quote ... 10^140 years to evaporate. Several quadrillions of times the life expectancy of our local universe. So why would you think one would evaporate before accumulating 50 billion sols worth of mass? Why do you assume black holes can't move toward other black holes? We just discoveed 33 pairs of merging SMBHs last year. It would appear they are 'actually' merging way faster than they are 'hypothetically' ( or even theoretically ) evaporating. Am I missing something here? This is not sounding very convincing. Edited January 25, 2010 by pywakit Consecutive posts merged.
Klaynos Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 To put this in perspective for me klaynos ... When I was a kid in the 50s, black holes probably did not exist per Einstein. ( mainstream science ) In the mid-60s we decided that they do exist. And are maybe a few sols in mass. In the 70s, Cygnus x-1 is deemed a likely candidate. In the 80s, we discover more and more candidates. But they are still just stellar, or massive black holes. In the 90s, supermassive black hole candidates are being discovered. In the 00s, ultramassive candidates. In the 10s, researchers are attempting to arbitrarily limit mass to 50 billion sols. During this progression, starting in the 60s, we, the general public, were being told that all that mass was fitting into a space smaller than an atom. Infinitely smaller than an atom. GR predicted it. And the astrophysicists were very confident that this was the case. I sense a growing doubt as we start this decade. Am I incorrect? As far as I'm aware the singularity actually being a singularity and not a break down has never been accepted by astrophysicists. No disrespect intended, but what research I have done says that 10 billion sols is extremely likely. 18 billion is very likely. 50 billion is quite possible ( but no more ) based on new findings about black hole formation in the early universe. I was just thinking star started black holes, the last I heard/read about supermassive was about 2 or 3 years ago, and at that point (and as far I know is still the case) the formation and growth mechanism of these is unknown. So let's just go with 10 billion. Do you think a 10 billion sol black hole could have zero volume? Is this still 'mainstream' science's working model? GR would predict a singularity, so yes zero volume. And klaynos ... there is a problem with your statement. We don't have any evidence they evaporate. I can find references that call it to this day ... extremely speculative. Yes, I understand it is based on 'sound' theory, but it still has not been observed. This is correct, there is currently no observed evidence for hawking radiation. And if I'm not incorrect, there was a telescope that went up in 08 that was supposed to measure it. But didn't. I'm not aware of this... You don't know the name of the scope? Martin is more likely to have this knowledge than me. And the other problem, is that Dr. Tyson told me last year a 50 million sol black hole would take ...and I quote ... 10^140 years to evaporate. Several quadrillions of times the life expectancy of our local universe. So why would you think one would evaporate before accumulating 50 billion sols worth of mass? Because it has to have 50 billion solar masses get near enough to it to combine. Why do you assume black holes can't move toward other black holes? They can, but only within the bounds of the gravitational interaction. We just discoveed 33 pairs of merging SMBHs last year. It would appear they are 'actually' merging way faster than they are 'hypothetically' ( or even theoretically ) evaporating. Am I missing something here? This is not sounding very convincing. I am not saying that there is a fundemental reason why you cannot have a supermassive black hole of that mass. But we currently don't understand where they come from, so it is difficult to comment on the feasibility of them. Normal BHs grow by accretion, normally from a partner star it seems, because most other things are just too far away.
pywakit Posted January 26, 2010 Author Posted January 26, 2010 (edited) Klaynos, it was originally called the GLAST. Now .... "Finding Hawking radiation would be a big boon for physics, says cosmologist Sean Carroll of Caltech. ... using NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, which launched in 2008" Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedKlaynos writes: As far as I'm aware the singularity actually being a singularity and not a break down has never been accepted by astrophysicists. Translation: If not for the math which works great on macro levels, we would be clueless. I would agree we could claim ignorance if not for ... 1. We have no direct observational evidence of THE singularity ( or of a black hole) actually being infinitely small/dense. 2. We do not have any experimental evidence in particle physics demonstrating anything with mass/gravity has zero dimensions. 3. QM ( which has an excellent record of accurate predictions ) predicts no zero dimensional objects with mass/gravity. 4. GR ( which also has an excellent record of accurate predictions ) suffers a breakdown, and is unable to describe or predict anything experimentally verifiable at all about a singularity. We can claim pure logic, I suppose, in defense of the 'possibility' that a singularity ( defined as infinitely small/dense ) exists. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. Right? Interesting, isn't it, that when I was a kid in the 50s 'mainstream science' was willing to look at quadrillions of stars in the heavens and make ( in their minds, rightfully so ) the purely logical assertion that it was 'possible' that our star alone had satellites. "Until we actually find one, we can not claim their existence to be fact." Statements like this one ... which was made over and over in the 50s, and 60s ... only illustrates how divorced from reality science ( and in particular, math ) can be. And furthermore, how deeply beliefs can affect our ability to be truly objective, and make rational judgements ... even when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This particular assertion bordered on insanity. Yet science still claims it was 'right' in making the assertion. Yikes. I was just thinking star started black holes, the last I heard/read about supermassive was about 2 or 3 years ago, and at that point (and as far I know is still the case) the formation and growth mechanism of these is unknown. 1. Why would you have limited your consideration to 'star started' black holes? 2. There is evidence that a stellar companion black hole is currently merging with the Milky Way. 3. Andromeda ( and it's apparent central black hole ) is on a trajectory to collide, and presumably merge with us. 4. Much has been learned about black hole mergers in the last 2-3 years. We now have essentially undeniable proof that they do merge. Just a few links you might find interesting ... SPACE.com -- Merging Black Holes Observed in New Detail http://www.space.com The pics are beyond astonishing at the Chandra site! Chandra :: Photo Album :: Images by Category: Black Holes http://www.chandra.harvard.edu Merging Black Holes Observed in New Detail | LiveScience http://www.livescience.com There are many more of course, but you might find these next ones even more 'illuminating'. 081017 Black holes common in early Universe http://www.astronomynow.com Colossal Black Holes Common in the Early Universe http://www.astronomyreport.com I have posted other articles in previous posts. GR would predict a singularity, so yes zero volume. I must be confused again. I thought you already said that it was agreed that GR breaks down. So doesn't it defy reason to hold to an acceptance that a 10 billion sol black hole has zero volume? Even if GR 'predicts' this? Especially when QM predicts it does NOT have zero volume? I'm sensing another "I don't care what the universe is ACTUALLY doing. I care what one mathematical construct suggests it COULD be doing." Hmmm. Because it has to have 50 billion solar masses get near enough to it to combine. This statement would work just fine ... if black holes were 'anchored' in position. Why can't the black hole move toward a ANY gravitational source? Why do you assume the 'other' gravitational source must be the only object doing the 'moving'. This would defy Newtonian gravity, and GR both. They can, but only within the bounds of the gravitational interaction. Aye ... thar's the rub! Lol. Klaynos, last time I checked, GR states that gravity is potentially infinite in scope, limited only by it's propagation at c. So, as I have already said before, we all live within multiple black holes simultaneously. It's just that the closest gravitational object's ... in our case, the Earth's ... influence overcomes the weaker influences. After a black hole swallows the nearest, strongest source of gravity, what does it do next? Well, if it is already on an inertial path away from the NEXT strongest source, it will tend to slow down. Stop. Reverse direction. Unless it's angular momentum carries it closer to a different gravitational source ... which then becomes the 'strongest' force acting upon the black hole. In the big picture, given sufficient time, the black hole will gravitate toward any and all gravitational sources, subject only to inertial momentum. I am not saying that there is a fundemental reason why you cannot have a supermassive black hole of that mass. But we currently don't understand where they come from, so it is difficult to comment on the feasibility of them. Normal BHs grow by accretion, normally from a partner star it seems, because most other things are just too far away. In the case of gravity .... there is no such thing as 'too far away'. No matter how weak that gravitational field is, if it is the strongest one ( relative to the black hole's position ) the black hole will move toward that source ... again, subject only to inertial momentum. We can not place an artificial, or arbitrary time limit on this process. Bottom line. Evidence is ( as we speak ) becoming stupidly overwhelming that black holes merge. And they merge at far quicker rates than they may, or may not evaporate. To think otherwise at this point in time is to think exactly as astrophysicists thought in the 50s. "Quadrillions of stars. But ours 'might' be the only one with planets." Do you see my point about being divorced from reality? Not you, of course. Just the stance held by 'mainstream science'. Things are getting very exciting .... ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The Case For Three Dimensional Black Holes Language plays such a critical part in our understanding of one another, and of the universe we exist in. And there is just one language that transcends all barriers to mutual understanding ... removing cultural differences, and belief systems from the conversation. It's impossible to imagine what the world would be like if not for the 'universal' language of math. From creating i-pods to calculating trajectories, math does it all. Anytime. Anywhere. As long as we all agree on the definitions of the symbols representative of specific mathematical concepts we are good to go. But as we know very well ... it has it's limitations. Math can show us how to 'construct' things. Math is excellent for this task. The only real problem that comes up with math is when we use it to 'describe' things. Even then, math is quite good at it. Only at extreme scales ... scales that do not appear to apply to our every day existence, or the natural 3 dimensional universe we reside in ... does it run into problems. We say euphemistically ... "GR breaks down." What are we really saying? As mathematicians know quite well, GR doesn't 'break down' at all. The reality is that the math produces answers that are at odds with our observations. So here is where I think physicists and mathematicians kind of trick themselves. It's all about perception. If we just say it 'breaks down' we stop thinking that it is 'wrong'. But obviously, it IS wrong. And if it can be wrong it means that math can make no guarantees ( so far ) when it comes to describing certain structures that are beyond our 'norms'. Infinitely Small - Infinitely Dense I am going to lay out my best, reasoned case for BHs having a physical structure. This is a variation of the Franklin Method. Often misused, of course. But feel free to critique my logic. Hopefully it won't be too disjointed. Reasons to support the hypothesis including logical derivatives based on all pertinent applicable evidence: 1. Gravity requires mass. ( Every bit of data ever recorded supports this.) 2. BHs are predicted by Newtonian gravitational laws of attraction. 3. BHs are predicted by General Relativity ( Extremely accurate in macro scales.) 4. BHs have gravity, therefore mass. ( We don't know, by the way, what these 'somethings' are. We just arbitrarily name them BHs, and the evidence strongly suggests these 'somethings' have immense, and varied gravitational attraction.) 5. BHs gravitational force is finite. ( Based on observations.) 6.The possibility of BHs shunting mass to another dimension: Alternate dimensions are speculated/hypothesized but there is no evidence of their existence as of today's date. The math does not in any way assure us of their existence. They are not supported by particle physics research, Quantum Mechanics, or General Relativity. If however, they could be shown to exist, we would have many more 'proofs' to make before our BH can shunt it's mass. We would then have to show that: 6A. A mechanism exists for transfer of information from our dimension to the 'alternate dimension'. 6B. Said alternate dimension has properties compatible with our dimension. ( Similar laws of physics.) 6C. Said alternate dimension can receive our mass. 6D. Said alternate dimension can not 'turn the firehose back on us'. ( Meaning that it's properties allow for a one-way transfer of energy only. Otherwise we could end up with a net loss of zero, or worse, end up gaining mass.) 6E. ( Critical ) Said dimension could take our mass, while leaving behind the gravitational force associated with that mass. ( An open, and unbreakable wormhole connecting our dimension to the alternate dimension. Once the connection is broken, the mass is forever lost, as is it's gravitational force. 7. If there is no mass, there is no gravitational force. ( Therefore the mass remains within our physical universe.) 8. All mass ( matter/energy ) that enters BHs starts as 3d physical structures. ( To our knowledge.) 9. All mass falling past event horizon will eventually be 'spaghettified' down to the smallest possible constituent allowed by nature. ( Axiomatic.) 10. That smallest constituent is still a 3d structure, based on QM, and particle physics research. 11. Packed tightly, and still remaining within our universe, these constituent particles retain their 3d structure, unless acted upon by forces unknown to us. ( ie; magic, divine intervention. ) 12. Gravity will crush the constituent particles to the maximum density allowed. ( Regardless of actual form taken.) 13. Making extremely rough comparative guesses based on our knowledge of the space between sub-atomic particles, as they relate to actual 3 dimensional structures, our total solar system would be reduced down to a physical object the diameter of a grapefruit. 14. Our galaxy would be reduced to a physical object the diameter of our solar system. 15. Our visible/local universe would be reduced to a physical object perhaps 1/100th the diameter of the Milky Way. ( 1,000 light years. This is based also on an estimated 'current' diameter of 600 billion light years minimum.) Reasons to reject the hypothesis: 1. General Relativity 'predicts' infinitely small and infinitely dense. Except that we know General Relativity is 'wrong' at these scales. 2. SST/M-theory may be proven to be true. ( See above.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- So taking both sides into account, it would seem there is a great deal of empirical evidence and logic to lend support for BHs being 3 dimensional structures, and NO actual evidence against them being 3 dimensional structures. In the 50s we went with the mathematical 'possibility' that only our star had planets ... out of quadrillions. Yes. Mathematically, there was a 'chance' this was true. And, in fairness, we also stated the strong possibilty that many stars had planets. But this position ignored reality, everything we understood about nature, and our observations of the universe. Again, in fairness, there is a 'chance' it is true that infinitely small, and infinitely dense is possible. But I think to hold on to this assertion ignores reality, everything we understand about nature, and our observations of the universe. 50 years ago we did not need to 'see' the exoplanets to know they must be there. Today we do not need to 'see' the physical 3 dimensional structure of a BH to know it has one. Arguments? Edited January 26, 2010 by pywakit Consecutive posts merged.
ajb Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 If I may insert a few comments? Or by far the most popular ... "Your model is in conflict with generally accepted string theory, and Hawking radiation." Well, string theory and Hawking radiation were not just "pulled out of thin air". The initial calculations of Hawking radiation were based on using thermodynamical arguments in semi-classical gravity (quantum field theory an a curved background). Later string theory gave a statistical mechanical description. Anyway, both string theory and the now various approaches to Hawking radiation give a window in quantum gravity. If any model was in great conflict with the above ideas then questions must be asked and addressed. Is what we know about quantum field theory so wrong? And/or is what we know about thermodynamics so wrong? Is this "new model" wrong? His only real issue was that it needed to be experimentally tested, and at that time he could not think of a way to do this. This is key. Any model must be able to be tested, at least in principle. As for cosmology two obvious things to check is the abundance of light elements and the isotropy of the CMBR. I countered this with the fact that Hawking radiation ( also based on accepted physics ) could not be experimentally tested either ... yet it was still considered a viable theory. I can understand your reservations about the lack of experimental evidence Hawking radiation. But like I said, the ideas is based on many well established "stepping stones". Maybe your theory is, maybe it is not. He either chose to ignore this reality, or was unable to rationally address this apparent contradiction. But the fact remains ... after 30 plus years, Hawking radiation is still experimentally untestable. I have paid close attention to the LHC website, and I have seen nothing on the subject of Hawking radiation ... yet. But Hawking radiation is in principle observable. It is possible that micro black holes will one day be observed in collides. Another place could be in cosmic rays. I am not a mathematician. Thats ok, most cosmologists and theoretical physicist would not consider themselves as mathematicians. But they are of course competent in using mathematics for their purposes. ...or my inability to express it mathematically. I don't pretend to understand the math, so I research other opinions of those models from respected, and learned men from all over the world. My goal ( as I have also stated repeatedly ) is to get the scientific community exposed to this model. To get them to consider it's validity, or to falsify it. I think this is where you are going to struggle. You will get a few people to "humour" you, but most people are busy pursuing their own ideas. Without a well formulated mathematical model I doubt you will reach the scientific community.
Klaynos Posted January 26, 2010 Posted January 26, 2010 All we can say is what we know is predicted by our currently working theories, which is that a singularity is predicted, this singularity is why GR is said to break down, the formation of infinities in theories is nearly always treated as a failure in the theory. So singularites are predicted but that prediction is a cause for concern, but we have no other basis from which to make any other statement. Saying anything else whether you believe it to be logical or not is not within accepted science, we just don't have the theory or evidence to support it. As for our solar system being the only one with planets, until you get experimental evidence there is always the possibility that the predictions may be wrong. It didn't ignore nature, the nature of planet formation was largely unknown, it is still a vastly developing area of theory. You are right, that infinities are as we understand them against nature, they are considered "not physical" but we don't have any better theory yet so all we can say is "This is what is predicted, but we believe that prediction to be faulty"
Recommended Posts