Electromagnetic Field of our universe

[PureGenius]

The electromagnetic field is defined by our black holes electromagnetic expansion distance this has been exactly the same as when the universe formed as it arrived at faster than light velocities. This fluid is rotating with the accretion disk of our universes plane.The signature of this field is that it is evenly distributed throughout the universe, in other words it's everywhere . Does it flow yes this liquid can form vortexs by the rotational velocity of our universes accretion disk plane. These vortexs we call black holes. In the absence of this liquid time cannot flow forward, as all energy interaction within our plane is em in nature ie the flow of light would not be possible it would be a universe of potential energy instead of our universe which is in an active energy state ie em can propagate in any direction at a velocity limited by the size of our universes black hole white hole complex. So yes this fluid I'd in motion at the same velocity as our galactic cluster . The speed of light is dependant on the magnetic field of our central black hole not the relative motion of the electromagnetic fluid.

[ajb]

The electromagnetic field is defined by our black holes electromagnetic expansion distance..

What is an electromagnetic expansion distance?

 

This fluid is rotating with the accretion disk of our universes plane.

Are you suggesting that the whole Universe is rotating about the "central black hole"?

[swansont]

The speed of light is dependant on the magnetic field of our central black hole not the relative motion of the electromagnetic fluid.

 

How does light differentiate the magnetic field of a black hole and that of a magnet?

[ACG52]

 

 

What is an electromagnetic expansion distance?

Three words strung together which have individual meanings and mean nothing at all when grouped as they are.

[PureGenius]

The exact distance the magnetic field of our central black lack hole expanded to that defines the edge if our universe.

[swansont]

Not responding to inquiry and just continuing to spout the same nonsense all over again got one of your other threads locked. You might want to reconsider that tactic.

[PureGenius]

Yes Ajb I am saying that our whole universe is rotating around a supermassive black hole, this magnetic field defines what I call the electromagnetic expansion distance. Also swan my thread will most likely be locked weather I respond or not as my ideas are not acceptable even as speculations, as the moderators have gone out of their way to point out . I've repeatedly stated my lack of education I cannot understand why a theory is not welcome on a science site.

[ajb]

Yes Ajb I am saying that our whole universe is rotating around a supermassive black hole, this magnetic field defines what I call the electromagnetic expansion distance.

I think your supermassive black hole idea is not great, but rotating cosmologies are fascinating. They seem, to me at least a bit unnatural, the Universe would have a preferred direction, the axis of rotation. But this is not disallowed by general relativity at all.

 

I've repeatedly stated my lack of education I cannot understand why a theory is not welcome on a science site.

It is not a theory, I am sure this has been explained to you. If not I am sure one of the mods can fill you in.

[PureGenius]

Maybe I should have further simplified my ideas I think many of my points may have been misunderstood, like the idea of a black hole being created in empty space ie no matter. This is caused by the rotational velocity of the whole universe , this I believe explains a large amount of the unaccounted for mass within the universe .

[ajb]

Maybe I should have further simplified my ideas I think many of my points may have been misunderstood...

Many of your ideas make no sense. They seem mostly to be garbled words strung together. This is far from a theory.

 

This is caused by the rotational velocity of the whole universe , this I believe explains a large amount of the unaccounted for mass within the universe.

Okay, so let us assume the Universe is rotating. In fact this idea comes up from time to time based on astronomers observations. Anyway, how would this account for dark matter?

[TrappedLight]

From what I understand of cosmological rotation, is that no one really believes the universe is spinning today. However, observations of galaxies rotational properties seem to show a bias for a particular handedness, meaning that it is possible our universe rotated very early on.

Maybe I should have further simplified my ideas I think many of my points may have been misunderstood, like the idea of a black hole being created in empty space ie no matter. This is caused by the rotational velocity of the whole universe , this I believe explains a large amount of the unaccounted for mass within the universe .

 

The rotation of the universe, doesn't create black holes. You simply can't have a black hole (form from nothing). Black holes have a distinct property of mass.

[ajb]

From what I understand of cosmological rotation, is that no one really believes the universe is spinning today. However, observations of galaxies rotational properties seem to show a bias for a particular handedness, meaning that it is possible our universe rotated very early on.

Right, there are some constraints from the CMBR here on the possible rotation. And I think you are right that few people really think the Universe is rotating today. The possible handedness is an interesting issue as is the possibility of an "axes of evil"! I think it is far from settled at the moment.

[TrappedLight]

Good pun.

 

I think the rotational properties are believed to have vanished when the universe inflated. You can't rotate something which expanded faster than light, it would have to also rotate many magnitudes of the speed of light.

(Edited)

 

I suppose a really good question to ask, is what would the universe spin relative to anyway? And to spin, wouldn't that require that the universe has a boundary?

 

And what is it a boundary between?

[ajb]

I think the rotational properties are believed to have vanished when the universe inflated. You can't rotate something which expanded faster than light, it would have to also rotate many magnitudes of the speed of light.

I am not sure of the details here, but yes, any significant rotation would not be indicative of inflation. Now as the CMBR fits so well with the lambda CDM model (with an inflationary epoch) it would seem unlikely that we have any significant rotation today. The constraints of rotation can be found in the CMBR.

 

So, I would doubt that any possible "slow" rotation of our Universe could not make up for dark matter.

[Bignose]

Maybe I should have further simplified my ideas.

I don't think that this is the root of the problem.

 

The root of the problem is that you don't answer direct questions (e.g. my and sawnsont's question about what test would you perform to detect this electromagnetic fluid), and you don't answer questions well at all.

 

Another big part of the problem is that you seem unable to provide quantitative predictions. This is a big one, because most anyone can craft a story. But turned that story into a prediction and then comparing that prediction to what is actually measured... now that is something scientifically meaningful.

 

I ask most people to provide a graph showing the current best measurements, the predictions by the current mainstream idea, and the the predictions made by their idea. And I further tell them that if that graph shows more accurate predictions than the current mainstream, that they will be getting a lot of attention. No one in speculations has been able to make that graph yet. Any chance you could be the first?

 

I will not be waiting with baited breath. And, I'm sorry, but most scientists will also dismiss this similarly. You obviously have a creative mind, and have some talent for story telling. But that is all this has been so far -- telling stories. There is nothing scientifically interesting without quantitative prediction.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Bignose

[ajb]

I suppose a really good question to ask, is what would the universe spin relative to anyway? And to spin, wouldn't that require that the universe has a boundary?

Gödel universe's for example gives us a preferred direction of the axis , but not a fixed location of the axis. So I don't think we should think of the universe as spinning about a fixed point as such. So this actually does not require a centre of the universe. Nor does this require any boundary, the Gödel universe is topologically [math]R^{4}[/math]

[swansont]

Yes Ajb I am saying that our whole universe is rotating around a supermassive black hole, this magnetic field defines what I call the electromagnetic expansion distance. Also swan my thread will most likely be locked weather I respond or not as my ideas are not acceptable even as speculations, as the moderators have gone out of their way to point out .

Your threads will most certainly be locked if you don't respond, since that's contrary to the rules of the forum, and that will be the reason why. "Acceptability" is not a criterion here.

 

I've repeatedly stated my lack of education I cannot understand why a theory is not welcome on a science site.

 

Understanding the connection between "I am not educated in this subject" and "your ideas are gibberish" would be a huge step. You haven't posted a theory, and what you have posted is nonsense. It's not an issue of being welcome or not, and you aren't being singled out. All of science is scrutinized to see if there are holes in it. It's an issue of subjecting your idea to the same examination all of the other ideas are subjected to. Part of that examination is testing the idea and trying to falsify it. If you don't participate in that by answering questions, you get shut down. This isn't a platform for you to pontificate.

[PureGenius]

I was banned for the last seven days I will try and respond to specific questions when I have time to read everything, I appreciate the questions and interest .

[PureGenius]

There is no reference point to identify the rotational spin of our universe. Except for the central black hole but our telescopes cannot see to the center of the universe. If our universe is contained within an accretion disk of a black hole, as I think it is we will probably discover that this dark flow ie the large galactic clusters that are being gravitationally attracted to an unknown source. I speculate we should measure the direction those galaxy's are traveling , this is most likely the direction our universe is rotating.To ascertain the center of the universe we can extrapolate the curvature of those galaxy's paths, then drawing out this circle we can pinpoint the center of the universe.

[Bignose]

To ascertain the center of the universe we can extrapolate the curvature of those galaxy's paths, then drawing out this circle we can pinpoint the center of the universe.

here you go: link to data with the velocities of galaxies; https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~dfabricant/huchra/seminar/lsc/lsc.dat

 

You should be able to use this data to show where the center of the universe is, per your comment above. How long do you think it will take you?

[Unity+]

Three words strung together which have individual meanings and mean nothing at all when grouped as they are.

You may be right, but this post is of no contribution to the topic thread.

[PureGenius]

There is a high probability that I'm not going to expand on my theories, beyond the scope of what I've already posted. Based on pictures of deep space and cmbr there is obvious evidence of some rotational velocity.

What is more difficult for me to ascertain is the reason for the stabilization of this electromagnetic field , why do galaxy's and thus our universe maintain electromagnetic stasis and are not in a constant state of constant and unstable motion, without the gravitational force provided by the spiral arms, that are inside and outside black holes our galaxy's matter would not be stable enough to support life, i.e. the formation of solar systems etc.

Edited October 4, 2013 by PureGenius

[Bignose]

There is a high probability that I'm not going to expand on my theories, beyond the scope of what I've already posted.

Then, cool story, bro. Because all you have is a story. Not science.

 

It is amazing the number of people who have all the energy and creativity to come up with a story, but when they actually have to do some work they are shrinking violets. I guess I just don't understand what people get out of these kinds of behaviors. It is at least somewhat common though, since the Speculations section on this forum is bursting full of threads that follow this pattern.

[PureGenius]

I'm an amateur , and I've presented my ideas to the best of my ability, I will continue to try and find more evidence to support my ideas. Ireally do appreciate the feedback I just don't know enough mathematics to conclusively explain why my theory makes the most sense. The electromagnetic spiral arms of galaxy's are emitted by the central black hole. These arms are extremely powerful lines of electromagnetic and gravitational potential. I have almost unraveled the inner workings of black holes , once this is finished I believe my theory will be easier to explain.

[Bignose]

But... I gave you the evidence. I pointed you to a data set that provides measurements as best as we can tell of the velocities of galaxies. This was the info you said you needed several posts back to use to determine the center of the galaxy.

 

And now, when you actually get the data you said you needed... suddenly, you're just an amateur, and you can't actually do what you claimed.

 

As I said above, once presented with a little work, a little bit of hard facts -- it is amazing how quickly the recoil happens.

 

And I'm sorry, but if you are really going to claim you can't do the math, then you need to also drop using words like "extremely powerful"... because without mathematical estimate of how powerful they are, those words are meaningless. Extremely powerful is only a term that has meaning in a context.

 

For example, Gravity is an extremely powerful force on the scale of the solar system. Gravity is an exceptionally weak force on the scale of atoms. Note both of those statements contain a context, and an implied mathematical comparison with the other fundamental forces. I don't just write "gravity is extremely powerful", because there is no context.

 

If you can't or won't do the math, then you just need to admit all you've got it story telling and not science. Not a theory, not an explanation, but you have a story. That story may eventually bear out to be true, but without science to demonstrate it, it is just a story. Science today has a fair amount of evidence that is isn't the EM force that governs the movement of galaxies, etc. Our models using gravity seem to be pretty accurate. If you don't have a model that can make predictions using the EM force that is at least as good as our current models, then what you are doing just isn't scientifically interesting.

 

If you really believe in your model, then you need to take some time and learn some mathematics and actually get your idea to a point where it will be scientifically interesting. I do wish you the best of luck doing this. I do also wish that my generality above is wrong, and that you will demonstrate that you are willing to do the work for your idea.