Cosmological Model of The Universe

[quantum_wave]

It has been interesting communicating with you and getting down to what your model really is about . I think the next step is for me to post what I have learned from our PMs to test my understanding. I have left out any axiomatic statements you might or might not want to include. You can address, confirm or correct my understanding of your model.

Here is what I have taken away from our off line discussion:

1) You have multiple big bangs fueled by the energy of space but your model proposes that the occurrences of those big bangs are spaced far enough apart to allow all of them to be separate systems in themselves; bang, collapse, bang, collapse without out losing any energy, and without any physical or inertial connection between them, i.e. each is a closed system.

2) You have the black holes at the center of galaxies growing by capturing the galactic stars and energy. In addition you have some black holes no longer gravity bound to galaxies, roaming free. Of course they will become bound again as the merging proceeds.

3) You have those enlarged black holes increasing their spin as they grow.

4) You have those same black holes attracted to each other to form one huge spinning black hole; overcoming expansion momentum through angular momentum, which itself does not have to be conserved under the developing conditions of black holes free of their galactic constituents.

5) You have that huge merged black hole spinning faster and faster approaching the speed of light and beyond on the basis that “normal” space limits mass to less than the speed of light but space becomes compromised or broken at the “singularity”.

6) You have that spinning black hole capturing every last photon that has ever been emitted from the arena along with any energy contained in the space that collapses into the BH. This final clean up is accomplished when space 'snaps back' and carries the lighter elements and CMBR with it. Heavier elements are not completely dragged back so you think we will find that the core of our universe now has a plethora of black holes, some really, really massive ones, perhaps trillions, or quadrillions of solar masses.

7) You have that spinning black hole then throwing off plasma and gas to feed the birth of the next cycle.

8) As a result of that superluminal spinning you have that black hole substantially disbursed but leaving some remnants that would be currently undetectable, but you believe this will change shortly to reveal many 'remnants'.

9) You speculate that the final BH (that will be the accumulated sum of all matter and energy in the closed system that is our arena) will spin so fast that it will throw off the hot plasma and gases that will then reconstruct our expanding universe which would then over time again succumb to the collapse and merger, cyclically, time and time again.


10) You proclaim that it is a cosmology that differs from all other cyclical cosmologies in that all mechanisms are supported by known physics, Newtonian gravity, GR, and QM. Further, you explain that GR does not place an upper limit on BH mass. QM does not allow infinitely small, so the BH will have a physical 3-D structure at the scales involved.

Waa la, a cyclical cosmology (with a few problems I and others may point out ).

To my knowledge that is it. You don’t have reams of written pages supporting or justifying your theory but you base it on years of study and feel good that none of those to whom you have distributed it to (in its former version) have falsified it.

 

[pywakit]

It has been interesting communicating with you and getting down to what your model really is about . I think the next step is for me to post what I have learned from our PMs to test my understanding. I have left out any axiomatic statements you might or might not want to include. You can address, confirm or correct my understanding of your model.

Nice job. Just a couple errors, and omissions.

1) You have multiple big bangs fueled by the energy of space but your model proposes that the occurrences of those big bangs are spaced far enough apart to allow all of them to be separate systems in themselves; bang, collapse, bang, collapse without out losing any energy, and without any physical or inertial connection between them, i.e. each is a closed system.

Yes. And I base this on the very low energy density of space. I do not use hypothetical alternate dimensions ( or any metaphysical incarnation ) as a source for the energy, so it would take a great deal of space to equal the energy content of a universe like ours. I think we will find that in a sense, the macro universe operates much as the micro universe. Quantum fluctuations on an infinite scale. Each universe is comparable to a materializing particle. Flashing into existence, it is annihilated instantly by the anti-particle.

To an infinite-in-volume, and eternal-in-age universe, our BB universe would seem little more than a quick, and faint flash.

Furthermore, By virtue of GR, and all known observations going back over 13 billion light years, I feel we now have adequate evidence ( notwithstanding chaos theory ) that space is indeed uniform, and we can safely assume ( as a reasonable working model ) that the same laws of physics, chemistry, EM ... and GR ... will apply at any location throughout the infinite universe.

Because of this we can also assume that all universes will have formed originally in exactly the same manner ... energy robbed from the fabric of space. And once established they will repeat forever.

We can be assured that they all operate under the same laws, and are all closed systems by our measurements of CMBR. There is no evidence of CMBR coming from outside our expanding bubble of matter/energy.

2) You have the black holes at the center of galaxies growing by capturing the galactic stars and energy. In addition you have some black holes no longer gravity bound to galaxies, roaming free. Of course they will become bound again as the merging proceeds.

Yes.

3) You have those enlarged black holes increasing their spin as they grow.

Yes. Recent observational evidence from Chandra suggests supermassive black holes ( 9 ) all apparently spinning at close to c. If this is accurate, then we already have black holes with a spin far beyond the previously accepted theoretical limit of 1,150 spins per second.

4) You have those same black holes attracted to each other to form one huge spinning black hole; overcoming expansion momentum through angular momentum, which itself does not have to be conserved under the developing conditions of black holes free of their galactic constituents.

Angular momentum, AND Newtonian gravity. The black holes will alter trajectory eventually to move toward the strongest gravitational field.

5) You have that huge merged black hole spinning faster and faster approaching the speed of light and beyond on the basis that “normal” space limits mass to less than the speed of light but space becomes compromised or broken at the “singularity”.

Possibly faster than c. It may be limited. However, either way, the model will function.

6) You have that spinning black hole capturing every last photon that has ever been emitted from the arena along with any energy contained in the space that collapses into the BH. This final clean up is accomplished when space 'snaps back' and carries the lighter elements and CMBR with it. Heavier elements are not completely dragged back so you think we will find that the core of our universe now has a plethora of black holes, some really, really massive ones, perhaps trillions, or quadrillions of solar masses.

No. The final 'clean-up' is accomplished when the gravitational waves of the last remaining black hole ... containing all the mass/energy of 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 sols ( 200 billion galaxies times 200 billion stars ... and this is a conservative estimate ), all dark matter, all dark energy ( if it exists ) ... causes all space containing gravitons ( any remaining mass/energy ) to collapse into the black hole.

7) You have that spinning black hole then throwing off plasma and gas to feed the birth of the next cycle.

Not yet.

8) As a result of that superluminal spinning you have that black hole substantially disbursed but leaving some remnants that would be currently undetectable, but you believe this will change shortly to reveal many 'remnants'.

Yes and no. Out of order.

9) You speculate that the final BH (that will be the accumulated sum of all matter and energy in the closed system that is our arena) will spin so fast that it will throw off the hot plasma and gases that will then reconstruct our expanding universe which would then over time again succumb to the collapse and merger, cyclically, time and time again.

Otherwise known as the BB. The final collapse of space will be the trigger. The added boost in spin to cause the black hole to fly apart. Angular momentum finally overcomes gravity.

Now we can incorporate #7, and #8. When the black hole releases it's stored energy, the lines of space 'snap back' to normal, at speeds exceeding c, in conformance with GR. When this happens, when space returns to near uniformity, it drags lighter elements with it. Heavier elements remain closer. Although currently obscured, new telescopes should be able to peer deeper into the earliest epoch of our universe, where I believe they will find a much denser region than expected.

10) You proclaim that it is a cosmology that differs from all other cyclical cosmologies in that all mechanisms are supported by known physics, Newtonian gravity, GR, and QM. Further, you explain that GR does not place an upper limit on BH mass. QM does not allow infinitely small, so the BH will have a physical 3-D structure at the scales involved.

Correct.

Waa la, a cyclical cosmology (with a few problems I and others may point out ).

Please do.

To my knowledge that is it. You don’t have reams of written pages supporting or justifying your theory but you base it on years of study and feel good that none of those to whom you have distributed it to (in its former version) have falsified it.

Not quite. The model is falsifiable on many fronts. I include this list of ways the model can either be unequivocally falsified, or at least, show strong evidence against it.


1. If it is in conflict with any known, accepted law(s) of physics.

2. If it is in conflict with quantum mechanics.

3. If it is in conflict with GR.

4. If it is in conflict any experimental evidence.

5. If it is in conflict with any observation to date.

6. If it is determined that SST is correct, and we make observations, or invent experiments showing our universe draws it's energy from alternate dimensions/membranes.

7. If we determine that space never existed before our BB.

8. If we determine that space itself actually expands.

9. If we determine that black holes bounce off each other ( as opposed to actually merging ).

10. If we determine that black holes shunt matter/energy somewhere outside our 3d universe, or for that matter, somewhere else within our 3d universe.

11. If we determine that black holes actually do evaporate in the manner(s) described ( IE; ever increasing release of energy as mass decreases ).

12. If we determine that black holes are infinitely dense.

13. If we determine that a singularity ( zero dimensions ) actually exists ( as opposed to a physical, 3d structure ).

14. If we determine that black holes stop growing at some arbitrary mass ( IE; like 50B sols ).

15. If we determine that observed non-feeding black holes never feed again.

16. If we determine that black holes do not gravitate toward ( IE; altering their original inertial path ... which could be determined by tracing it back to it's starting point ) other strong gravitational sources ( IE; other galaxies/black holes ).

17. If we determine that black hole rotational velocity is actually limited to the arbitrary 'theoretical' limit of 1,150 spins per second.

18. If we observe a black hole blowing up.

19. If it is determined that the curvature of space is not flat ( currently 2% margin of error ).

20. If it is determined that space ( the actual, total universe ) is finite.

21. If it is determined that there is extreme red shifted CMBR co-existing with that already observed.

22. If any other model is proved to be ( more ) correct.

All ( or most ) of these falsification tests can either be done right now, or will be determined ( in all likelihood ) in the near future.

Thank you very much q. Sure you don't want to re-write it for me? Lol.

 

[quantum_wave]

Problems we have discussed:

You speculate that the galaxies and galaxy groups have separation momentum instead of the accelerating separation being caused by the creation of new space. You have not described how the central black holes overcome their separation momentum to begin the attraction and merging process.

You have agreed with the speculation that all space contains energy and even go beyond that speculation to speculate that space is energy. You speculate that the energy density of that space is constant as opposed to continually fluctuating as a result of the affect that mass has on the energy density of space.

You speculate that there isn’t enough energy in space to cause big bangs to be open, i.e. you view each one as a closed system and yet you indicate that a distant flash would be all that we could detect. That flash defeats your model because it means that photons have left the distant system.

You speculate that as black holes merge their angular momentum may not be conserved. This exception to the law is what allows the growing merged BH to spin faster and faster as the mass increases. I speculate the opposite would occur, that as the mass of a merged BH increases its spin would not increase. If each BH has different spin, there is an average spin and due to conservation of angular momentum the net spin of the merged BHs will equate to the average spin of the individual BHs.

You speculate that jets emitted by black holes would be able to accelerate the spin. I don’t know but would like to review your evidence or thinking.

You speculate that the final BH (that will be the product of all matter and energy in the closed system that is our arena) will spin so fast that it will throw off the hot plasma and gases that will then begin to reconstruct our expanding universe, which would then again succumb to the collapse and merger, cyclically time and time again without explaining how that accelerating spin rate could occur and if it could how it could throw off matter and energy and not lose spin speed. That would leave a rather conspicuous BH remnant in the center of the new expanding arena wouldn’t it?

You question if dark energy exists but give no explanation for the kind of inflationary expansion and accelerating expansion that we observe.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

4. If it is in conflict any experimental evidence.

5. If it is in conflict with any observation to date.

The problem is you can't provide any predictions for any experiment with which to test your ideas/'model'. And details are essential.

Consider the precession of Mercury. Both Newtonian gravity and general relativity predict the orbit will precess and indeed it is seen to precess. So which is right? We can only decide by considering the quantitative predictions of each model. When you calculate the Newtonian orbit, including all perturbations from the non-spherical nature of the Sun and the interactions with other planets, you find that Newtonian gravity can accommodate only about 5550 arcseconds per century yet we see 5600. That's 5 parts per 555, less than 1 percent error. Qualitatively Newton is right, the orbit precesses. Quantitatively he is falsified. General relativity predicts the extra amount and is thus superior in its description of gravity.

Now I've asked you to provide your predictions for the precession of Mercury, because its a test which is already known to separate qualitatively equal but quantitatively different theories. If you can't give me a value for your model's prediction or provide me with the precise method by which I can calculate that value using your work you have no right to claim your model is in any way experimentally consistent. To be experimentally consistent you must provide predictions for experimentally measured quantities.

I can provide other examples within quantum mechanics and how quantum field theory predicts small changes to predictions of quantum mechanics, precisely that measured in experiments. Again, if you can't provide methods or values for such things you can't claim you're experimentally consistent.

Yes. Recent observational evidence from Chandra suggests supermassive black holes ( 9 ) all apparently spinning at close to c. If this is accurate, then we already have black holes with a spin far beyond the previously accepted theoretical limit of 1,150 spins per second.

Provide a reference for the claimed limit of 1,150 spins per second. I've familiarity with the models of spinning black holes and the limit of spin is determined by angular momentum - mass relations, which do not come out to be a constant.

Further more, you don't measure rotation rates in terms of linear velocity. It's like saying the mass of an object is 6 seconds or the speed of an object is a Joule. That's incorrect units.

 

[pywakit]

The problem is you can't provide any predictions for any experiment with which to test your ideas/'model'. And details are essential.

Consider the precession of Mercury. Both Newtonian gravity and general relativity predict the orbit will precess and indeed it is seen to precess. So which is right? We can only decide by considering the quantitative predictions of each model. When you calculate the Newtonian orbit, including all perturbations from the non-spherical nature of the Sun and the interactions with other planets, you find that Newtonian gravity can accommodate only about 5550 arcseconds per century yet we see 5600. That's 5 parts per 555, less than 1 percent error. Qualitatively Newton is right, the orbit precesses. Quantitatively he is falsified. General relativity predicts the extra amount and is thus superior in its description of gravity.

Now I've asked you to provide your predictions for the precession of Mercury, because its a test which is already known to separate qualitatively equal but quantitatively different theories. If you can't give me a value for your model's prediction or provide me with the precise method by which I can calculate that value using your work you have no right to claim your model is in any way experimentally consistent. To be experimentally consistent you must provide predictions for experimentally measured quantities.

I can provide other examples within quantum mechanics and how quantum field theory predicts small changes to predictions of quantum mechanics, precisely that measured in experiments. Again, if you can't provide methods or values for such things you can't claim you're experimentally consistent.

Provide a reference for the claimed limit of 1,150 spins per second. I've familiarity with the models of spinning black holes and the limit of spin is determined by angular momentum - mass relations, which do not come out to be a constant.

Further more, you don't measure rotation rates in terms of linear velocity. It's like saying the mass of an object is 6 seconds or the speed of an object is a Joule. That's incorrect units.

Alpha ...

Until you answer direct, reasonable questions, I will not respond to these, or any other 'concerns' or 'arguments' you may have against my model.

 

[pywakit]

Problems we have discussed:

You speculate that the galaxies and galaxy groups have separation momentum instead of the accelerating separation being caused by the creation of new space. You have not described how the central black holes overcome their separation momentum to begin the attraction and merging process.

You have agreed with the speculation that all space contains energy and even go beyond that speculation to speculate that space is energy. You speculate that the energy density of that space is constant as opposed to continually fluctuating as a result of the affect that mass has on the energy density of space.

You speculate that there isn’t enough energy in space to cause big bangs to be open, i.e. you view each one as a closed system and yet you indicate that a distant flash would be all that we could detect. That flash defeats your model because it means that photons have left the distant system.

You speculate that as black holes merge their angular momentum may not be conserved. This exception to the law is what allows the growing merged BH to spin faster and faster as the mass increases. I speculate the opposite would occur, that as the mass of a merged BH increases its spin would not increase. If each BH has different spin, there is an average spin and due to conservation of angular momentum the net spin of the merged BHs will equate to the average spin of the individual BHs.

You speculate that jets emitted by black holes would be able to accelerate the spin. I don’t know but would like to review your evidence or thinking.

You speculate that the final BH (that will be the product of all matter and energy in the closed system that is our arena) will spin so fast that it will throw off the hot plasma and gases that will then begin to reconstruct our expanding universe, which would then again succumb to the collapse and merger, cyclically time and time again without explaining how that accelerating spin rate could occur and if it could how it could throw off matter and energy and not lose spin speed. That would leave a rather conspicuous BH remnant in the center of the new expanding arena wouldn’t it?

You question if dark energy exists but give no explanation for the kind of inflationary expansion and accelerating expansion that we observe.

Quantum, I will have to come back a little later and address your concerns. I can see there are a few areas you are not clear on. Once again, my bad for poor expression.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Until you answer direct, reasonable questions, I will not respond to these, or any other 'concerns' or 'arguments' you may have against my model.

And which questions are those?

And your unwillingness to answer my questions does not invalidate them. If you wish to be taken seriously by the scientific community you must be able to answer them. After all, if you can't get past me you're not going to get past the people who evaluate my work.

 

[pywakit]

Problems we have discussed:

You speculate that the galaxies and galaxy groups have separation momentum instead of the accelerating separation being caused by the creation of new space. You have not described how the central black holes overcome their separation momentum to begin the attraction and merging process.

Hey q! Can't deal with them all this sec. Too much going on at home. But I have a few minutes to spare.

This first problem: Actually, the theory that new space is being created is the 'speculation'. As is the speculation that new matter is constantly materializing. What we do know with certainty is that the distant galaxies are receding from us and from each other at rates proportional to time/distance, while their motion relative to CMBR is essentially the same as our galaxy's motion relative to CMBR.

The reality is that we all live in multiple black holes simultaneously. The gravitational waves propogating throughout our local universe ( at a velocity of c ) overlap. We are always going to be attracted toward the strongest of these waves. Just need to ( as I have said before ) 'get your thinking up' to the time and distance scales involved.

Angular momentum can overcome gravitational attraction in the short run, but not the long run. Anything in orbit around a black hole is going to fall in ... eventually ... unless temporarily disturbed/perturbed by other forces.

But it will fall in. At some point. If this were not the case, black holes would stop feeding forever, and anything left in orbit would stay in orbit forever. We know this is not the case from our observations.

You have agreed with the speculation that all space contains energy and even go beyond that speculation to speculate that space is energy. You speculate that the energy density of that space is constant as opposed to continually fluctuating as a result of the affect that mass has on the energy density of space.

Not at all. I did not say the energy is constant. It is, however, generally isotropic/homogeneous over large scales. Of course mass affects space ... in many ways. GR, and our observations are adequate proof of that fact. Space is Uniform, unless disturbed by mass/energy. Gravity bends space ... curves it.

Again, we observe certain phenomena ( recession ) and attribute this to a force we have ( aptly ) named Dark Energy. That assumption is pure speculation.

We have established that energy can not be created nor destroyed. Only converted. The energy contained within our expanding bubble we call the visible/local/finte universe had to come from somewhere. Space clearly has properties ( such as limiting photons to a velocity of c ). This would suggest an inherent force ( a police force, if you will ) operating throughout space. We can be relatively sure of this by the behavior of photons from the earliest and farthest reaches of space and time.

You speculate that there isn’t enough energy in space to cause big bangs to be open, i.e. you view each one as a closed system and yet you indicate that a distant flash would be all that we could detect. That flash defeats your model because it means that photons have left the distant system.

Actually, no. The visual was just that. A visual representation. Of course we would not actually see those flashes. No photons have left their closed system. It was just a demonstration of the vast distances between local/finite universes like ours. Since the energy density of space is so low, it would have required vast, vast areas of space to equal the amount of energy contained within our bubble. This assumes the energy did not come from 1. Nothing 2. Alternate dimensions ( 10^500 ) 3. God. 4. Turtles ... Lol.

Sorry you didn't get that. Thought I had already made it clear.

You speculate that as black holes merge their angular momentum may not be conserved. This exception to the law is what allows the growing merged BH to spin faster and faster as the mass increases. I speculate the opposite would occur, that as the mass of a merged BH increases its spin would not increase. If each BH has different spin, there is an average spin and due to conservation of angular momentum the net spin of the merged BHs will equate to the average spin of the individual BHs.

This speculation of yours would seem in direct conflict with the recent Chandra observations that ( 9 ) SMBHs have a rotational velocity near c.

If I am not mistaken, these 9 BHs ( or any other SMBHs or UMBHs ) are the believed to be the product of mergers. I will re-check this later.

This is an exciting time in our history. A tidal wave of new data is coming in that is already radically altering conventional wisdom.

You speculate that jets emitted by black holes would be able to accelerate the spin. I don’t know but would like to review your evidence or thinking.

This is not my speculation. This is from the researchers, using Chandra data. (edit: Not the researchers speculation, either. See following post.) Didn't I post the relevant info?

You speculate that the final BH (that will be the product of all matter and energy in the closed system that is our arena) will spin so fast that it will throw off the hot plasma and gases that will then begin to reconstruct our expanding universe, which would then again succumb to the collapse and merger, cyclically time and time again without explaining how that accelerating spin rate could occur and if it could how it could throw off matter and energy and not lose spin speed. That would leave a rather conspicuous BH remnant in the center of the new expanding arena wouldn’t it?

Well, it would be conspicuous if we could see what it looks like NOW as opposed to 13.7 billion years ago. Still, new ( better ) methods of discovery are going to show us ( very soon ) that the core of the local universe is much denser than originally thought. We already have new data that suggests this with the discovery of black holes much earlier in our history than we thought possible. Previous to this latest discovery, we were sure that black holes could NOT have formed this early, based on our obviously incorrect assumptions of the density of the local universe shortly after the BB.

(edit) Sorry. I was in a rush. Yes of course ... the end result of throwing of all that mass/energy would be a reduction of spin. Whatever remnant left was behind following the BB ... if any ... would have begun it's new life spinning at a slower velocity. If we accept the QM theorems, infinitely small/dense are not allowed in our universe. Therefore a black hole with the mass of 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 suns ... conservative estimate based on 200 billion galaxies times 200 billion stars each ... will have an enormous physical diameter, regardless of the manner/form in which the mass/energy is contained. A rotational velocity of c may be all it needs.

Einstein already showed that collapsing matter/stars will rotate. He used that argument to deny the existence of black holes, certain they would fly apart before collapsing totally. Accretion discs ... not to mention actual stars in close orbit ... appear to be orbiting at astonishing velocites. Can't think of her name off-hand, but that nice astrophysicist ( using the Keck Observatory, I believe ) proved stars close to our Milky Way's galactic core are orbiting at velocities far beyond anything we had ever believed possible.

You question if dark energy exists but give no explanation for the kind of inflationary expansion and accelerating expansion that we observe.

My omission. Sorry. I have already covered this in other posts. The explanation is ... Space is Uniform, unless disturbed by mass. Why is it uniform? Why does it have any properties at all? Because it is something. Not nothing. Mass/matter/energy ( in the form of radiation ) would have no effect on nothing. Yet we see evidence of the effect in every observation we make.

Space uses it's inherent energy to 'smooth out' any bumps. It is in a dynamic struggle with mass/gravity. Matter wants to clump. Space wants to be uniform. So space is going to try to pull every bit of matter as far apart as it can to 'straighten the lines out'.

Well, I have taken too long. Things to do. Back later.

To Alpha: Feigning ignorance is beneath you. And a waste of my time. It only makes you appear foolish. Anyone who reads the thread will have no problem finding the questions you refused to address ... and they will also find I have patiently answered yours.

Go back. Find them. Answer them. Then I will address your concerns. Until then, I have nothing more to say to you ... no matter what imperious claims/assertions you make.

Take care all.

 

[pywakit]

Here you go quantum. They are not suggesting that the jets 'drive' the spin. They are suggesting the jets are the 'result' of the spin.

More from Space.com:

Black holes spin near the speed of light

Nine huge galaxies were found to contain furiously whirling black holes


Supermassive black holes spin at speeds approaching the speed of light, new research suggests.

Nine huge galaxies were found to contain furiously whirling black holes that pump out energetic jets of gas into the surrounding environment, according to a study using data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory.

"We think these monster black holes are spinning close to the limit set by Einstein's theory of relativity, which means that they can drag material around them at close to the speed of light," said Rodrigo Nemmen, the study's lead author and a visiting graduate student at Penn State University.

Einstein's theory suggests spinning black holes would make space itself rotate. The overall effect makes gas spiral in toward the black hole, and also creates a magnetic field that shoots inflowing gas back out as a jet.

Researchers previously found that the greater the amount of gas falling into supermassive black holes — known as the accretion rate — the greater the energy of the jets shooting out. Leading theories suggest that the same jets drive the rotation of the central black holes in galaxies.

"By comparing observations of massive elliptical galaxies with current theories of jet formation, we are able to get the spin of supermassive black holes," Nemmen told SPACE.com, explaining how his group ran computer simulations and compared the results with Chandra's observations of the nine objects.

Black holes can't be seen, but their existence and mass are inferred by their gravitational effects on material around them and by the energy released from all the activity.

The observed jet power and accretion rates were huge — one black hole ate 10 Earth masses per month and, from its surroundings, spat out 50 times the annual energy of our sun per second. That allowed Nemmen and his colleagues to estimate that the spin of the black holes approaches Einstein's speed-of-light limit.

"Extremely fast spin might be very common for large black holes," said co-investigator Richard Bower of Durham University. "This might help us explain the source of these incredible jets that we see stretching for enormous distances across space."

The jets produced by such high-speed spins heat the surrounding gaseous atmosphere and can help trigger the birth of stars. However, such powerful jets could also destroy the atmospheres of neighboring planets.

The new research was detailed in a paper presented at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Austin, Texas, last week.

© 2010 Space.com. All rights reserved.

If black holes can drag space, and matter/energy along with it at speeds near c, then I do not think it unreasonable to hypothesize rotational velocities of the 'singularity' ( the actual 3d structure ) exceeding c. But as I have said before, I don't claim they actually do exceed c.

Matter/energy is obviously limited to c or minus c in 'normal' space. But it seems the more we observe black holes, the more evidence we have that they are not 'in' normal space.

 

[quantum_wave]

You speculate that the galaxies and galaxy groups have separation momentum instead of the accelerating separation being caused by the creation of new space. You have not described how the central black holes overcome their separation momentum to begin the attraction and merging process.

This first problem: Actually, the theory that new space is being created is the 'speculation'. As is the speculation that new matter is constantly materializing. What we do know with certainty is that the distant galaxies are receding from us and from each other at rates proprtional to time/distance, while their motion relative to CMBR is essentially the same as our galaxy's motion relative to CMBR.

The reality is that we all live in multiple black holes simultaneously. The gravitational waves propogating throughout our local universe ( at a velocity of c ) overlap. We are always going to be attracted toward the strongest of these waves. Just need to ( as I have said before ) 'get your thinking up' to the time and distance scales involved.

Angular momentum can overcome gravitational attraction in the short run, but not the long run. Anything in orbit around a black hole is going to fall in ... eventually ... unless temporarily disturbed/perturbed by other forces.

But it will fall in. At some point. If this were not the case, black holes would stop feeding forever, and anything left in orbit would stay in orbit forever. We know this is not the case from our observations.

Py, let's deal with this one first and see if we can get it out of the way. Let me state the issue as being about the relative separation of the galaxies (and galaxy groups). The further they are away from us the faster they are receding from us. And the acceleration that is observed seems to mean that the relative rate of recession from us is increasing.

Obviously we are not talking as if we are at the center of the arena; the effect would be observed from any location within the arena. Everything is moving away from everything else AS IF space was being added. The addition of space would nicely explain why this effect would be true at all points in the arena if it wasn't for the acceleration.

Expansion momentum that was a characteristic of the hot pre-matter plasma soup that existed at the earliest moment of expansion would be imparted to the matter as it formed during expansion of that plasma soup. I call it conservation of expansion momentum that existed from the start and existed right on through galactic formation. Expansion momentum was conserved as galaxies formed.

All I am saying is that the exact same galactic separation that we observe can be explained by space being added OR it can be explained by the conservation of expansion momentum. That is except for the acceleration that we observe.

When you acknowledge that the expansion is accelerating, you then have to contemplate the cause of that additional effect. In scenario one, the addition of space to the arena, you have no directly related cause that would make the addition of space speed up or increase in a way that would accelerate the expansion.

But if you go with scenario two, the explanation for the expansion momentum also answers the acceleration of expansion.

In scenario two you have expansion momentum and gravity right from the very start. They are opposing forces and at very close range back in the early moments after matter formation gravity was very strong relative to expansion momentum. This allowed for clumping that led to fundamental particle formation. As the energy density declined different particles and combinations were enabled leading the the particle mix of the epic that took place before star formation; an extremely heavy preponderance of hydrogen was formed from the plasm soup.

Even though gravity was much stronger in the tiny universe, expansion momentum was still dominant and because of the inverse square rule expansion momentum gained strength relative to the opposing force of gravity. Acceleration has been going on since matter first formed which is also the point in time when gravity was first emitted by that newly forming matter.
.

That same rule accounts for the acceleration of the rate of expansion even after the galaxies have formed and are receding from each other. The further the galaxies get away from each other the inverse square rules says that the effect of gravity will decline vs. the expansion momentum. Expansion momentum is not increasing but the gravitational attraction that has been opposing the expansion from the very start is diminishing. The separation is accelerating and will continue to accelerate as the gravitational effect approaches zero due to the inverse square rule.

So first let me ask if you agree or disagree on that much.

At this point do you agree or disagree with scenario two, the expansion momentum scenario (where expansion momentum is opposed by the decline in gravity due to the inverse square rule)? An agreement would mean that in our respective cosmologies space is not being added or created and the expansion is not attributed to the addition or creation of space.

 

[pywakit]

Py, let's deal with this one first and see if we can get it out of the way. Let me state the issue as being about the relative separation of the galaxies (and galaxy groups). The further they are away from us the faster they are receding from us. And the acceleration that is observed seems to mean that the relative rate of recession from us is increasing.

Obviously we are not talking as if we are at the center of the arena; the effect would be observed from any location within the arena. Everything is moving away from everything else AS IF space was being added. The addition of space would nicely explain why this effect would be true at all points in the arena if it wasn't for the acceleration.

Replace 'would' with 'could' and I would agree with this paragraph.

Expansion momentum that was a characteristice of the hot pre-matter plasma soup that existed at the earliest moment of expansion would be imparted to the matter as it formed during expansion of that plasma soup. I call it conservation of expansion momentum that existed from the start and existed right on through galactic formation. Expansion momentun was conserved as galaxies formed.

Other factors may have been at play here. Collapsed space at the moment of release could have UN-collapsed dragging lighter materials with it at velocities far exceeding c. Einstein said space itself has no speed limit imposed upon itself. And it is already accepted that the intial expansion of matter/energy just after the BB exceeded c. Please correct me if I am wrong on this. Then, as galaxies were forming, space could have been just doing it's thing, trying to get those lines back to 'straight'. Pulling everything apart.

Let's talk about expanding space for a moment. First let's settle on a definition of 'space'. If we define it as 'nothing' ... simply the emptiness between 'somethings', we run into problems. Because we know with certainty that mass affects that 'nothing'.

So we must change our defintion of space to 'something' with actual properties. For space to be simply 'added' between galaxies as they accelerate away from each other would then require this additional space to come from 'somewhere' other than our 3d universe we KNOW exists. Or it would require that God is hanging out and adding it for some unknown reason. ( Why bother? Why not just be happy with the space you got? Lol ) Not only that, but then we have to ask God ( or the other 10^500 dimensions ) why HE/they are speeding up this 'adding of space'. If this additional space is coming from alternate dimensions, what is the source of those dimensions apparently infinite reserves of this space. This just gets stupider and stupider.

Try this analogy/visualisation. I've used a similar one before. Release 100 closely confined molecules of nitrogen from a 'container' the size of a grain of sand sitting directly centered in a 100,000 cf 'zero' G vacuum chamber.

Once released, those 100 molecules will rapidly accelerate from their place of confinement to achieve relative equidistance from each other, and the inner structure of the 100,000 cf chamber. Within seconds, each molecule will be ... on average ... 1,000 feet from each other. They will not all clump together in one corner. How can this be? Is it possible there can be any communication between/among nitrogen molecules 1,000 feet apart? Or is there another force involved?

We can't pump SPACE out of the vacuum chamber. There is no such thing as an ABSOLUTE vacuum in our local universe. To our knowledge, anyway.

Think of Earth's atmosphere. If chaos theory ( and no other dynamic forces IE; gravity, thermal ) was the only mechanism at play here, would we find huge areas of pure oxygen? Helium? You'd think so.

How about the space shuttle? If the fans stopped circulating the air, would all the similar molecules clump together?

All I am saying is that the exact same galactic separation that we observe can be explained by space being added OR it can be explained by the conservation of expansion momentum. That is except for the acceleration that we observe.

Yes. If not for that annoying acceleration, those 'could' be good explanations. My model just happens to give a reasonable, non-metaphysical, non-magical explanation for the acceleration.

When you acknowledge that the expansion is accelerating you then have to contemplate the cause of that additional effect. In scenario one, the addition of space to the arena, you have no directly related cause that would make the addition of space speed up or increase in a way that would accelerate the expansion.

Yep.

But if you go with scenario two, the explanation for the expansion momentum also answers the acceleration of expansion.

??

In scenario two you have expansion momentum and gravity right from the very start. They are opposing forces and at very close range back in the early moments after matter formation gravity was very strong relative to expansion momentum. This allowed for clumping that led to fundamental particle formation. As the energy density declined different particles and combinations were enabled leading the the particle mix of the epic that took place before star formation; an extremely heavy preponderance of hydrogen was formed from the plazma soup.

Actually, the latest evidence would suggest that star formation happened much earlier than we thought. Certainly black holes did.

Even though gravity was much stronger in the tiny universe,

Agreed.

expansion momentum was still dominant

Agreed.

and because of the inverse square rule expansion momentum gained strength relative to the opposing force of gravity.

This is not a mechanism for acceleration. This just means the rate of decline for momentum diminishes. As always, assuming no other mechanisms/forces are at play.

Acceleration has been going on since matter first formed.

Agreed.

That same rule accounts for the acceleration of the rate of expansion even after the galaxies have formed and are receding from each other.

You still do not have a valid mechanism.

The further the galaxies get away from each other the inverse square rules says that the effect of gravity will decline vs. the expansion momentum.

The rate at which momentum declines is related to the decreasing gravitational attraction ... assuming no other forces involved.

Expansion momentum is not increasing but the gravitational attraction that has been opposing the expansion from the very start is diminishing.

If no other forces were involved, momentum would have been slowing from the very start as a direct result of gravitational attraction.

The separation is accelerating and will continue to accelerate as the gravitational effect approaches zero due to the inverse square rule.

We are back to the 'no' mechanism, again.

So first let me ask if you agree or disagree on that much.

At this point do you agree or disagree with scenario two, the expansion momentum vs. the inverse square rule? An agreement would mean that in our respective cosmologies space is not being added or created and the expansion is not attributed to the addition or creation of space.

Until you provide a satisfactory ( or even unsatisfactory ) mechanism for the acceleration of expansion/recession I must disagree.

I'm getting a headache.

 

[quantum_wave]

...

I'm getting a headache.

Oh yeah, just wait .


You talk about “getting our thinking up”, like your teacher told you to do when you were six.

Suppose I already have my thinking up. You might not have fully contemplated scenario one vs. scenario two.

If you can’t understand the mechanism of two opposing forces, one declining relative to the other, then there is nothing I can say. If expansion momentum is imparted to mass as it forms and is conserved as larger structure forms from that early matter then the expansion will accelerate. Both forces still exist. One is getting stronger relative to the other.

Gravity is strong at small distances and changes (declines) as the expansion momentum makes the distance increase.

If gravity could have overcome the expansion it would have had to do so in the first microseconds after matter formed. Had that been the case then the first matter would have all bunched up and never would have expanded at all. It tried but the early expansion was great relative to the force of gravity. Gravity affected the rate of expansion of the matter that formed but the mechanism is the combination of the two opposing forces.

I’m going to suggest that you contemplate this. I mean clear your mind and think about expansion momentum from the big bang event. Think of the effect of a very strong gravitational force in the tiny universe and of the fact that since expansion occurred and continues it had to be stronger than gravity. The mechanism is two opposing forces, one stronger than the other. Contemplate it. Then contemplate the relative effect if gravity diminishes with distance (over time). The relative effect is that the rate of expansion will accelerate.

 

[pywakit]

Oh yeah, just wait .

You talk about “getting our thinking up”, like your teacher told you to do when you were six.

My teachers told me to accept God.

Suppose I already have my thinking up. You might not have fully contemplated scenario one vs. scenario two.

Maybe I haven't. But I go with established physics.

If you can’t understand the mechanism of two opposing forces, one declining relative to the other, then there is nothing I can say. If expansion momentum is imparted to mass as it forms and is conserved as larger structure forms from that early matter then the expansion will accelerate. Both forces still exist. One is getting stronger relative to the other.

Of course I understand this. But there are clearly other forces involved.

Gravity is strong at small distances and changes (declines) as the expansion momentum makes the distance increase.

You are being silly. I get it. Always have.

If gravity could have overcome the expansion it would have had to do so in the first microseconds after matter formed. Had that been the case then the first matter would have all bunched up and never would have expanded at all. It tried but the early expansion was great relative to the force of gravity. Gravity affected the rate of expansion of the matter that formed but the mechanism is the combination of the two opposing forces.

You are assuming too much. What was the initial cause of expansion? Angular momentum, of which we have ample empirical evidence, was the likely cause of the momentum.

I’m going to suggest that you contemplate this. I mean clear your mind and think about expansion momentum from the big bang event. Think of the effect of a very strong gravitational force in the tiny universe and of the fact that since expansion occurred and continues it had to be stronger than gravity. The mechanism is two opposing forces, one stronger than the other. Contemplate it. Then contemplate the relative effect if gravity diminishes with distance (over time). The relative effect is that the rate of expansion will accelerate.

My good man ... I have thought about this from every conceivable angle for 50 years. You are not providing an angle I have not already considered. You are not making a good case for the acceleration of expansion. You are not making a case at all. You are suggesting that the acceleration of expansion will increase because gravity is decreasing. What you are failing to grasp is that ( failing any other force acting upon it ) the universe has outward expanding momentum from the initial expansion. Gravity would tend to slow the rate of expansion. As the gravity decreases, the RATE at which momentum is slowed decreases. This does not translate to an ACCELERATION of expansion. This translates to a reduction in the rate of DECELERATION.

Q my friend ... without another force at play, the expansion of the universe would slowly, eventually grind to a halt. There is no theoretical limit to gravity's influence. The expansion/momentum would slow ... stop .... and reverse.

But there is another force at play. Whether it is DE, or space itself.

Holy cow! Lol.

 

[pywakit]

The other problem quantum, is that you are using circular logic. I think.

I'm supposed to consider that "the expansion momentum" was stronger than the gravity. But you don't say what made there BE an "expansion momentum". It just 'happened'. And then somehow, I am supposed to extrapolate from this event that it since "it" happened ... this mystical occurrence ... that whatever made "it" overcome gravity is an intrinsic force 'wanting' for no apparent reason to accelerate, but the only thing holding it back is gravity.

This is metaphysical. This is God. This is no explanation.

My mind won't work that way. Everything happens through some physical mechanism. Everything in the universe. There are no exceptions.

Something physical caused the initial expansion momentum. Something powerful enough to overcome stupidly extreme gravity.

Only two physical mechanisms come to mind.

1. Chemical reaction

2. Angular momentum ( spin )

There seems to be little chance the mechanism was chemical.

We have in the last few years ( it would appear ) mounting evidence that the 'singularity' that was our 'cosmic egg' was just a black hole.

And black holes spin. Really, really fast.

Universe explained. ( At least what happened at the moment of the BB and what was there right before the BB.)

And NO magic required. Until a better explanation comes along.

But I think this one is going to stick for a long, long time.

 

[quantum_wave]

...

Of course I understand this. But there are clearly other forces involved.



You are being silly. I get it. Always have.



... What was the initial cause of expansion?



My good man ... I have thought about this from every conceivable angle for 50 years. You are not providing an angle I have not already considered. You are not making a good case for the acceleration of expansion. You are not making a case at all. You are suggesting that the acceleration of expansion will increase because gravity is decreasing. What you are failing to grasp is that ( failing any other force acting upon it ) the universe has outward expanding momentum from the initial expansion. Gravity would tend to slow the rate of expansion. As the gravity decreases, the RATE at which momentum is slowed decreases. This does not translate to an ACCELERATION of expansion. This translates to a reduction in the rate of DECELERATION.

Q my friend ... without another force at play, the expansion of the universe would slowly, eventually grind to a halt. There is no theoretical limit to gravity's influence. The expansion/momentum would slow ... stop .... and reverse.

But there is another force at play. Whether it is DE, or space itself.

Holy cow! Lol.

Exactly. I have been saying that you need to include in your cosmology a cause for the initial expansion of our observable universe. You insist you can do it with known physics. If it could be done with known physics then Big Bang Theory would already do it. It doesn’t; because there is no know physics that will make your merged ultimate black hole go bang. For a smile (and this is humor) try this link to get a good dose of “She Bangs”.

You have to listen from 54 seconds through about 75 seconds to hear “She Bangs, She Bangs” a couple of times. Tell me if you laugh.

The other problem quantum, is that you are using circular logic. I think.

I'm supposed to consider that "the expansion momentum" was stronger than the gravity. But you don't say what made there BE an "expansion momentum". It just 'happened'. And then somehow, I am supposed to extrapolate from this event that it since "it" happened ... this mystical occurrence ... that whatever made "it" overcome gravity is an intrinsic force 'wanting' for no apparent reason to accelerate, but the only thing holding it back is gravity.

This is metaphysical. This is God. This is no explanation.

My mind won't work that way. Everything happens through some physical mechanism. Everything in the universe. There are no exceptions.

Something physical caused the initial expansion momentum. Something powerful enough to overcome stupidly extreme gravity.

Only two physical mechanisms come to mind.

1. Chemical reaction

2. Angular momentum ( spin )

There seems to be little chance the mechanism was chemical.

We have in the last few years ( it would appear ) mounting evidence that the 'singularity' that was our 'cosmic egg' was just a black hole.

And black holes spin. Really, really fast.

Universe explained. ( At least what happened at the moment of the BB and what was there right before the BB.)

And NO magic required. Until a better explanation comes along.

But I think this one is going to stick for a long, long time.

You have a lot to learn about what I am saying and I will deal with your accusation that I am invoking the supernatural in my next post. Wait for it and don't cloud the issue that we are working on.

My last post, let's call it the Expansion Momentum Mechanism post describes the mechanism from the point in the early expansion where matter formed. Our next mission, if you care to go there, will be about the period before matter formed, i.e. between the cause of the initial expansion and the formation of matter from the hot plasma soup. Your solution, you say angular momentum caused the merged black hole to throw off what became our expanding arena. I'll simply offer my ideas so that we will have it on record that you have been able to show how your angular momentum is better that my new physics.

I suggest that you work off line on the details of your angular momentum solution or maybe by PM with me because there are some problems with it that require new physics and you haven't acknowledged that. The question will be, if we compare our new physics, which one is more elegant .

I will try to get to the Maple Pavilion today to do some needed work on my Google.doc that I have told you about and that I am updating to wrap up my QWC threads and move the presentation of QWC off the forum and onto my blog. While I'm there I'll respond to your failure to put the time frame together between the Big Bang and the formation of matter that preceded the epic between the formation of matter and the formation of huge hydrogen stars.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

To Alpha: Feigning ignorance is beneath you. And a waste of my time. It only makes you appear foolish. Anyone who reads the thread will have no problem finding the questions you refused to address ... and they will also find I have patiently answered yours.

I'm not following the thread in any detail. It took you more time to post that than to provide a link.

Ok. Well, it appears Alpha is unwilling to answer my direct question, so I will answer it for him.

Yes, how dare I bother to do something else with my time than teach you basic physics. I really am at fault!

Until then, I have nothing more to say to you ... no matter what imperious claims/assertions you make.

I like how you complain I make certain assertions yet you are making plenty of mainstream stuff without justification.

I took the time to respond to pretty much everything you said. I said I couldn't do it ... and that it was not relevant to the model. Which is accurate on both counts. Other people can compute trajectories just fine.

Which equations do people use to compute the trajectories?

But we already know that 'black holes merge'. So what is the point of computing particle/object trajectories? What we DIDN'T know ... or don't know ... is that ALL black holes will merge to one.

A claim you have not justified. Gravitationally bound ones will. Those which are not bound will not.

You won't even answer a simple, straightforward question .... like .... are strings still unfalsifiable?

If general relativity is found to be false in a way which is not accountable by the string theoretic corrections to general relativity string theory predicts then string theory would be falsified.

I have already stated several times that the reasearch into strings is far from useless. My only point is ... you can't use them as an argument against my model.

I'm not using strings against you. I'm using your lack of actual working results against you.

Einstein did GR in about 5 years ... essentially on a chalkboard by himself.

False. Einstein worked along side the greatest mathematician of the day, if not ever, Hilbert. The fundamental expression in general relativity is known as the Einstein-Hilbert action. Not that you've ever seen it.

This is the likeliest scenario.

A completely unjustifiable claim. To quantity 'likeliest' you need to have some metric by which you're measuring the liklihood of things occuring. Getting a 7 is the most likely result from rolling 2 dice because if you work out all possible outcomes 7 is the modal result. To work out the 'likeliest scenario' you need to have some quantifiable way of calculating other outcomes. You don't.

Galileo built upon the knowledge of others. So did Newton, and Einstein. And so am I.

You don't even know the history of GR, I don't trust you to know its details and so I do not believe you are building on that knowledge. Have you ever studied GR? All you're saying in this thread is "My work is compatible with it".

You are certainly welcome to show me where my model FAILS to comply with GR.

Give me the equations from which I can calculate gravitational dynamics in your model, along with their derivation, and I will compare them to GR. Until then you don't have a model. You claim its compatible, the scientific onus is on you.

Try not to get so upset. It took me a very long time to arrive at this theory.

I'm not upset, other than for the nanosecond where I note how you've wasted 'a very long time'. Other than that I have nothing to be upset about, you haven't justified a single claim you've made.

The simplest solution is usually the right one.

A 'solution' solves a problem, provides a working solution. What's the dynamics of matter under the formation of a black hole via gravitational collapse? What effects occur? What signatures should we look for in observations? What are the dynamics of planets orbiting stars? You haven't answered any of those questions, just said "I'm consistent with GR!". Well saying "The Bible is consistent with GR!" is just as easy and just as unjustified.

Einstein said "A theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler". A theory/model must actually model something, accurately, and with the minimal amount of assumptions. If you have 2 models, one of which is much more complicated but is more accurate the more complex one is better. General relativity is vastly more complex than Newtonian gravity and in 99% of cases they are practically identical in their predictions yet no one says "Lets ignore GR, don't bother to learn it. Just stick with Newtonian gravity!" when it comes to teaching gravitational theories. The notion of everything being made of Earth, Air, Fire and Water is much simpler than the 110+ elements used in chemistry but no one teaches it instead of chemistry.

Occam's razor comes into it when you have two models which explain the same amount and one makes less assumptions. Your work explains and models nothing.

I know that there are people who would love to disprove my model, They are welcome to try.

Well I keep asking you to provide me with ANY part of your ideas which I can use to make quantitative, testable, predictions which can then be tested by experiment but you keep failing to provide.

But as long as people who are apparently equally qualified as you keep telling me it has merit, I will continue to promote it..

And who are these people?

 

[quantum_wave]

... For a smile (and this is humor) try this link to get a good dose of “She Bangs”.

You have to listen from 54 seconds through about 75 seconds to hear “She Bangs, She Bangs” a couple of times. Tell me if you laugh.

Now I see what you mean about only getting the first 30 seconds. The link I gave you was from a site trying to sell that stupid recording :shrug:. They only let you hear 30 seconds after the first playing.

This is the last time I will try for this humor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RrLQUN8UJg
Try the youtube version and the "she bangs" starts at about 40 seconds. I just thought it was funny . I guess it's not THAT funny.

Having trouble with my Google.doc page so I didn't get back to our last discussion. Maybe I can do it during the football games.

 

[quantum_wave]

...
You are assuming too much. What was the initial cause of expansion? Angular momentum, of which we have ample empirical evidence, was the likely cause of the momentum.

To test my understanding, you are still going with the theory that the merged ultimate black hole (UBH) will spin. And not just spin but spin and throw off the hot particles that you have said it is composed of.

Have you written this up; I mean put the words to paper or a file? I have to see how you are getting the UBH to contain these “basic” particles that you discussed.

Then I have to see how angular momentum increases during the BH merger process.

Then I have to see how the angular momentum increases after the merger process to near of above the speed of light. I understand the concept of spinning that fast. You mean that a point on the surface of the spinning BH has a velocity relative to a fixed point in space at that same location.

I understand the concept of such a rapid spin and of how you predict that it would be able to overcome the ultimate gravity of such a BH to propel the basic surface particles out into an expanding swirl of energy composed of those basic particles.

But I don’t understand how it can keep up the spin rate as the volume and mass of the BH declines? You already acknowledged that my previous comment that the rate of spin would decrease as material got thrown off. It is like a figure skater doing a spin with her arms held close to her body and slowing the spin by extending her arms.

So you have no working model from a cosmological perspective because using known physics doesn’t make it do what you say.

Until you describe a workable process to move from one cycle to the next, i.e. to create an expanding arena from your preconditions of a spinning merged BH, your model fails. And based on the above you won't be able to do it without new physics.

 

[pywakit]

I'm not following the thread in any detail. It took you more time to post that than to provide a link.

Yes, how dare I bother to do something else with my time than teach you basic physics. I really am at fault!

I like how you complain I make certain assertions yet you are making plenty of mainstream stuff without justification.

Which equations do people use to compute the trajectories?

A claim you have not justified. Gravitationally bound ones will. Those which are not bound will not.

If general relativity is found to be false in a way which is not accountable by the string theoretic corrections to general relativity string theory predicts then string theory would be falsified.

I'm not using strings against you. I'm using your lack of actual working results against you.

False. Einstein worked along side the greatest mathematician of the day, if not ever, Hilbert. The fundamental expression in general relativity is known as the Einstein-Hilbert action. Not that you've ever seen it.

A completely unjustifiable claim. To quantity 'likeliest' you need to have some metric by which you're measuring the liklihood of things occuring. Getting a 7 is the most likely result from rolling 2 dice because if you work out all possible outcomes 7 is the modal result. To work out the 'likeliest scenario' you need to have some quantifiable way of calculating other outcomes. You don't.

You don't even know the history of GR, I don't trust you to know its details and so I do not believe you are building on that knowledge. Have you ever studied GR? All you're saying in this thread is "My work is compatible with it".

Give me the equations from which I can calculate gravitational dynamics in your model, along with their derivation, and I will compare them to GR. Until then you don't have a model. You claim its compatible, the scientific onus is on you.

I'm not upset, other than for the nanosecond where I note how you've wasted 'a very long time'. Other than that I have nothing to be upset about, you haven't justified a single claim you've made.

A 'solution' solves a problem, provides a working solution. What's the dynamics of matter under the formation of a black hole via gravitational collapse? What effects occur? What signatures should we look for in observations? What are the dynamics of planets orbiting stars? You haven't answered any of those questions, just said "I'm consistent with GR!". Well saying "The Bible is consistent with GR!" is just as easy and just as unjustified.

Einstein said "A theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler". A theory/model must actually model something, accurately, and with the minimal amount of assumptions. If you have 2 models, one of which is much more complicated but is more accurate the more complex one is better. General relativity is vastly more complex than Newtonian gravity and in 99% of cases they are practically identical in their predictions yet no one says "Lets ignore GR, don't bother to learn it. Just stick with Newtonian gravity!" when it comes to teaching gravitational theories. The notion of everything being made of Earth, Air, Fire and Water is much simpler than the 110+ elements used in chemistry but no one teaches it instead of chemistry.

Occam's razor comes into it when you have two models which explain the same amount and one makes less assumptions. Your work explains and models nothing.

Well I keep asking you to provide me with ANY part of your ideas which I can use to make quantitative, testable, predictions which can then be tested by experiment but you keep failing to provide.

And who are these people?

Alpha, you are acting like an irrational, childish troll. Stop it. You are wasting your time. I have already stated I will not respond until you answer the questions.

(edit)

"If general relativity is found to be false in a way which is not accountable by the string theoretic corrections to general relativity string theory predicts then string theory would be falsified."

Are you for real? Your ( apparent ) idols Greene, and Witten have both stated SST is UNFALSIFIABLE. Shall I list the euphemisms used by respected scientists to describe M-theory?

Do you really think your comment carries any weght? Do you even realize what an idiotic statement it is?

You claimed certain statements I made were LIES. I asked you to prove your case. You did not. My question was ... "Which of these statements is false?" You chose to ignore my requests.

I suggest you un-bury your nose from your mathematical equations long enough to pick up a book on psychology. Read the chapter that covers "Distinguishing Fantasy From Reality"

You obviously can't tell the difference.

Now please shut up. You are rude, and boring.

 

[pywakit]

Exactly. I have been saying that you need to include in your cosmology a cause for the initial expansion of our observable universe. You insist you can do it with known physics. If it could be done with known physics then Big Bang Theory would already do it. It doesn’t; because there is no know physics that will make your merged ultimate black hole go bang. For a smile (and this is humor) try this link to get a good dose of “She Bangs”.

You have to listen from 54 seconds through about 75 seconds to hear “She Bangs, She Bangs” a couple of times. Tell me if you laugh.

Not my brand of humor, q. Lol. Sorry.

BBT never considered ( to my knowledge ) the possibility that the 'singularity' described was a black hole. And I beg to differ. No 'new' physics is required to make an object ( any object ) fly apart from angular momentum.

There is no known occurence of a black hole 'banging'. That doesn't suggest they can't. Logic, and our understanding of physics, dictates that a black hole could only rid itself of mass/stored energy in so many ways. It could 'leak' particles. It could 'shunt' it's mass to another point in our 3d universe. It could 'shunt' mass to other dimensions.

Or it could fly apart from angular momentum.

Or ... it could do nothing at all ... except continue to swallow matter/energy until it has swallowed the entire finite, or for that matter, infinite universe.

You have a lot to learn about what I am saying and I will deal with your accusation that I am invoking the supernatural in my next post. Wait for it and don't cloud the issue that we are working on.

I was teasing.

My last post, let's call it the Expansion Momentum Mechanism post describes the mechanism from the point in the early expansion where matter formed.

I'm sorry. There was no actual mechanism described. You just said it 'happened'.

Our next mission, if you care to go there, will be about the period before matter formed, i.e. between the cause of the initial expansion and the formation of matter from the hot plasma soup. Your solution, you say angular momentum caused the merged black hole to throw off what became our expanding arena. I'll simply offer my ideas so that we will have it on record that you have been able to show how your angular momentum is better that my new physics.

Angular momentum, and it's known effects, is classical physics.

I suggest that you work off line on the details of your angular momentum solution or maybe by PM with me because there are some problems with it that require new physics and you haven't acknowledged that. The question will be, if we compare our new physics, which one is more elegant .

I am not a mathemetician. I accept the word of many mathemeticians, and physicists that my solution does not require new physics.

I will try to get to the Maple Pavilion today to do some needed work on my Google.doc that I have told you about and that I am updating to wrap up my QWC threads and move the presentation of QWC off the forum and onto my blog. While I'm there I'll respond to your failure to put the time frame together between the Big Bang and the formation of matter that preceded the epic between the formation of matter and the formation of huge hydrogen stars.

I don't think you are up to date on the latest observations. New evidence ( as I have already stated ) has black holes ( and therefore matter ) forming long before we thought it possible. This book is being re-written as we speak.

But sure. Off-line, and PMs are fine. You may be a little hung up on your 'beliefs' ... lol ... but it's still enjoyable to discuss these issues with you.