Cosmological Model of The Universe

I have no significant objection to the clarifications you made concerning my post. I was focused more on the over all intent than much of the particulars.

You're confusing the scientific use of 'theory' and the layperson's use of 'theory'.


The only other comment I have is that these boards involve laypersons. It makes clarity of meaning as important as what is actualy said.
 
So where does that leave string theory? A mathematical hypotheses instead of theory?

For that matter there are large portions of the Standard Model of Particle Physics, that would also be demoted to the status of hypotheses, as well as some aspects of general relativity.

If part of a theory meets 'the' standard required of a theory, should that portion that does not, be afforded equal status?

I guess I start to sound like a broken record, but I believe that it is important to maintain an understanding of the difference between what we know and what we think we know. As long as a theory remains a theory it represents a guess, sometimes our best guess about the involved subject.

On the other hand this thread is in the peudoscience portion of the boards. That suggests a lessor standard than would be required in one of the science folders.

That said I had a hard time following the original post, myself.

Do you mean post #1, or the updated version on post #111? Or both?


The concepts are awfully basic.

I hypothesize black holes have a critical mass limit; a trigger point where they release at least a portion of their mass. I hypothesize that limit is exactly equal to the total mass of the Hubble volume. I hypothesize that the mass is limited due to natural processes and laws, namely black holes not being subject to rotational limits, are physical objects, and subject to centrifugal forces which will always prevent them from becoming infinitely massive.

Black holes are not infinitely small and/or dense singularities, but rather 3-D physical objects per quantum mechanic's restrictions. Matter can not be compressed to zero volume. Therefore the more massive a black hole is, the larger it's volume, and the greater it's surface area.

Maybe I am misunderstanding this. Maybe the entire mass of the Hubble volume can be compressed to (essentially) 'zero' volume. Looks good in a math equation, I guess.

So why didn't other scientists at least consider such a simple model decades ago?

Maybe because we collectively know a lot more now than just 2 or 3 years ago, let alone 10 or 20 years ago. A couple germane facts ...

Schwarzschild (non-rotating) black holes were never more than a 'classic' mathematical description of an existing (theorized) black hole.

Only very recently have observations confirmed black hole rotation. It's important to remember that none of this was known when all the currently popular models were hypothesized. Certainly the current Standard Model predated all of this by well over half a century, and the addition of Inflation came along 30years ago.

To my knowledge, we have yet to confirm the existence of a non-rotating black hole. Non feeding (visibly) yes, but not non-rotating.

In fact, the reverse is true.

We have now 'clocked' black holes rotating at up to (possibly) 1,000 times per second. Were they dimensionless singularities, their rotation would be meaningless. But if they are objects with physical dimensions, having volume and surface area, rotational velocities are significant.

If the earth was spinning at 1,000 rps, the surface matter at the equator would pass a fixed point in space at 40,000,000 kps (40,000 kilometer circumference X 1,000). 133 times the speed of light.

Clearly, this is impossible for the earth, but is it for a black hole?

Every discovery (observational, experimental) of the last two years has only provided additional support to my hypotheses. I am unaware of any new discovery that conflicts with the model. This does not mean there haven't been any, but it would be pointless for me to ignore such evidence. Of course I would be disappointed if I have it all wrong, but if I am wrong, I want to know.

If one of you can point to a discovery that falsifies the model, please do so.

Maybe Alpha is correct, and I am just a delusional crank. Certainly his knowledge of math and physics dwarfs mine. Yet, these discoveries continue to pour in, and they keep supporting my hypotheses ... and surprising the theorists.

The 'strongest' argument any scientist has made against my model (so far) is the currently accelerating recession.

The following are a few comments by one scientist. I was arguing (among other things) against the possibility of the rate of the recession's acceleration increasing 'forever'.

He writes:

(edited) As one of the astronomers who discovered dark energy and has worked on supernovae for 30 years, these issues are of interest to me.

Exponential acceleration is not a physical impossibility and this will happen if the Universe continues to coast. Our galaxy has already reached the "escape" velocity of most of the galaxies of the Universe - that is if we gently turn off dark energy, the universe will still be expanding too rapidly for our galaxy to ever coalese with any but the nearest galaxies. The hypermassive black holes just can't form in the simplist models of cosmology.


I wrote back:

We have yet to determine the physical mechanism for the accelerating recession. We don't know what triggered this mechanism. We don't know if this is a mechanism that will stop, or even reverse. Perhaps space is trying to achieve a state of 'equilibrium'. The observable universe is far too young to make assumptions about something we know almost nothing about.

He writes:

(edited) Certainly we do not understand dark energy and dark matter, and the conventional wisdom of today may seem illformed in a few years. Especially about phenomena which seem so strange.

I have this sinking feeling that we have created a house of cards, and someone is going to pull one card and it will come crumbling down. If this happens, it probably will be an observation, not because the theory is incorrect, just that theory is so illconstrained right now.

You are quite right that dark energy may not be constant. In fact, most of the papers on astro-ph relating to dark energy are theory papers with time varying fields. The most popular ones tend to have cool names like ektopic or quintessence or whatever. Maybe they are right, but one cannot avoid the following fact - that acceleration is incredibly close to a simple cosmological constant.

This is not necessarily expected, except that the c.c. is the only term that can be added to the field equations of Einstein that keep the equations covariant (that is, the physics does not depend on the observer).

The concept of entropy in the Universe is as complicated as the conservation of energy. I have talked to many physicists about these concepts and most of them have strong views about what entropy and conservation of energy mean - and they do not all agree. To paraphrase Colbert, it seems to me that theorists have defined something like entropiness which looks like entropy, but we are not sure. It is just a definition.

I am an observer, not a deep thinker. I don't try to understand all the theories because they change so quickly.


nicholas suntzeff
Mitchell Professor of Observational Cosmology
Texas A&M University

Very courteous fellow. I must assume he meant Ekpyrotic. Was he humoring me? Probably. But he was not overly condescending. He believes that black holes can not achieve hypermass (trillions of suns plus). The reason is the observed recession. Yet he acknowledges this may not be a given at all.

He was co-founder of the High-z Supernova Search Team.

Of course, Alpha knows full well that I do not have any credentials or affiliations and can't publish in a science journal. I decided to take my case to the scientists directly. Have I accomplished anything? Besides annoying people, I mean? I think so. An awful lot of these people took the time to at least glance at the model. This plants a thought they may never have had before. Contrary to Alpha's assertions, I know it's not an implausible theory.

I have sent it to well over 5,000 individuals over the last 2 years, so maybe some of those grad students, professors, and scientists will be intrigued enough to explore it further.

And even if they don't , new discoveries in the next few years may force them down that road anyway. Or they won't.

If I am wrong, I will join the ranks of every other wrong cosmologist who has ever lived. So what? At least I tried.
 
Last edited:
Referring to Newtonian gravity....




Newtonian Dynamics (ND) is still valid and functional even to the scale of the solar system. It does not explain the gravitational lensing of light and a few other local phenomena, but it predates general relativity (GR) by about 250 years. You can still use Newton's work to get to the moon or Mars. I'm pretty sure that NASA does as attempting to use Einstein's field equations would be time and resource intensive and result in little if any benfit. GR addressed some of the issue ND could not, but is itself reaching the limit of its valid application.

MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) though not widely accepted seems to be addressing issues that GR fails to. Does that make GR and Einstein wrong?
Yes. Good approximations are still only approximations.
 
Let's take the 'mainstream' view, for a moment and apply our recently acquired knowledge to it. You know, the 'generally accepted' view that has been around for ages, the one where the universe just 'fades away'.

So if we fast-forward the clock to 10 trillion years after the big bang, what does the universe look like?

Pretty dark it would seem. The stars are set to use up their fuel by around 100 billion years after the big bang.

All the clusters of galaxies are receding from each other at many multiples of c, and accelerating at a continually increasing rate.

So how does the universe 'end' under this scenario?

Knowing what we know now, I'm not seeing how the Hubble volume is going to gently and gradually 'disintegrate' with all dead stars and planets just 'fading away'.

Instead, it is apparently going to end with billions or trillions of black holes each containing the masses of at least trillions of suns.

Every galaxy and cluster of galaxies will have merged into black holes.

Any evidence that space is pulling galaxies, or local clusters apart? No. Any evidence that a ticked off black hole will push stars away? No. Just gas and dust. Any physics that limits a black hole's mass to 50 billion suns, or 500 billion or 500 trillion? No. So eventually, virtually every bit of our galaxy, and M31, and the rest of the local group will eventually be one black hole.

And so will the rest of the clusters.

As Professor Suntzeff pointed out ...

"The larger the black hole, the longer it will take to evaporate. A 1 solar
mass black hole radiates much less power than that available in an AAA
battery."


According to my research, the more massive the black hole, the slower the rate of evaporation. Yet the more massive the black hole, the faster it accretes mass.

Won't the black holes be accreting far more energy than they evaporate? How will the universe fade away when black holes are accreting space itself? This makes no sense at all. Each hypermassive black hole is receding from the others at 'infinite' relative velocity, and each one is growing infinitely larger?

Looks like a big problem.
 
Do you mean post #1, or the updated version on post #111? Or both?

Neither. The intent was contained in the first sentence and was responding to a comment by AlphaNumeric. He got it, I think.

The rest of the post was an ill conceived elaboration on the intent of that first sentence.

While the model you propose seems to address many of what are currently important questions, I don't see resolution.

You present some valid questions. I can't see spin and centrifugal forces as a solution.

Then again, even though general relativity predicts black holes, it does not explain the physics inside the event horizon. Or observation of orbital velocities that appear to be occurring in galactic systems.

Gravity has to be self limiting for what we can now observe of the universe to be. Neither Newtonian dynamics or general relativity seem to provide a resolution.

I hypothesize black holes have a critical mass limit; a trigger point where they release at least a portion of their mass. I hypothesize that limit is exactly equal to the total mass of the Hubble volume. I hypothesize that the mass is limited due to natural processes and laws, namely black holes not being subject to rotational limits, are physical objects, and subject to centrifugal forces which will always prevent them from becoming infinitely massive.

The problem presented by the prediction of infinite gravitational force is am serious one. Sometime ago I tried very hard to find a way the spin and centrifugal force could manifest as a limitation. I just could not make it work.

Black holes are not infinitely small and/or dense singularities, but rather 3-D physical objects per quantum mechanic's restrictions. Matter can not be compressed to zero volume. Therefore the more massive a black hole is, the larger it's volume, and the greater it's surface area.

Point singularities are most likely nothing more than a construct of the mathematics. Hawking addresses the information conservation issue by connecting information to the surface area of a BH. A point singularity does not have size and thus no surface area. The concept of Hawking Radiation also suggests a surface. That would suggest that he (Hawking) believes that BHs have size. However we just don't know what is going on inside a BH.

If the principles presented in the special theory of relativity are accurate and the laws of physics are the same everywhere, our current understanding of gravity is, as it (gravity) appears to be and not as it is. Or as others believe just needs to be tweaked and adjusted.

While I cannot personally see the ideas you present, as functional. Answers to some of the questions you pose remain unanswered even by any generally accepted theory. There are many things in this world/universe we just do not yet understand. If what we seek is a unifying theory, it seems mostly likely that it will come from a new theory or at least a new or different perspective.

I'm still looking.
 
Neither. The intent was contained in the first sentence and was responding to a comment by AlphaNumeric. He got it, I think.

The rest of the post was an ill conceived elaboration on the intent of that first sentence.

Ok.

While the model you propose seems to address many of what are currently important questions, I don't see resolution.

At least you are polite. Thanks.

You present some valid questions. I can't see spin and centrifugal forces as a solution.

Ok.

Then again, even though general relativity predicts black holes, it does not explain the physics inside the event horizon.

While this is strictly true, the fact that they exist at all tells us a lot. It tells us that matter can't escape down a 'rabbit hole' never to be heard from again. You can't have gravity if the mass is gone. Every bit of the mass of a black hole still exists in our universe.

This would at least suggest that black holes are subject to physical laws, even if we can't peer into a black hole to determine the nature of the matter contained within the horizon.

Or observation of orbital velocities that appear to be occurring in galactic systems.

I think (perhaps with unwarranted optimism) that the newest technologies currently deployed and soon to be deployed will provide a much clearer and far more accurate picture of galactic motion.

Gravity has to be self limiting for what we can now observe of the universe to be. Neither Newtonian dynamics or general relativity seem to provide a resolution.

Perhaps because when these theories were formulated, they did not have modern observational evidence. What would Einstein's theory look like if he had had the benefit of our technology?

Einstein refused to believe black holes could form, certain that they would fly apart from centrifugal force before reaching the point of no return. Obviously he was wrong.

Much of cosmological theory is built upon assumptions, derived solely from mathematics. Often those assumptions are wrong.

Such is the case of black holes. Please correct me if I am in error. In the Schwarzschild equations, we have a simple collapsing body, with no rotation. It was assumed that such a phenomenon (non-rotating collapse) was possible, and in this 'classic' scenario, once gravity reached a certain trigger point, no 'known' force (thermodynamic) could oppose it, and the runaway gravity would result in an infinite collapse.

There was no real-world example of a singularity. Once theorists accepted the 'reality' of matter condensed down to infinitely small/dense volume, they built their models upon this assumption.

The Planck density is the unit of density, denoted by ρP, in the system of natural units known as Planck units.

This is a unit which is very large, about equivalent to 10^23 solar masses squeezed into the space of a single atomic nucleus. At one unit of Planck time after the Big Bang, the mass density of the universe is thought to have been approximately one unit of Planck density.


It seems many respected theorists are no longer happy with the entire mass of the observable universe occupying the volume of a single atom's nucleus.

The problem presented by the prediction of infinite gravitational force is am serious one. Sometime ago I tried very hard to find a way the spin and centrifugal force could manifest as a limitation. I just could not make it work.

Well, I don't know how long ago you did this, nor do I know what you are referring to specifically. Do you mean black holes in general, or the singularity of the big bang? Were you assuming a black hole has no physical volume? In this case, centrifugal force would be a non-issue.

Black hole diameters are a tricky thing. If we assume an infinitely small/dense singularity then we are using the Schwarzschild radius as the 'diameter'.

Every star, however, must eventually exhaust its nuclear fuel. When it does so, its unbalanced self-gravitational attraction causes it to collapse.

According to theory, if a burned-out star has a mass larger than about three times the mass of our sun, no amount of additional pressure can stave off total gravitational collapse. The star collapses to form a black hole. For a nonrotating collapsed star, the size of the resulting black hole is proportional to the mass of the parent star; a black hole with a mass three times that of our sun would have a diameter of about 10 miles.


So why would we ignore the physics of collapsing bodies? Since when does a collapsing body in the real universe not rotate?

Clearly, centrifugal force plays a role as a body collapses. Just as clearly, it is insufficient to stop a black hole from forming.

But black holes are not static objects. As I mentioned before, the fact that they exist in our universe at all tells us something. The fact that they are observed to range from just a few solar masses to possibly 18 billion solar masses tells us a great deal more.

I know the equation exists for the point where centrifugal force will overcome gravity. But without volume/surface area, it doesn't matter. So what evidence do we have that gravitational collapse is total? None, that I am aware of.

Point singularities are most likely nothing more than a construct of the mathematics. Hawking addresses the information conservation issue by connecting information to the surface area of a BH. A point singularity does not have size and thus no surface area. The concept of Hawking Radiation also suggests a surface. That would suggest that he (Hawking) believes that BHs have size. However we just don't know what is going on inside a BH.

Perhaps it is naive of me, but I don't think it is a critical necessity to know when describing the universe as a 'contained' system. For this purpose, we can just observe what they do. How they interact with the rest of the universe. For comparison, we don't fully understand what happens on the sub-Planck scales, but observing the macro universe tells us that no matter what is happening in the chaotic, uncertain sub atomic universe, the end result is always the same.

If the principles presented in the special theory of relativity are accurate and the laws of physics are the same everywhere, our current understanding of gravity is, as it (gravity) appears to be and not as it is. Or as others believe just needs to be tweaked and adjusted.

While I cannot personally see the ideas you present, as functional. Answers to some of the questions you pose remain unanswered even by any generally accepted theory. There are many things in this world/universe we just do not yet understand. If what we seek is a unifying theory, it seems mostly likely that it will come from a new theory or at least a new or different perspective.

I'm still looking.

Do any of the recent observations warrant, in your opinion, revisiting the possibility of a centrifugual release? Have the parameters changed enough in the last decade?

If the Standard Model(s) had predicted these discoveries of early supermassive black holes, early proto-galaxies, early ionization, etc. then none of the theorists would be surprised.

Clearly, at least some of the critical base assumptions were in error.
 
Last edited:
If one of you can point to a discovery that falsifies the model, please do so.
You don't have a model, you can't model anything. You provide nothing therefore there is nothing to falsify or refute.

Maybe Alpha is correct, and I am just a delusional crank. Certainly his knowledge of math and physics dwarfs mine. Yet, these discoveries continue to pour in, and they keep supporting my hypotheses ... and surprising the theorists.
You don't have any models, you simply have a series of disconnected suppositions and wordy guesses. You haven't developed anything clearly and rigorously, you just have arm waving and qualitative interpretations.

The fact some things in experiments surprise theorists have absolutely no bearing on the validity (or not) of your claims.

The 'strongest' argument any scientist has made against my model (so far) is the currently accelerating recession.
No, the strongest argument against you model is it doesn't model anything. A model which doesn't model isn't a model. It's baseless supposition and arm waving.

We have yet to determine the physical mechanism for the accelerating recession. We don't know what triggered this mechanism. We don't know if this is a mechanism that will stop, or even reverse. Perhaps space is trying to achieve a state of 'equilibrium'. The observable universe is far too young to make assumptions about something we know almost nothing about.
The fact current science can't answer some questions have no bearing on the validity (or invalidity) of your claims. If all of mainstream physics was disproven tomorrow it wouldn't raise the credibility of your work at all.

Of course, Alpha knows full well that I do not have any credentials or affiliations and can't publish in a science journal.
You can't publish in a science journal because you have done no science. There isn't a conspiracy of silence, you've not produced anything which even comes close to meeting basic science standards. You're trying to convince yourself the reason for your abject failure isn't you.

I have sent it to well over 5,000 individuals over the last 2 years, so maybe some of those grad students, professors, and scientists will be intrigued enough to explore it further.
The fact you've spammed so many people only makes you look more and more of a crank.

If I am wrong, I will join the ranks of every other wrong cosmologist who has ever lived. So what? At least I tried.
You think you tried but whatever it is you've been spending your time doing it hasn't been science.
 
AlphaNumeric;2716807]You don't have a model, you can't model anything. You provide nothing therefore there is nothing to falsify or refute.

Let's assume you are correct that my model doesn't satisfy any of the necessary science criteria, and therefore 'models nothing'.

All that remains is a series of guesses ~ presumably wild, unsupported guesses. Still, I haven't written 'nothing'. They are at the very least ideas about how the universe works on the very large scale. Ideas that academicians have not proposed before.

So in very broad terms, how implausible are they, and why? Please be brief.

You don't have any models, you simply have a series of disconnected suppositions and wordy guesses. You haven't developed anything clearly and rigorously, you just have arm waving and qualitative interpretations.

Ok.

The fact some things in experiments surprise theorists have absolutely no bearing on the validity (or not) of your claims.

I don't think I ever said it did have a bearing on the validity of my claims. Just pointing out that some of the assumptions they have relied upon to form their theories are flawed. They obviously need to go back and question those base assumptions, and then rework the theories so the new observations fit.

Clearly, if any of their theories were correct ~ on the state of matter immediately after the big bang, black hole evolution, hierarchical galaxy formation and several others ~ the new data coming in would not conflict with the theories. But the reverse is true.

No, the strongest argument against you model is it doesn't model anything. A model which doesn't model isn't a model. It's baseless supposition and arm waving.

Baseless? I think not.

The fact current science can't answer some questions have no bearing on the validity (or invalidity) of your claims. If all of mainstream physics was disproven tomorrow it wouldn't raise the credibility of your work at all.

According to you, I haven't done any work, so credibility is a moot point.

You can't publish in a science journal because you have done no science.

It wouldn't matter if I had a full mathematical description. It wouldn't matter if my work was the equal of any paper ever written. The science journals require an affiliation with some respected institution and/or the endorsement from a qualified scientist in the appropriate field(s).

And I beg to differ. Deductive reasoning based solely on observations, experiments, and accepted and/or proven physical laws has at least some scientific merit.

There isn't a conspiracy of silence, you've not produced anything which even comes close to meeting basic science standards. You're trying to convince yourself the reason for your abject failure isn't you.

I never said there was a conspiracy. Without a firewall; if there were no standards, the science community would be deluged with millions of unscientific theories. Quite understandable that they would restrict access to publication.

How am I an 'abject failure'? I have come to what I consider reasonable conclusions about how the universe operates on the largest of scales, based on the evidence available to me. I feel strongly enough about these conclusions that I have taken it upon myself to expose members of the science community to them.

I have no concrete proof these hypotheses are right. I could be completely wrong. But the ideas are not insane, or baseless, as you prefer to characterize them. And clearly the science community was not exploring these ideas. My goal was to expose science to my hypotheses. I have done so, and continue to do so. Seems to me, I have been at least partially successful at accomplishing my goals.

The fact you've spammed so many people only makes you look more and more of a crank.

An opinion no doubt shared by many in your profession. It's ok. I can live with it.

You think you tried but whatever it is you've been spending your time doing it hasn't been science.

Like anyone else with an interest in the universe, I am trying to understand it. Apologies for my dismal output, but it's the best I am capable of.

I have mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. When I was 6 I worked out the photometric transit method of exoplanet detection. Obviously, I was no scientist at age 6. But logic, reason, and a faint grasp of the number of stars visible to telescopes convinced me I was correct.

So I sent NASA a letter describing how to do it. It took me 4 years to get the courage up to do this. You scientists can be rather intimidating. Lol.

I know they ignored my letter, because I sent it in 1962. Must not have met proper science standards, I suppose. Just another stupid letter from some 10 year old crank. I had never heard of Struve then, but I guess Struve was a crank, too. He was the first to seriously propose this method in ten years earlier in 1952. Ooops. Nope. He was an academician.

It only took modern astronomers another 35 years before they dedicated research along those lines.

It's curious that you spend so much time trying to crush the spirit of sincere people wishing to contribute to human knowledge.

No matter. You haven't made the slightest dent in mine. But don't let that deter you. Lol.
 
All that remains is a series of guesses ~ presumably wild, unsupported guesses. Still, I haven't written 'nothing'. They are at the very least ideas about how the universe works on the very large scale. Ideas that academicians have not proposed before.

So in very broad terms, how implausible are they, and why? Please be brief.
Anyone can make up anything if they don't have to justify it. That's how religion works and religions aren't scientific or justified or worth the paper their holy books are printed on.

Science fiction authors have churned out countless brilliant ideas about the universe, the future of humanity, the way space and time work, aliens, time travel, etc. Should we take them seriously as science?

You have a set of disconnected ideas. How do we know they are consistent? You haven't derived them from a single set of postulates, they might be logically incompatible. How do we know they have any hope of reflecting reality, you haven't been able to provide testable predictions.

Your entire work boils down to "I've got some superficial data about the universe and I claim, without evidence, reason or logic, it works as follows....". Religions do precisely the same.

I don't think I ever said it did have a bearing on the validity of my claims. Just pointing out that some of the assumptions they have relied upon to form their theories are flawed. They obviously need to go back and question those base assumptions, and then rework the theories so the new observations fit.
Then why list things science doesn't know the answer to currently? Yes, some things science needs to spend more time on but the issue at hand is to justify why your claims are what they should be looking at compared to anyone elses. Why are your claims more worthy of attention than say string theory or loop quantum gravity or twisters? All of those have formalism which can be developed, your work doesn't. Your work is entirely 'because I say so'.

If you were hit by a bus tomorrow your work couldn't be continued because your work is just your opinion, there's no formal construction to it. That renders it unscientific.

Clearly, if any of their theories were correct ~ on the state of matter immediately after the big bang, black hole evolution, hierarchical galaxy formation and several others ~ the new data coming in would not conflict with the theories. But the reverse is true.
What precisely is contradicting them?

Baseless? I think not.
So you can provide a derivation of a working model of some real world phenomenon?

Thought not.

According to you, I haven't done any work, so credibility is a moot point.
You haven't done anything scientific. You've spent (wasted) time on this stuff, whether that can be classified as work doesn't really matter.

It wouldn't matter if I had a full mathematical description. It wouldn't matter if my work was the equal of any paper ever written. The science journals require an affiliation with some respected institution and/or the endorsement from a qualified scientist in the appropriate field(s).
Absolute bullshit. You're making excuses for your failures. Journals are open for application from anyone. The website ArXiv requires a university email or someone to vouch for you but its not a journal site and thus does not otherwise screen its content. Journals screen their content and thus don't need to have such a barrier, they rate things by scientific merit.

I've been on both sides of the review process and while I indeed Googled for author home pages it was to see what their previous work had been in. Someone without a university affiliation would make me be more on my guard but it wouldn't result in an immediate rejection. If you can justify your claim your work isn't baseless then you have nothing to worry about.

And I beg to differ. Deductive reasoning based solely on observations, experiments, and accepted and/or proven physical laws has at least some scientific merit.
It would be, if you'd done anything like that. I've not seen you demonstrate any working understanding of any relevant science.

I never said there was a conspiracy. Without a firewall; if there were no standards, the science community would be deluged with millions of unscientific theories. Quite understandable that they would restrict access to publication.
There's more to journals than ArXiv. If you don't know that journals accept submissions from anyone then you haven't looked, which makes your claims about automatic rejection etc are the more dishonest.

How am I an 'abject failure'?
You've gotten nowhere, learnt nothing, published nothing and are stuck whining on forums about imaginary barriers to your publication.

I have come to what I consider reasonable conclusions about how the universe operates on the largest of scales, based on the evidence available to me. I feel strongly enough about these conclusions that I have taken it upon myself to expose members of the science community to them.
Yes, what you consider. Given you clearly have a warped view of the scientific community, little or no understanding of the scientific method and no grasp of what level of detail and analysis is expected of decent scientific work I don't think you're in any position to properly evaluate the merits of your own work.

Besides, the easiest person to delude about your work is yourself. You're not alone. Nuts like Farsight pour money into self publishing books of his crap. Hell, I'm not above it either. I've done work I thought was pretty good and then had it demolished in 15 minutes by someone else. And you know what I did? I learnt from it, accepted it and moved on. Bam! 3 months of work in the bin. Sure, I was cheesed at the time but I learnt a lot from it. I've learnt more from being told I'm wrong than I have from having people agree with me. The people who I've interacted with who have the most difficulty accepting any kind of correction are internet hacks. Most likely that's the reason why internet hacks are internet hacks, if they (you) accepted honest criticism a little better you'd not be in the self deluded position you're in.

I have no concrete proof these hypotheses are right.
You have no justified argument of any kind.

But the ideas are not insane, or baseless, as you prefer to characterize them.
Your claim they are worth paying attention to and are scientific are baseless.

And clearly the science community was not exploring these ideas.
They aren't exploring powering cars with milk or curing AIDS with mouthwash either. They aren't doing a lot of things and in order to decide what to do scientists need reason and evidence. Neither of which you've provided.

My goal was to expose science to my hypotheses. I have done so, and continue to do so. Seems to me, I have been at least partially successful at accomplishing my goals.
Spamming people's email with requests to evaluate your work isn't exposing science to your work, it'll be deleted in 99.9% of cases without even being read.

I have mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. When I was 6 I worked out the photometric transit method of exoplanet detection. Obviously, I was no scientist at age 6. But logic, reason, and a faint grasp of the number of stars visible to telescopes convinced me I was correct.

So I sent NASA a letter describing how to do it. It took me 4 years to get the courage up to do this. You scientists can be rather intimidating. Lol.

I know they ignored my letter, because I sent it in 1962. Must not have met proper science standards, I suppose. Just another stupid letter from some 10 year old crank. I had never heard of Struve then, but I guess Struve was a crank, too. He was the first to seriously propose this method in ten years earlier in 1952. Ooops. Nope. He was an academician.
And Newton, along with developing calculus, gravitational theories, numerical methods, mechanics and optics also put forth notions about bible codes and alchemy. Was he right about those just because he had some other good ideas?

It only took modern astronomers another 35 years before they dedicated research along those lines.
Because technology hadn't advanced to the stage where we could implement the idea in the 50s.

It's curious that you spend so much time trying to crush the spirit of sincere people wishing to contribute to human knowledge.
Imagination untempered by some rationality, logic, knowledge and willingness to be corrected is worthless in science.
 
"The larger the black hole, the longer it will take to evaporate. A 1 solar
mass black hole radiates much less power than that available in an AAA
battery."


Fascinating. Suntzeff speaks of evaporation as a 'given'.

For a moment there, I almost forgot that black hole evaporation is still technically an unproved hypothesis. Not officially even a theory, unless the LHC or space instruments such as GLAST (Fermi) have detected it in the last few months.

Also fascinating? That Suntzeff apparently was unaware that the total mass of the local group, which he agrees is gravitationally bound, is in the trillions of solar masses. Maybe he just meant that under the "simplist models of cosmology" there couldn't be any hypermassive black holes 'at this time'. Beause unless there is some drastic alteration of physics and gravity, hypermassive black holes are inevitable.

So what's going to happen to these hypermassive black holes if it turns out they don't evaporate? How are they going to 'fade away'? It's extremely unlikely they will, of course. Barring magic or godly intervention. They won't fade away even if they do evaporate. Realistically, they will always accrete more matter/energy than they lose. Unless (again) the laws of gravity and physics change suddenly. I suppose this is possible. Hmmm.

The universe is a lot for any one person to try and comprehend, and the world is full of very brilliant people like Suntzeff who do not venture far from their particular, and extremely narrow field of study.

Suntzeff assumes a lot. Like he said, he is an observer, not a deep thinker. He admits he doesn't pay much attention to theories, yet he apparently accepts the more popular ones as probably true, or true.

Perhaps his denial of the existence of hypermassive black holes is based on the theory that galaxies, and black holes are formed exclusively in hierarchical fashion. Perhaps it is based on the theory that the big bang was a generally homogeneous release of matter. Perhaps it is based on the theory that gravity and physics and chemistry didn't exist until some time after the big bang.

Of course, he is not an expert on black holes per se, so maybe we should check in with one. I wrote to Professor Martin Gaskell, head of the astronomy department at the University of Texas.

The following is a series of recent exchanges between us, edited for length and relevance. His notes are in blue italics. Hopefully this is not too confusing ...

Dear James,

I don't really work in cosmology. I'm afraid that I only work on more ordinary sized black holes in the centers of galaxies. These have only grown to be large in recent years so they are unrelated to the giga-massive black holes you postulate.


I write back:

Dear Martin,

Thank you for the note and for not being overly annoyed. If not for people like you, I would have no cosmological theory at all.

Find me a 50 billion solar mass black hole, will you?

Brand new discoveries you might find interesting.

http://news.discovery.com/space/obese-black-hole-110112.html

Wed Jan 12, 2011 05:30 PM ET ... The black hole inside a neighboring galaxy, known as M87, is obese and filled with the equivalent of 6.6 billion of our suns, according to new measurements.These supermassive black holes are relatively rare, scientists suspect, so it is surprising that such a behemoth lives relatively close by -- just 50 million light-years away.

http://science.gaeatimes.com/2010/08/26/how-the-first-super-massive-black-holes-were-born-21533/

Monday, January 10, 2011 ... "For more than two decades, the prevailing wisdom among astronomers has been that galaxies evolved hierarchically - that is, gravity drew small bits of matter together first, and those small bits gradually came together to form larger structures."

“Together with these other discoveries, our result shows that big structures - both galaxies and massive black holes - build up quickly in the history of the universe. Amazingly, this is contrary to hierarchical structure formation,” he said.

http://science.gaeatimes.com/2011/01/10/supermassive-black-hole-discovered-in-dwarf-galaxy-29820/

Monday, January 10, 2011 ... “Now, we have found a dwarf galaxy with no bulge at all, yet it has a supermassive black hole. This greatly strengthens the case for the black holes developing first, before the galaxy’s bulge is formed,” said Reines.

Best of luck to you.

He writes:

Hi James,

Find me a 50 billion solar mass black hole, will you?

10 billion solar masses is easy. 50 billion is getting up the upper limit in the currently observable universe. I bet there are one of two around though!

Brand new discoveries you might find interesting.

http://news.discovery.com/space/obese-black-hole-110112

Wed Jan 12, 2011 05:30 PM ET ... The black hole inside a neighboring
galaxy,known as M87, is obese and filled with the equivalent of 6.6 billion of our suns, according to new measurements.These supermassive black holes are relatively rare, scientists suspect, so it is surprising that such a behemoth lives relatively close by -- just 50 million light-years away.

This is a fairly solid result. The people working on this are colleagues of mine.

http://science.gaeatimes.com/2010/08/26/how-the-first-super-massive-black-holes-were-born-21533/

Monday, January 10, 2011 ... "For more than two decades, the prevailing
wisdom among astronomers has been that galaxies evolved hierarchically -
that is, gravity drew small bits of matter together first, and those small
bits gradually came together to form larger structures."**

“Together with these other discoveries, our result shows that big structures
- both galaxies and massive black holes - build up quickly in the history of
the universe. Amazingly, this is contrary to hierarchical structure formation,” he said.

That's a more questionable result.

http://science.gaeatimes.com/2011/01/10/supermassive-black-hole-discovered-in-dwarf-galaxy-29820/

Monday, January 10, 2011 ... “Now, we have found a dwarf galaxy with no
bulge at all, yet it has a supermassive black hole. This greatly strengthens
the case for the black holes developing first, before the galaxy’s bulge is
formed,” said Reines.


I think that last paper is probably wrong.

Martin


I respond with some of the arguments for the early development of supermassive black holes I have already presented on this thread. Within the first 200 million years after the big bang.

He writes back:

The observations show that the 10^10 solar mass BHs didn't grow in the early universe. The BHs see before them all have lower masses. That's a rather clear result. We'd see the 10^10 guys if they were there.

Yes, there are some pretty extreme ideas in cosmology! Most of them will be wrong (they can't ALL be right!), but who knows which will be right?


My rebuttal:

Yes Martin, I agree with you that this ( smaller than 10^10 going backwards in time ... generally speaking ) is what the observations have shown.

However ... there are also obvious limititations to detecting black holes. If they are not active, not emitting xrays, or have few if any stars orbiting them we are not going to see them. But they can make their presence known in other ways. The following is recent data from ESA, and articulates problems that would be solved by my model.

Although this data shows a smooth drop off in galaxies per volume of space, this is also not incompatible with my model. Again, I postulate a large family of black holes formed by the BB itself, and very rapid merges which could be responsible for great deal of the ionization in the first 200 million years. I must disagree on your assertion that we 'would see the 10^10 guys. They could be hidden for several reasons, and they might have existed so early that they are simply too quiet for us to detect using the normal methods.

I expect the number of black holes that escaped the very early universe are small. But I also think many still did, and they are partly responsible for the 10^9 10^10 black holes we see around in the later universe. We can measure the ages of the stars orbiting the black hole, but that does not tell us the age of the black hole. It could be younger, or older than the attendant galaxy. Correct? If we just assume hierarchical formation, then that gives us a number, but we can't say for certain it was hierarchical. We have evidence of this, but Is there any reason why it can't be both?

The point I am trying to make is .. extremely early universe black holes ( very massive ones ) could be there. Non active and invisible. They did all their work long before we think they existed.

One more point ... although you disagree with the 'discoveries' of 10^10 black holes in the ancient quasars, even if many were only 10^9 or 10^8, what do you think they are now? 13 billion years later? In that dense environment? Trillions? Quadrillions?

One paper from Tel Aviv ( 7 year Chandra observational study, I believe ) said supermassive black holes formed by 1.2 billion years. 2 - 4 billion years before accepted modeling shows they should have formed.

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=46243

The HUDF09 team also combined the new Hubble data with observations from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope to estimate the ages and masses of these primordial galaxies. "The masses are just 1 percent of those of the Milky Way," explains team member Ivo Labbé of the Carnegie Institute of Washington, lead author of two papers on the data from the combined NASA Great Observatories. He further noted that "to our surprise, the results show that these galaxies at 700 million years after the Big Bang must have started forming stars hundreds of millions of years earlier, pushing back the time of the earliest star formation in the Universe."

"This is about as far as we can go to do detailed science with the new HUDF09 image. It shows just how much the James Webb Space Telescope is needed to unearth the secrets of the first galaxies," says Illingworth. The challenge is that spectroscopy is needed to provide definitive redshift values, but the objects are too faint for spectroscopic observations (until JWST is launched), and the redshifts have to be inferred from the apparent colours of the galaxies.

The teams are finding that the number of galaxies per unit of volume of space drops off smoothly with increasing distance, and the HUDF09 team has also found that the galaxies become surprisingly blue intrinsically. The ultra-blue galaxies are extreme examples of objects that appear so blue because they may be deficient in the heavier elements, and as a result, are quite free of the dust that reddens light through scattering.

A longstanding problem with these findings is that it still appears that these early galaxies did not emit enough radiation to "reionise" the early Universe by stripping electrons from the neutral hydrogen that cooled after the Big Bang. This "reionisation" event occurred between about 400 million and 900 million years after the Big Bang, but astronomers still don't know which light sources caused it to happen. These newly discovered galaxies date from this important epoch in the evolution of the Universe.

Perhaps the density of very faint galaxies below the current detection limit is so high that there may be enough of them to support reionisation.

~ Or there were an awful lot of black holes with very few stars doing the work. Either case would support my model. The JWST is going to shed some light on this as will NuSTAR.

Or there was an earlier wave of galaxy formation that decayed and then was "rebooted" by a second wave of galaxy formation. Or, possibly the early galaxies were extraordinarily efficient at reionising the Universe.

~ Or again, perhaps there were far more than we think. What would make them 'extraordinarily' efficient? Radiation from stars is what it is. If the density of the universe was higher then, wouldn't this impede ionization from ordinary light? Wouldn't supermassive black holes blasting jets of xrays strip the electrons much faster? It would appear this is being offered up as a serious possibility in the following paragraph.

Due to these uncertainties it is not clear which type of object or evolutionary process did the "heavy lifting" by ionising the young Universe. The calculations are inconclusive, and so galaxies may do more than currently expected, or astronomers may need to invoke other phenomena such as mini-quasars (active supermassive black holes in the cores of galaxies) - current estimates suggest that quasars are even less likely than galaxies to be the cause of reionisation. This is an enigma that still challenges astronomers and the very best telescopes.

~ Estimates based on assumed purely hierarchical formation of black holes and galaxies. Which is based on the assumed distribution and the state of matter following the BB and the initial hyperinflation. Better be sure of the foundation before you start buiding on it.

"We know the gas between galaxies in the Universe was ionised early in history, but the total light from these new galaxies may not be sufficient to achieve this." said Andrew Bunker of the University of Oxford, a researcher on one of the European teams.

He notes that "the unique infrared sensitivity of Wide Field Camera 3 means that these are the best images yet for providing detailed information about the first galaxies as they formed in the early Universe."

James Dunlop of the University of Edinburgh agrees. "These galaxies could have roots stretching into an earlier population of stars. There must be a substantial component of galaxies beyond Hubble's detection limit."

~ Hmm. Dunlop agrees with me in principle. There could easily be a substantial component of supermassive black holes, too. In fact, if there are galaxies, there are going to be massive and supermassive black holes. I have other very recent supporting material from ESA and Planck, too, such as the discovery of heavy elements that could probably only exist if something made stars form extremely early.

The existence of these newly found galaxies pushes back the time when galaxies began to form to before 500-600 million years after the Big Bang. This is good news for astronomers building the much more powerful James Webb Space Telescope (JWST; planned for launch in 2014), which will allow astronomers to study the detailed nature of primordial galaxies and discover many more even farther away. There should be plenty for JWST to hunt for.

Yes, I may be wrong. But there is at least some evidence suggestive of me being right. As I said already, the evidence may already be there, but we haven't looked at it correctly, or the current data of the very early universe is insufficient to make a determination.

If we do discover 50 billion sun black holes in the early universe, will that help convince you at all?

Take care Martin. You are a good sport. I am terribly inarticulate, and far too verbose. You may be totally correct and my head is ... uhh, nevermind. But ok to reserve judgement, or should I go ahead and burn my model now?

He writes:

Hi James,

As I might have said already, I'm getting a HUGE number of e-mails these days, so I unfortunately can't give a detailed reply.

I can make a few general comments though. The useful thing about your model is that you HAVE a model and this is making you explore the literature for evidence that might support it. So in doing so you are going to find out lots of interesting things about the universe that you might not otherwise take the time to read. In doing this you will find things that don't seem to support your model and things that seem to support it. This then lets you refine your model or abandon your model and come up with a new model. That's all part of the basic scientific process.

The important thing in this is be willing to change your model (and to change other people's models too). If you don't do that you can missing out on making discoveries!


I combine my last rebuttal along with his responses ...

Hi James,

Again I apologize for taking your time Martin. Thank you for the advice. I
continue to read ... glad many papers are free, such as these two of yours.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.1180v1.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0711/0711.1013v1.pdf

I look at evidence that does not support my model probably harder than I
look at evidence that does. In so many papers baseline assumptions are all
too often treated as givens, including yours.

Yes. That can be a problem. And sometimes they are wrong.

So my first job, in the event of a paper that appears to conflict with my postulates is to question the assumptions.

That's a reasonable thing to do.

How else are we to make new discoveries?

Have you ever met a Schwarzchild ( non-rotating ) black hole? I can't find
one paper that confirms they exist at all. The evidence instead appears to
support all black holes spin very rapidly.

There's debate about how much they spin. I don't think we really know. For low-mass black holes the spin estimates could be quite wrong.

I question the BB singularity. There is no observational evidence to suggest the theoretical zero-point version ever existed. I question the physical viability of an ever-increasing rate of acceleration for the recession. The laws we are familiar with would seem to prohibit such a phenomenon ... for very long, anyway.

A binary BH system that gets too close to a core supermassive may eject one
of the binaries.

Yes. BH's probably are ejected.

I won't argue with the assumption of hierarchical galaxy formation, however, there may be other methods of culling out evidence for early supermassives, and we simply have not created the right algorithm yet, because we may have made the wrong assumptions in creating the algorithms.

If there were many black holes in the early universe along with a much
higher density of protogalaxies, then it is reasonable to consider the
possibility that those early binaries or trinaries had occasional high
velocity ejections too.

Yes.

Is there no case to be made for both hierarchical and non-hierarchical
systems? With the hierarchical systems in the vast majority of the Hv?

That's a bit beyond what I work on, but I think that's not an unreasonable idea.

There is so much we have yet to look at Martin. Our technology still has serious limitations.

You are an expert in your field, without question. But I don't think even
you can state with a high level of probability, let alone absolute certainty
that a very high number of black holes did not exist in the very early
universe, and that there are no 10^8 to 50^10 or greater supermassives in
the 1st 200 million years following the BB. It is possible they could have
been responsible for the majority of initial ionization and early star
formation. I must believe the ESO people are also experts in the field and
they certainly don't deny the possibilities, as they state in the article
below.

Of course I must keep an open mind, but it would be premature and illogical
to make wholesale changes to my model until more data is available. If
I remove the central element, there is no model. Back to square one.

With all due respect, even your extensive knowledge is hampered by lack of
data.

We certainly run into data limitations at the very earliest times!

Other models? I have looked at too many to count. I have found none so far
that offer solutions that do not border on the bizarre. When magic, alternate dimensions or gods are invoked, I have read enough. In any event, there are plenty of people working on those already. Good luck to them. I won't burn the model just yet.

All I am doing is offering an alternative, hoping to encourage further
investigation.

I apologize once more for arguing with you. Thank you again, and I wish you
continued success.

I'm sorry that I can't give more than brief replies.

All the best,

Martin


A very courteous, patient, and brilliant man. Yet with all his expertise, and broad knowledge, he is clearly not up to date on the latest observations. And as with Suntzeff, he accepts certain widely-held assumptions/theories about the early universe as probably true, or true.

If any want to check his credentials, here is his homepage.

http://www.as.utexas.edu/~gaskell/
 
Last edited:
“ Originally Posted by pywakit
All that remains is a series of guesses ~ presumably wild, unsupported guesses. Still, I haven't written 'nothing'. They are at the very least ideas about how the universe works on the very large scale. Ideas that academicians have not proposed before.

So in very broad terms, how implausible are they, and why? Please be brief. ”


Anyone can make up anything if they don't have to justify it. That's how religion works and religions aren't scientific or justified or worth the paper their holy books are printed on.

Science fiction authors have churned out countless brilliant ideas about the universe, the future of humanity, the way space and time work, aliens, time travel, etc. Should we take them seriously as science?

You have a set of disconnected ideas. How do we know they are consistent? You haven't derived them from a single set of postulates, they might be logically incompatible. How do we know they have any hope of reflecting reality, you haven't been able to provide testable predictions.

Actually, I haven't 'made up' anything, and I have provided testable predictions.

Your entire work boils down to "I've got some superficial data about the universe and I claim, without evidence, reason or logic, it works as follows....". Religions do precisely the same.

Amusing.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
I don't think I ever said it did have a bearing on the validity of my claims. Just pointing out that some of the assumptions they have relied upon to form their theories are flawed. They obviously need to go back and question those base assumptions, and then rework the theories so the new observations fit. ”


Then why list things science doesn't know the answer to currently? Yes, some things science needs to spend more time on but the issue at hand is to justify why your claims are what they should be looking at compared to anyone elses. Why are your claims more worthy of attention than say string theory or loop quantum gravity or twisters? All of those have formalism which can be developed, your work doesn't. Your work is entirely 'because I say so'.

My 'work' can be developed. I have made solid predictions that would strongly support the model. There are ways to test those predictions. String theory has neither.

If you were hit by a bus tomorrow your work couldn't be continued because your work is just your opinion, there's no formal construction to it. That renders it unscientific.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
Clearly, if any of their theories were correct ~ on the state of matter immediately after the big bang, black hole evolution, hierarchical galaxy formation and several others ~ the new data coming in would not conflict with the theories. But the reverse is true. ”


What precisely is contradicting them?

I have posted the information. Guess you didn't read it.

So you can provide a derivation of a working model of some real world phenomenon?

Thought not.

Isn't that what predictions do?

You haven't done anything scientific. You've spent (wasted) time on this stuff, whether that can be classified as work doesn't really matter.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
It wouldn't matter if I had a full mathematical description. It wouldn't matter if my work was the equal of any paper ever written. The science journals require an affiliation with some respected institution and/or the endorsement from a qualified scientist in the appropriate field(s). ”


Absolute bullshit. You're making excuses for your failures. Journals are open for application from anyone. The website ArXiv requires a university email or someone to vouch for you but its not a journal site and thus does not otherwise screen its content. Journals screen their content and thus don't need to have such a barrier, they rate things by scientific merit.

??? I don't have a university email, or someone to vouch for me.

I've been on both sides of the review process and while I indeed Googled for author home pages it was to see what their previous work had been in. Someone without a university affiliation would make me be more on my guard but it wouldn't result in an immediate rejection. If you can justify your claim your work isn't baseless then you have nothing to worry about.

Please provide a link to a science journal that does not require an appropriate institutional web address, or an endorsement.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
According to you, I haven't done any work, so credibility is a moot point. ”


It would be, if you'd done anything like that. I've not seen you demonstrate any working understanding of any relevant science.

Ok. :shrug:

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
I never said there was a conspiracy. Without a firewall; if there were no standards, the science community would be deluged with millions of unscientific theories. Quite understandable that they would restrict access to publication. ”


There's more to journals than ArXiv. If you don't know that journals accept submissions from anyone then you haven't looked, which makes your claims about automatic rejection etc are the more dishonest.

I looked at the main journal sites. If you can show me one that doesn't require institutional affiliation or endorsement ... and isn't the "Official Journal of Alien Abductions" I would appreciate it.

You've gotten nowhere, learnt nothing, published nothing and are stuck whining on forums about imaginary barriers to your publication.

I'm not whining about barriers. I just pointed out that the respected journals restrict access. It hasn't bothered me. You were the one who claimed if my work had any value, I could publish. I simply corrected you.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
I have come to what I consider reasonable conclusions about how the universe operates on the largest of scales, based on the evidence available to me. I feel strongly enough about these conclusions that I have taken it upon myself to expose members of the science community to them. ”


Yes, what you consider. Given you clearly have a warped view of the scientific community, little or no understanding of the scientific method and no grasp of what level of detail and analysis is expected of decent scientific work I don't think you're in any position to properly evaluate the merits of your own work.

Besides, the easiest person to delude about your work is yourself. You're not alone. Nuts like Farsight pour money into self publishing books of his crap. Hell, I'm not above it either. I've done work I thought was pretty good and then had it demolished in 15 minutes by someone else. And you know what I did? I learnt from it, accepted it and moved on. Bam! 3 months of work in the bin. Sure, I was cheesed at the time but I learnt a lot from it. I've learnt more from being told I'm wrong than I have from having people agree with me. The people who I've interacted with who have the most difficulty accepting any kind of correction are internet hacks. Most likely that's the reason why internet hacks are internet hacks, if they (you) accepted honest criticism a little better you'd not be in the self deluded position you're in.

:bawl:

You have no justified argument of any kind.

Your claim they are worth paying attention to and are scientific are baseless.

They aren't exploring powering cars with milk or curing AIDS with mouthwash either. They aren't doing a lot of things and in order to decide what to do scientists need reason and evidence. Neither of which you've provided.

Both of which I have provided.

Spamming people's email with requests to evaluate your work isn't exposing science to your work, it'll be deleted in 99.9% of cases without even being read.

Hmmm. 99.9%? Wow. I guess I have been wasting my time.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
I have mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. When I was 6 I worked out the photometric transit method of exoplanet detection. Obviously, I was no scientist at age 6. But logic, reason, and a faint grasp of the number of stars visible convinced me I was correct. So I sent NASA a letter describing how to do it. It took me 4 years to get the courage up to do this. You scientists can be rather intimidating. Lol.

I know they ignored my letter, because I sent it in 1962. Must not have met proper science standards, I suppose. Just another stupid letter from some 10 year old crank. I had never heard of Struve then, but I guess Struve was a crank, too. He was the first to seriously propose this method ten years earlier in 1952. Ooops. Nope. He was an academician. ”


And Newton, along with developing calculus, gravitational theories, numerical methods, mechanics and optics also put forth notions about bible codes and alchemy. Was he right about those just because he had some other good ideas?

Absurd. Struve's idea was a good one. Obviously, since we use the method now.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
It only took modern astronomers another 35 years before they dedicated research along those lines. ”


Because technology hadn't advanced to the stage where we could implement the idea in the 50s.

Even if that were the case, was technology still in the dark ages in the 60s? 70s? 80s? Are you suggesting that we could detect a faint wobble in stars but we lacked the ability to measure their luminosity?

Imagination untempered by some rationality, logic, knowledge and willingness to be corrected is worthless in science.

I don't mind being corrected Alpha. As I have stated numerous times, I may be wrong. But you have offered no constructive criticism. In any case, my model is the result of a lot of study, and has a great deal of scientific support.
 
Last edited:
My theories, hypotheses, postulates, guesses, wild imaginings, whatever you want to call them, are posted in pseudoscience.

I believe I meet the basic criteria for posting here.

I have posted numerous recent articles and papers that lend support to my 'ideas'.

I have also posted exchanges between actual scientists and myself which would indicate that my hypotheses are not 'pure science fiction' or the mutterings of a demented man.
 
Actually, I haven't 'made up' anything, and I have provided testable predictions.
So you can give your postulates, show a clear and logical derivation and produce testable predictions from them? No, you just said "I think it works like this...". That's just making stuff up.


“ Originally Posted by pywakit
I don't think I ever said it did have a bearing on the validity of my claims. Just pointing out that some of the assumptions they have relied upon to form their theories are flawed. They obviously need to go back and question those base assumptions, and then rework the theories so the new observations fit. ”
You don't know any mainstream physics so your claim to see the flaws others haven't is unjustified.

My 'work' can be developed.
How? If you were hit by a bus tomorrow how would anyone develop it? For accurately, how would they develop in a way you'd consider correct?

Suppose you and someone else were to be put in seperate rooms for a week or month or year, to work on your 'work'. Before hand you have to explain your 'work' to the other person to the best of your ability. What could you possibly say which would mean that when you are both released a week or month or year later you have both reached the same conclusions.

For instance, Einstein gave the Einstein Field Equations. Anyone whose versed in differential geometry can work on them and two people given the task of finding the space-time structure around the Earth or any spherical piece of matter will reach the same conclusions. That's because the formal mathematical structure is independent of what Einstein's personal views are. Hell, some people even derived things he didn't initially agree with!

Can this be done with your work? Does it have sufficient structure that two people working on the same problem in isolation will reach the same conclusion as to how your 'model' describes the problem? If the answer is no (and it is) then it lacks justification and isn't scientific, its your random guesses.

I have made solid predictions that would strongly support the model. There are ways to test those predictions. String theory has neither.
You don't have a model, models model things. You have unjustified guesses. And string theory has plenty of predictions and falsifiable results. If gravity didn't adhere to the dynamics of general relativity at large distances string theory would be wrong, flat out wrong. This is because string theory necessarily involves a gravitational framework which limits to general relativity. If GR were utterly false, so too would be string theory.

I have posted the information. Guess you didn't read it.
I've not seen you provide anything other than just your assertions. Can you provide links to reviewed papers?

Isn't that what predictions do?
Predictions are the end result of those derivaitons. Just saying "My model of gravity says the Earth goes around the Sun" is a 'prediction' but its unjustified, vague and lacks any way to test in detail. Newtonian gravity says that but we know its not exactly right.

Can you show how you reached your conclusions? If you can't then they are just made up guesses.

??? I don't have a university email, or someone to vouch for me.
And you don't need one.

?Please provide a link to a science journal that does not require an appropriate institutional web address, or an endorsement.Physics Review.

Why don't you send a PM to Farsight, he's submitted his crank nonsense to loads of journals. Got rejected from every one of them but not for lacking a university email.

“ Originally Posted by pywakit
According to you, I haven't done any work, so credibility is a moot point. ”


?I'm not whining about barriers. I just pointed out that the respected journals restrict access. It hasn't bothered me. You were the one who claimed if my work had any value, I could publish. I simply corrected you. You are whining about barriers and you haven't corrected me.

Both of which I have provided.I haven't seen you anywhere state your starting postulates, work through a step by step derivation, reach a general conclusion and then apply it to specific phenomena.

Which post of yours did that?

Even if that were the case, was technology still in the dark ages in the 60s? 70s? 80s? Are you suggesting that we could detect a faint wobble in stars but we lacked the ability to measure their luminosity?
Small variations in luminosity, particularly periodic ones, can be explained by other phenomena. This is part of your problem (and cranks in general), you fail to realise the huge number of things which have to be considered when testing models and think naive things like "Just measure luminosity, that'll validate my idea". No, it won't if there's another explanation for the effect. It'll help narrow down the list of possible explanations/models/ideas but it won't validate your idea. Since you're unaware of basic stellar mechanics you're unaware of other explanations for certain effects.

A huge part of cranks' problems is they (you) don't realise just how little you know. Happens to most people, myself included. Start university thinking "I'm going to learn all about mathematics" but by the end of it you realise you half know 0.001% of it. Then you decide to specialise in 0.001% of that 0.001%. 4 years later and you vaguely know 0.001% of that 0.001% of the 0.001%. Cranks almost invariable lack any relevant beyond high school education and thus don't realise just how big the iceberg under the surface is. On this forum I often get accused by cranks of thinking I know everything. No, I happen to have a decent grasp of the very upper most tip of that huge iceberg and the crank thinks that tip is the iceberg.

Education is the continued discovery of your ignorance.

I don't mind being corrected Alpha.
You really do.
 
Education is the continued discovery of your ignorance.
A day in which I do not increase my ignorance is a day wasted. Unfortunately all pywakit has done is to confirm my existing knowledge that some people are nuts.
 
AlphaNumeric ...

1. I asked for a link, not a title. I googled 'Physics Review' and got several different sites. I checked a couple, and they both required *affiliations*.

2. My model does not appear to require new physics. Or magic. Or strings. Or gods.

3. I assume most physicists understand known physics.

4. I do not have the ability to describe the model mathematically as required for publication in physics journals. And I can't do it here either. I was unaware I was required to do so to post on this forum.

5. My model makes specific predictions. Several of them. You continue to insist it does not. You are in error. Please read post #111. You will find the predictions there. They are testable either through direct astronomical observation with existing instruments, or instruments soon to be deployed, or by mining existing astronomical data.

6. My model is accompanied by numerous supporting science articles and papers from respected sources, and are generally peer-reviewed. Am I required to post a link to a research paper that fully confirms my model's hypotheses?

7. Your comments regarding string theory are in conflict with the principle researchers. There are no experiments or observations that confirm string theory. There are no experiments or observations that even support string theory in any meaningful way.

According to Brian Green at Columbia, in a PBS interview from a couple years ago, string theory remains unfalsifiable. I am going to take his word over yours. Green goes on to say it is hoped that current experiments at the LHC will not "prove string theory but would at least show us we are on the right path".

Green also goes on to say that the predictions string theory makes would not confirm strings because other equally valid theories make the same predictions.

The math provides for a minimum of 10^500 possible solutions. I have already posted the relevant excerpts from Green and others on this thread.

I have read no recent paper that changes the status of strings.

8. There is nothing random about my model. My hypotheses are logically and reasonably derived from astronomical observations, and the assumption that the known laws of physics are universal. They are not wild, unjustified guesses, anymore than my working out the photometric transit method of exoplanet discovery was a wild, unjustified guess.

I didn't need a degree in physics to logically determine that the odds were effectively trillions to one against our solar system being the only star in the universe with it's orbiting satellites sharing the same plane of the ecliptic, or that out of all those stars, none of those satellite's orbits would be 'on edge' to us.

Please elucidate the numerous known (or theorized) astronomical phenomena that could cause a periodic drop in luminosity.

9. My claims of 'flaws' in theories are well-supported by the words of the researchers themselves, as articulated in the numerous science papers and articles included in the addendum at the bottom of post #111.

10. The most basic element of the model is ridiculously simple. The big bang was a centrifugal release of mass from a black hole containing all the mass contained within the Hubble volume. Suggesting that an astrophysicist, or cosmologist could not carry on research of this simple concept if I was hit by a bus is absurd. The conversations I have had with other scientists make it clear that they have little trouble grasping the basics. They may not agree with certain elements of it, but they do appear to understand it.

11. You have yet to attempt to falsify any of my hypotheses. I can't help but notice you have had no such reluctance when addressing other 'cranks' theories.

12. Contrary to your assertions, I do not think I know everything. I do think I am a fairly good observer of reality, though. However, if we are to go with your logic, no human in existence could ever know enough to draw any conclusions whatsoever about the form, structure and processes of the observable universe.

13. I will be happy to debate or discuss any of the specific elements of my model with you or anyone else.

14. If the requirements for posting now in pseudoscience are a mathematical description, including all the physics used to derive the hypotheses, then feel free to delete all my posts. I certainly can't stop you.
 
Last edited:
A day in which I do not increase my ignorance is a day wasted. Unfortunately all pywakit has done is to confirm my existing knowledge that some people are nuts.

Thank you for sharing. Perhaps you are correct. Time will tell.

And I assume you meant 'knowledge' ... not ignorance.
 
Last edited:
5. My model makes specific predictions. Several of them. You continue to insist it does not. You are in error. Please read post #111. You will find the predictions there. They are testable either through direct astronomical observation with existing instruments, or instruments soon to be deployed, or by mining existing astronomical data.
Several of your predictions state that computer simulations would confirm some aspect of your hypothesis. I find this puzzling. A computer simulation ias based upon a model expressed in a mathematical form. You say you cannot express your model mathematically. Therefore no computer simulation can be made that reflects your model. Therefore you are, on this point at least, talking bollocks.

14. If the requirements for posting now in pseudoscience are a mathematical description, including all the physics used to derive the hypotheses, then feel free to delete all my posts. I certainly can't stop you.
If you can't offer a mathematical description it is not a model. Stop calling it that.
 
Several of your predictions state that computer simulations would confirm some aspect of your hypothesis. I find this puzzling. A computer simulation ias based upon a model expressed in a mathematical form. You say you cannot express your model mathematically. Therefore no computer simulation can be made that reflects your model. Therefore you are, on this point at least, talking bollocks.

So I am required to create new algorithms for mining the existing astronomical data? Are you suggesting that if I can't do it, nobody can?

Fascinating.

Hawking conceptualizes the universe. He bases these conceptualizations on known physics, and observations. He then has assistants create the actual mathematical equations describing the concepts.

I suspect the same process would work in this instance. I have provided the concept, and mathematicians can create the math. If the concept is unworkable, the math would probably reveal this.

Computer models generally start with mathematical descriptions of basic assumptions. Those assumptions reflect widely held and/or accepted theories and assumed parameters pertaining to the structure and processes of the universe.

Change the assumptions and you change the computer models.

There is nothing 'nonsensical' about my hypotheses. They are plausible solutions to many unanswered questions and problems associated with the Standard Model.

Is there some crime in offering this alternative to current popular contenders for replacing the SM? Is science going to collapse because I suggested them?

Are billions going to be wasted exploring them?

It's a good theory. Just as good as any of them floating around. Just as good as strings, or branes, or time reversal, or expanding bubbles or empty packets. It's falsifiable.

What harm can there be in suggesting a solution that no one has suggested before?

Ok. I get it. You don't like it. I can live with that.
 
Last edited:
Several of your predictions state that computer simulations would confirm some aspect of your hypothesis. I find this puzzling. A computer simulation ias based upon a model expressed in a mathematical form. You say you cannot express your model mathematically. Therefore no computer simulation can be made that reflects your model. Therefore you are, on this point at least, talking bollocks.

If you can't offer a mathematical description it is not a model. Stop calling it that.

"The useful thing about your model is that you HAVE a model and this is making you explore the literature for evidence that might support it. So in doing so you are going to find out lots of interesting things about the universe that you might not otherwise take the time to read. In doing this you will find things that don't seem to support your model and things that seem to support it. This then lets you refine your model or abandon your model and come up with a new model. That's all part of the basic scientific process."

Martin Gaskell says it is a model. But I don't disagree that it is not a 'complete' model. Call it whatever you want.
 
Back
Top