Strange Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 So rather than saying that your idea replaces expansion, it now just creates small anomalies. Is that right? And nothing to do with dark energy? (It still isn't clear whether you know what dark energy is or not.) It seems unlikely it could ever be tested. For one thing, black holes are tiny and form a minute amount of the mass of galaxies, so their effect will be tiny. And at the distances where we observe significant red-shift we are unlikely to be able to observe any black holes.
Mordred Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 Its clear your just imagining impossible scenarios without understanding the distribution of the cosmological constant. In every region of space it has an average energy density of 10-29 grams/metre. It cannot be undetected blackholes. You would not get a homogeneous and isotropic expansion.
Klaynos Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 Unfortunately the difference would likely be so small errors in calculation would likely conclude dismissal of any such anomaly. And that's pretty much why this is all meaningless without the maths to show how large any anomalies would be.
shmengie Posted March 30, 2016 Author Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) I'm saying I haven't run the numbers. I never said I cannot. But have eluded to the fact merely because I haven't. I have trust in science that when someone does, others will verify and rely on peer review for validation and verification. I don't have immediate access to the numbers, so instead of charging myself with completing the task, I haven't bothered to do so. It's not entirely necessary that one repeats an exercise that others do, to grasp concepts therein. Tho it often helps to achieve the desired result. Its clear your just imagining impossible scenarios without understanding the distribution of the cosmological constant.In every region of space it has an average energy density of 10-29 grams/metre.It cannot be undetected blackholes.You would not get a homogeneous and isotropic expansion. I don't know any specifics of DE, I've never bothered to study it from that angle. Probably never will, changing everything while changing nothing seems a pointless exercise, I only dabble in it a little. I have been a little preoccupied with it lately... I think I've breached MY impasse.I only wanted to know what caused DE, seems pop-sci has an effect. Once I concluded its nature, I felt a little lonely believing I was the only one who knew. I've tried to share my work, so that you or any others might appreciate it for what its worth. But there's a strange belief here that SEEMS to go against one of my core philosophies. Question everything until a viable solution can be presented. I did that, but I had an apoplexy in that I couldn't prove one way or another that I was right.I've finally concluded that evidence of my resolute beliefs will likely be present in analysis of data as I have stated. It seems remote but I think it's likely it will be evidenced only on two different sides of a gravity way caused by black hole formation. Even tho it has happened in recent past the Dark Energy postulation and analysis hadn't happened at that point in time and I believe that time to collect such data has past w/out even gathering such data in time to make validate such prediction.It will happen again. Tho not likely in my lifetime. Because this may occur w/out need for proof of my thesis or consequently irregardless of it, I don't have to prove anything. Simply let nature do what it does, evolve.I stated I cannot run the numbers to prove my thesis. It is true. Not because cannot perform the exercise, but I have no clue how to gather correct and finite numbers which other than what would only represent guess by approximation, my proof would only result in the same Cosmological constant or some approximation thereof which proves nothing toward concluding a change in beliefs.Once I realized that I could predict a change might prove evident, I know what will provide conclusive proof... My main issue of changing others belief is a non issue... Or changing everything has little consequence on the nothing of DE. For a while I thought there wouldn't ever be evidence. I surely don't know black hole formation will provide any evidence either way.... But I have a reason to be confident it will.It's given me something else to work on, but I don't think that's going to be a problem. I want rid GR of an infinity now. I don't know how to do it yet, nor if its possible. Neither are pertinent to search, its just something else to do, while I wait for evidence that may/may not ever exist.I've formulated my predictions as best I can. Right or Wrong aren't so important anymore, I have something else to concern myself with.... All of which only matters to me.Been curious what the inside of a black hole looks like for a long time. Now I have a new goal and a reason to dismiss pertinence of the old. I'll simply move on... Just like the evolution of knowledge (changes everything and in the end... nothing) I too, will do the same (at my own pace tho, not that anyone can argue with evolution LOL).Phi you can lock this thread (again) if you wish, anytime you deem prudent or not... I'm content at the moment, tho if I think of another prediction... I might request it be unlocked again. Hopefully I'll get published. Kinda doubtful. Others seem to require finite calculations performed, as evidence, a little more than I. Wish I could conceive a calculation that would be proof. I feel a need to understand what a black hole/singularity might look like and how it relates to Schwarzschild radius. It's all theoretically possible, in theory at least. Ado! Philosophy mode ON: I think in logical terms a lot. It's a consequence of my chosen profession or my profession was chosen because if it. I don't know which... When I challenged one precept of BB, an apoplexy ensued. A lot of Lambda-CDM principles depend on a large number of precepts which have evolved into a varying yet remain a large number of precept requirements to hold true. However it is also true that it evolves (according to scientific principle) with the observations that are used to solidify and support choice of precept and solidifying or nullifying them as additional evidence may afford. I chose to examine what's been termed a pillar. I have the right, by way of it being a personal choice to choose to do so, should I wish. I change nothing, unless I can prove it to be a correct choice (to thy self) and justify such choice if needed and necessary. Choosing a pillar such as cosmic redshift, might seem a wrong choice to some, doesn't matter it was a personal choice and I stuck with it. Tried many times to determine if it was plausible to falsify the accepted belief redshift means the universe is expanding. Gave me a reason to think about something that differs from the accepted consensus while learning what all it does mean while doing so. Reason to study... If everything about Lambda-CDM is correct, why bother learning it in the first place. Nothing changes. But stating nothing changes, prevents the concept of progress to happen in the first place. Everything changes, even when we don't want change, often we can't prevent it from happening. Entropy and evolution seen to go hand in hand, so to speak, what one wants often has little effect, but when what one wants coincides with what is possible, choices can be made to change direction of some entropy and/or evolution. Finding the differences.... amount to personal choices. I've come to believe cosmic redshift means the Universe looks like its stretching. By only rephrasing the question to have basically the same meaning I can justify my conclusion and not change Lambda-CDM as a whole. Effectively I haven't changed the pillar I've challenged, but found a reason to be able to accept it. I didn't want to break the camel. But the gravity of the situation evolved into me believing I had to. I've skirted this issue by coming to terms with what that all means. Lambda-CDM will evolve, regardless of what I might think is right or wrong. Its still held to scientific standards of matching evidence to theory as best we can. When new evidence becomes available Lambda-CDM has and will adjust only whats needed to make sense of any discrepancies the new evidence might require. Strange was right when he said it didn't matter what I want, the Universe doesn't really care. I agree. Neither does Lambda-CDM but that's the same story depending on your views of what it all means. Lambda-CDM is a curiosity to me. Precept is its basis for its existence and it uses them, in truth to the fullest extent necessary to be what it has become. It doesn't change the nature of the precept, it happens to be a consequence of that device. When one chooses to argue with Lambda-CDM and acceptance, one chooses a difficult argument to justify, with a whole lot of precepts that only to serve to add more complexity to any and every possibility of a possible decisive conclusion. Is there a running count of indefinable precepts in Lambda-CDM. (Question posed in form of statement (ends in a period) to exclaim it rhetorical nature. Philosophy mode off Prediction mode on I mentioned Evolution. I'd like to see change in BB and SS. I think it would be prudent to have a nice well defined shiny new theory to calm disputes between SS & BB and and clarify similarities between the two and leave room for less precept and more decisive distinction between what is science in Lambda-CDM and BB. As best I can fathom. Any and all precepts that lie before CBMR lie in the realm of forever/never being able to verify or witness and verify. Seems Lambda-CDM and CMBR when combined are the theoretical limit of sight by way of definitions established and predicted a line is drawn between what can be witnessed and verified and what cannot. I'd like to predict my postulation will produce such a theory, but I find it highly unlikely because what I want and think are very dependent on agreement of others and I don't have the will necessary to make such arguments plausible. Instead, I'm going to stick to the other thesis. For a while longer yet, anyway. Seems I've not finished formulating my prediction. There are many, many, many different aspects one must consider to clearly define a valid future prediction w/out knowing all evidence that is available to qualify it as such. Edited March 30, 2016 by shmengie
Mordred Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) You do realize you need a mathematical model to be able to make predictions. After all how can you predict the proper distance to a galaxy today without mathematics? This is the real reason math is needed for a model to work. It must be able to predict the effects of an influence and match measurements. If a model can't do that it's worthless. Edited March 30, 2016 by Mordred
Strange Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 When I challenged one precept of BB, an apoplexy ensued. Just to be clear (again) that is NOT because you challenged the currently accepted model. Many scientists do that, as they should. Models exist to be challenged and tested. If there was any strongly worded disagreement it is because your "challenge" consists of your dislike for the theory and nothing else. You think you have some alternative explanation for [some of] the red shift but you are unable to quantify it and demonstrate that it is plausible. You have no explanation for any of the other evidence behind the current model.
shmengie Posted March 31, 2016 Author Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) I know how to locate a mathematical model that would serve to be used as evidence of proof, except that in order to use it, as such I would have to do 2 things I cannot. I've mentioned: determine values that would have to be approximated, through the fact there is no one valid measure for the amounts of mass nor specific size of the Universe. I cannot change that and it would be necessary to have reliable values or approximations for both to trust the end result. would also have to argue there is a flaw in the Lambda-CDM and methodology in the fashion a mathematical construct was created and is used to derive its meaning in opposition to the use of the whole idea that the universe is expanding. There are many reasons to use other peoples work, even if they are used in a different fashion that originally intended. The consequences of my methodology in deriving my thesis in the fashion I had, was not apparently abundantly obvious when I first ventured down that path. I didn't think I'd formulate a solution, even tho I had fun trying. But once I conceived a plausible scenario which seems to have not been previously explored I though I made a discovery. I already knew I questioned a pillar. Its one thing to question a silly question. But the magnitude of such choice isn't readily apparent until a conclusion is drawn in opposition to and directly correlates to the silliness of choice of question in such fashion and magnitude of the question in the first place. It presented quite a dilemma for me. In philosophically, justification and hope of proof. Now I've been considering running the math backward in effort to find some use in what otherwise seems a useless conclusion. Seems that challenging the pillar, I need new evidence that's not presently available. I've tried to devise a method to determine it with existing evidence, but it looks like I have to wait for natures course to run it's predetermined evolutionary path. My prediction's validity currently seems to rely on the fact that the gravity wave will change a measurable change in cosmological shift. A formula may be constructed to determine magnitude of change based on the size of a resulting singularity after collapse. A correlation I've only now deduced might be possible. But it depends on so many unknowns I'd have to resolve to potential possibilities and constructing new equations to show this artifact I don't even know exists in the first place... I haven't started but it seems like I've found a focal point to begin a new area of investigation. The point of which, would be negated if I couldn't believe my thesis is true. I've justified that belief in myself. When going against the accepted principles, w/out agreement, one does what one must to afford justification. A Trivial point; Did you know: BB began at a point of singularity because GR hit infinity at point of singularity. A conundrum I've not resolved, because GR may only reach an infinity at such point because of a limitation of using Imaginary numbers and resolving + and - state infinity is the conclusion, not necessarily the correct answer. Black holes, according to observation are not a point of finite singularity size because we cannot see them, or that's the way the math works. They vary in mass even tho they're still called singularities in some cases. But infinity is apparently the wrong answer. HOWEVER, BB and Lambda-CDM both start there because of this error in tool of choice. It all seems so highly ironic to me, go figure! I could be wrong, but sometimes I choose to think I'm not. At present, according to accepted beliefs, a singularity does not resolve to an exact size but the beginning is based on a an accepted yet unreasonably exact error of the singularity belief that continues to evolve beyond that point... I believe in Lambda-CDM because it's based on science. But the science is based on an exacting point of indefinable error. I'm beginning to believe philosophy and science don't get along all that well. But philosophy is a science and should it choose to divorce itself would loose any respect, it might hope to gain, in making such choice. I hope you get my POINT. I can pose a question I've not investigated about GR and it has some relation to my paper and my philosophy and reasons I don't look for another's conclusion. During my course of education I struck myself with a curious realization. I don't believe Professor Einstein ever stated that space-time has the distinction of space having any properties of a fabric like quality. Space expanding suggests frequency of light is affected a fabric like property of space that I don't believe GR intended to imply by using the term space-time it has the connotation that it does imply it might. The rules of GR suggest the space term is to be used space-time space is used to indicate coordinate relation to gravity, not fabric. I don't know if what I'm hinting at makes any sense or if I'm trying to change meanings of what I've almost come to grips with understanding. GR tied the field of gravity to the term of space-time with and without specifically requiring a fabric quality. My confusion stems from deciding at one point during my investigations it might make a difference. I understand that may sound confusing or that it is confusing because I don't know how to make it sound right. In GR the field of gravity in essence is what ties space and time together to make space-time The fact that it has fabric like properties in relation to its effect on light is why the predictions of gravity and redshift make sense according to the theory. If Dark Energy is a new/undetermined reason for space to have a fabric like quality w/out rules of GR, I understand why ppl have tried to divorce doppler effect from cosmological redshift, but where does the fabric like quality come from. One paper so far tries to tie gravity shift to it, but I've not fully investigated the meaning intended from what it states and the question I pose. In other words I'm posing a question w/out re-reading the paper; again and again.... Just to see if I'm on the right/wrong track. don't want to re-open a can of worms. Edited March 31, 2016 by shmengie
Mordred Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 I've always hated the term "fabric of spacetime". Space is simply volume. Time is in spacetime is a coordinate. Which is relative. Gravity cannot affect an empty volume, it must influence particles or objects. Now GR uses geometry, manifolds etc, which amounts to the distribution of influence upon the standard model particles. There is no fabric like substance or unique particles involved. Mass can only influence other particles not an empty volume.
shmengie Posted March 31, 2016 Author Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) RE: worm statement Or to come right out and state it. My thesis does match geodesic equations w/out changing what's excepted and does match the paper. There's only one difference how you view the meaning of cosmological redshift and how YOU read the paper. Because the only difference you make in the distinction is has a lot to do with the idea the universe is expanding verses the fact that the universe does not have to expand IF space-time is stretching toward regions of mass contraction. Everyone concludes because: it looks like space is expanding because of cosmological redshift universal size change is not required it appears as if it looks like space is stretching because of cosmological redshift is gravity field changes by means of mass contraction. stretch and expand are basically the same. one suggests and expansion. My conclusion is that it looks like space-time is stretching, the cause of stretch is mass contracting toward focus of contraction. A black hole is the end result and cause of redshift. w/out expansion being necessary. Argh, I'm entering my loop of describing what seems like clear logic (to me). There is no fabric like substance or unique particles involved. Mass can only influence other particles not an empty volume. I'm not saying gravity is a fabric. I was relating the force of the field of gravity to having fabric like qualities. The field of gravity is what presents space-time time coordinates fabric like qualities. I'm trying to say I agree w/what u said. Edited March 31, 2016 by shmengie
Mordred Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 Yes but if I recall your trying to compensate cosmological redshift with gravitational redshift. However the distribution of matter isn't compatible. I posted the geodesic equations earlier this thread, to show that not just wavelength is influenced but also light paths are influenced. The currently known distribution of matter and radiation allows the worldlines and light paths to be parallel. Your conjecture runs the risk of imbalancing the flat geometry. Current cosmological redshift works with and in tandem with this distribution. Simply by increase in distance of the light path over time. The thing is gravity is an attractive influence it never repels Not that you've suggested such. We've also confirmed expansion by parralax measurements. Which has absolutely nothing to do with redshift. Even without redshift the cosmological constant is needed. This is the part your ignoring. The other part is the rate of expansion with the cosmological constant also matches the rate of temperature change. Again you've chosen to ignore that aspect. It's not blind faith in LCDM I state these details. Its 30 years of personal study in Cosmology. (I started studying cosmology before LCDM became the concordance model)
shmengie Posted March 31, 2016 Author Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) There in lies my problem with changing nothing and everything. The pillar I chose to fight was redshift and its hubble like meaning. I concluded by way of reason that contracting mass by the way bodies forming from a universal homogeneous cloud of gas reorganizes the field of gravity in such a way that the effects of the field of gravity are lessened everywhere void of mass that has contracted. It's a logical conclusion which requires a lot of numbers in geodesic equations to make sense. But depending on how you phrase one question which happens to be a pillar of some sort. Two meanings can be suggested two have different consequences and mean the same thing. Except one may imply explaining a curious hole and the implies explaining a curious edge to things. Neither requires totally exclusivity of the other, unfortunately or not. BB requires an unobservant and required expansion. A change in expansion rate is not required but likely expected. It wasn't likely to be in the same direction because of the force of gravity. Infact Lambda-CDM had to change course when cosmological redshift implied the opposite. But that's how things evolve. I'm saying cosmological redshift does not HAVE to me it's still going in the same direction if one only realizes its the appearance of stretch is probably caused by a hole (or a lot of 'em really). The fact that the cosmological constant isn't actually a constant might be due to the rate of change or more likely the increase in number of holes. The rate of hole formation is not likely ever to be determined. But when the first were, might resemble some new distant past / pending future observation. I know I'm pushing philosophical boundaries. Not necessarily my intention at all. But there's a lot we don't know about black holes. Partly because we can't physically see them. The infinity I mentioned earlier is another piece. I want to know what a black hole looks like on the other side of the infinity issue. I suspect the formation of black holes might be why there's a stretching appearance to the expanse of space. I've concluded I can only predict what my postulation implies. If I'm right!!!!!!!!!!! It may be only detection of the wave from a hole collapse that will be proof. I don't know if IAMRIGHT the amount would make a significant enough change to detect. For if IAMRIGHT there are a lot of holes that all make only a very tiny change.... No mater if it matters or not. It might require a much higher precision in determination of cosmological shift before it would ever likely be discernible at all. Which leads back to me questioning my self all over again. As it stands I'm already pushing it w/myself in choosing to believe different than that of the general accepted consensus. Edited March 31, 2016 by shmengie
Mordred Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) Believe me I truly wish the Cosmological constant wasn't as constant as measurements show. My thermodynamic model would work then..... However both thermodynamic and observational evidence counters a varying cosmological constant I've studied roughly 30+ different universe/blackhole models most died when WMAP published its data. None are seriously considered today. This includes Poplowskiis "spin and Torsion model" Edited March 31, 2016 by Mordred
shmengie Posted March 31, 2016 Author Posted March 31, 2016 But there's still a lot about dark holes we don't know. If formation of holes provides evidence I'm right. Great!!!! Hope the evidence prevails while I'm alive. I've made a decision that is only important to me. I'll probably finish my paper, if I'm permitted time. Its acceptable to me that I may be wrong. I'm tired of arguing with the accepted "right" choice. Since in the end I do change nothing even if I must change everything...
Mordred Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) No blackhole model supports a homogeneous and isotropic expansion. A blackhole by its very influence causes a preferred location and direction. You really need to understand what kind of dynamics can result in a homogeneous and isotropic expansion. Think of pressure surrounding three galaxies. Surrounding all three galaxies on ever direction the pressure is identical. As there is no difference in pressure, no galaxy gains no momentum. None of the galaxies gain inertia. The only influence that can change is the volume or distance between the galaxies. Take any three or more measurement points. The angles do not change only the distance. If you have a preferred direction the angles change Edited March 31, 2016 by Mordred
shmengie Posted March 31, 2016 Author Posted March 31, 2016 Since I have decided to "know" I'm right... I've decided future work (if anyone but me would call it that) will focus on the dark holes. I really want to know why GR breaks at one single point when I think it shouldn't because of observational evidence. I don't think I can invent a new math, but if I can debug an old one, its a whole hole lot more changing of nothing with an everything implications.
Mordred Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 Since I have decided to "know" I'm right... I've decided future work (if anyone but me would call it that) will focus on the dark holes. I really want to know why GR breaks at one single point when I think it shouldn't because of observational evidence. I don't think I can invent a new math, but if I can debug an old one, its a whole hole lot more changing of nothing with an everything implications. That's a typical crackpot expression. Sorry to say.
shmengie Posted March 31, 2016 Author Posted March 31, 2016 While one might argue I don't know what you're saying. I believe I understand exactly. I think my questioning a question had an unexpected result (or several). Since nobody seems to believe matter contraction matters because all mass still has essentially the same amount of gravity, regardless of organization. I'm implying I'm right while suggesting I understand could be wrong for a reason. Because it looks like space is expanding and everyone agrees. But if it looks like it's stretching and nobody agrees its the same (except me, myself and I).... If hole formation causes SN event. What's happening at the time of formation that might be different that what we "think" we know. Too many unknowns to rule out the holes... If the infinity is preventing conceptual visualization, I'm going to find a way around that issue. I want to have my uneducated guess more educated. I see a simple solution tho I've not investigated how wrong this statement most definitely is.
Mordred Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 I decided I'm right, and thousands of professional experts are wrong. However I can't show I'm right because I can't do the math or even prove I understand the current model. How typical Do you honestly believe scientists can't measure matter contraction? It does cause temperature variation
shmengie Posted March 31, 2016 Author Posted March 31, 2016 That's a typical crackpot expression. Sorry to say. it's all good. I've never argued me being a crackpot is a poor assessment. I've found it useful to contemplate the idea, myself. Tho I also find it convenient to think I believe differently that the general consensus on other topics as well....
Mordred Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) A higher density means a higher temperature You contract matter enough due to gravity to compensate for the cosmological constant. Every planet would reach nuclear fusion You have no idea how many times in 30 years I've heard this matter contraction idea. In 30 years I've never seen the idea work with proper mathematics. Or understanding of thermodynamic principles. Even from professional PH.D cosmologists Edited March 31, 2016 by Mordred
shmengie Posted March 31, 2016 Author Posted March 31, 2016 I decided I'm right, and thousands of professional experts are wrong. However I can't show I'm right because I can't do the math or even prove I understand the current model. Well... I'm trying not to argue. I'm content w/my decision. Seems you have issues with that. My flawed belief has no effect on you, nor what you believe, so I don't quite understand. I have a reasonable understand of the models. I see one flaw. I can't prove it. I've dealt my issues with it. I can do the math, I can't see how proving cosmic shift changes anything except a consensus that obviously likes thinking different. When I ended up the only change needed was to rephrase one question w/out changing its underlying meaning, I determined everything and nothing were close enough the the same. Depending on small psychological distinction that really only matters to me. A higher density means a higher temperature You contract matter enough due to gravity to compensate for the cosmological constant. Every planet would reach nuclear fusion You have no idea how many times in 30 years I've heard this matter contraction idea. In 30 years I've never seen the idea work with proper mathematics. Or understanding of thermodynamic principles. Even from professional PH.D cosmologists That's assuming the same the same density of mass is equal everywhere we can see. What we do not know the exact solution according to GR / Infinite ignorance, is what space-time looks like on the other side of infinity. I get my thesis could be wrong. But it's revealed an accepted ignorant infinity which could be so the cause of confusion. Until this ignorance is resolved, I cannot argue any other point. I find it ironic that anyone would argue against the idea in the first place, esp. since the beginning of the conclusion of expansion started from exactly the point of singularity and ignorance of infinity being exactly the wrong answer. I guess I dug at the point of singularity too much and hit your nerve. But it seems like I have a new investigation to begin, because its not just my ignorance that does bother me, but there's a specific ignorance that needs to be clarified regardless of what I believe. Guess you didn't get my point. The crackpot refusing to start on a point of error must not always necessarily be cracked.
Mordred Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) I have issues whenever anyone says he solves a problem that perplexed every expert in any field. Without being to show any understanding of the math behind the model. Call me wrong but I'm not a professional cosmologist. However I studied the math enough to gain a bachelors degree My stock and trade is electronic plant automation. Yet I have 4 degrees in different fields my masters is in electronics. Cosmology and particle physics is a hobby not a living for me Though I studied enough material over 30 years in Cosmology that I helped proof read 4 different dissertations of professional cosmologists. I still have a copy of their dissertations. You claimed that you can't get the data for your conjecture. The data is readily available via arxiv. Thousands of professional scientists have tried countering the cosmological constant. You want a hint, model the cosmological constant as a scalar field to gather its equation of state. Google(equations of state Cosmology) Let's put it this way, if someone says he can perform brain surgery, but doesn't know human anatomy. Would you let him operate on you ? Edited March 31, 2016 by Mordred
Strange Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 Did you know: BB began at a point of singularity because GR hit infinity at point of singularity. A conundrum I've not resolved, because GR may only reach an infinity at such point because of a limitation of using Imaginary numbers and resolving + and - state infinity is the conclusion, not necessarily the correct answer. It doesn't start at a singularity because everyone acknowledges that our theories do not apply before you get to that point. The model starts with a hot dense state NOT a singularity.
Strange Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 Well... I'm trying not to argue. I'm content w/my decision. Seems you have issues with that. My flawed belief has no effect on you, nor what you believe, so I don't quite understand. We are trying to help you.
Recommended Posts