22Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksHello,
Philisophical arguemnt for why Binaary black holes must restore entropy to the universe.
https://www.facebook.com/jimmy.vick1
Good day.
June 3rd, 2013, 06:16 PM
Hello,
Philisophical arguemnt for why Binaary black holes must restore entropy to the universe.
https://www.facebook.com/jimmy.vick1
Good day.
Last edited by vickster339; June 3rd, 2013 at 07:35 PM.
Popularity falls to the wayside when talking math. If the math doesn't add up, you're just plain wrong.Originally Posted by vickster339
Total crap.
It should go straight to the trash.
Which part of my reasoning is flawed?
Well- this is your intro thread. Why not start a thread and give a synopsis of your ideas in the proper place.
Provide your observations, evidence, data, predictions and conclusions.
Gotcha
June 20th, 2013, 07:41 PM
It is a philosophical argument regarding the implications of information conservation in black hole entropy. I actually have quite a bit more data etc... that was not the intent of this argument. Based on the open minded discussions I have had with others, I can only assume there is nothing wrong with my reasoning, just its implication...
As far as it being it being “Trash”... we will see once my numerical relativistic hydrodynamic simulation is up and running…
I'd much rather see a scientific argument rather than a philosophical argument, because philosophical arguments are empty crap.
Does this come straight from the "history is bunk" school of thought?
You sound like a certain type of engineer (and I generally admire, and respect, engineers) whose sole concern is with severely practical matters.
I don't think this post matches the quality of the vast majority of other posts you have made.
A Facebook page is a philosophical argument now? What is "philosophical" about pictures of cats and drunk teenagers?
From your posts on another forum, it appears that you are largely ignorant of physics and cosmology, are unable to provide a logical argument, make false statements that you cannot support, and use made up words that you fail to define.
But thanks for not bothering to post anything that needs refuting. (I notice that you just wandered off when it was pointed out that most of your assertions were false and none of your reasoning made sense. So, we could all save a lot of time if you just leave now.)
What reasoning?
You really shouldn't take things at "face value" on the internet or assume so much.... The admin on CosmoQuet is altering my posts.... he is logging into my account and changing the stuff I am writing...
The CosmoQuest Admin is the user @fishdontfeelpain on liveleak, real nice guy... see what he has to say. He has been logged in under my account and selectively altering what I have written on CosmoQuest. He has completely censored some posts, taking my comments from liveleak, and making up whatever narrative he wants on CosmoQuest. Quite the Psycho Nerd actually.
He seems to pop up all over the web... nothing better to do I guess. Believe whatever you like.
He can not do that here... LiveLeak.com - The path to understanding the Rational Universe
Galileo's first argument on the phases of Venus observational and philosophical.... it took until newton to get a semi-accurate explanation of what was going on (excluding Mercury's orbit).... and was not until Einstein that a complete and accurate description was made. That is 306 years for you math guys....
The level of hostility I have encountered from those that realize what I am saying and what it implies has been fairly high... The Sun does not orbit the Earth and this has been a search for open minded people. All I have discovered is what a filthy toilet the internet really is....
Last edited by vickster339; June 21st, 2013 at 08:06 AM.
Oh dear. You are even crazier than you first appear....
Why does everyone with a crackpot theory think that people who try to explain their errors and misunderstandings are "hostile", "emotional", "scared" or "narrow minded"? It gets a bit tedious after a while.The level of hostility I have encountered from those that realize what I am saying and what it implies has been fairly high...
June 21st, 2013, 05:20 PM
The elitist jerks sure do circle the wagons don't they... On Cosmoquest you see what the admin wants you to. My liveleak post was also sent to CosmoQuest but was censored. If my argument is so "crackpot" why don't you help me to improve my understanding by pointing out specifically where my reasoning is flawed? Isn't that what an intellectual community does?
If you run 'elitist jerks' through google translate, it comes out 'people with an education'.The elitist jerks sure do circle the wagons don't they
I'm sure this is pointless as it has already been pointed out that your "argument" is based on a series of false assertions and misunderstandings of science, which have no logical connection. Even some individual sentences are completely incomprehensible (which, of course, could just be due to the fact I am not very bright). But ...
Let's start with the very first sentence of your "argument": If you destroy entropy/information (I will just call it entropy from now on) with singularities like Hawking used to...
You seem to be confusing a singularity with a black hole (i.e. an event horizon). I doubt there is any meaningful definition of entropy for a singularity. (I also doubt that a singularity represents anything physical.)
As far as I can tell from skimming through a couple of versions of your text, that pretty much invalidates everything you say.
I think I opened with the following:
"The following is an argument based on observation and rational descent that is fundamentally contrary to the standard model. To prove it completely, I would need some assistance. In the process I will also put forth the most rational solution to discovering rational truth if the universe is indeed rational. I am going to argue that Dark Energy is no more than a modern day version of Ether and that Dark Matter are likely singularities (I use this in place of black hole because it sounds better frankly). I am going to share with you some observations, perceptions, ideas, and crappy stories in place of computer simulations."
Did you NOTICE what is in the ( ) or do you have a vision problem?
I realize that a singularity is an inherently irrational object based on what I am proposing.... I did however make it very clear that I was using "Singularity" in place of "Black Hole" because it does "sound better" (most agree). I also chose this terminology for other sarcastic purposes... The point was to start an argument and debate regarding the forbidden.
Black hole information paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have way more "stuff" and I am "choosing" to not "dump" it here... the internet is a toilet and I have worked too hard to give up the goods on this. My goal is to get people to "think" outside the box....
Here is some not in my paper that should be obvious if you start thinking based on my idea:
Black Holes not only violate the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics by their nature, they reverse it in a binary state. Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
68 percent of the universe that is thought to be "dark energy ", it is actually the amount of entropy the universe has recycled since its beginning.
I make it clear in my argument that this process presupposes our "reality" since that is indeed would suggest how the universe began.
Black Holes are "timeless" states of matter, energy, and entropy/information.
In a Binary Black Hole merger, matter and energy will be reset to preserver this information rather than allow it to be corrupted with information from another black hole. Because the information/identity/entropy of a black hole is always changing with time from both ends.
Bleh, got to go see Superman...
Mr. Strange...
You are one of the fellows from CosmoQuest, how nice. Are you aware that tusenfem the moderator of that site or yourself (I bet you are the same jerkoff) are fishdontfeelpain on LiveLeak.com - The path to understanding the Rational Universe
One or both of you logged into my CosmoQuest account, altered my first post to make me look retarded, completely censored my second post, then took the responses I made on liveleak and posted them on CosmoQuest under my account... Then you go after me based on this manufactured narrative.... you should work for the NSA!
Build a straw man out of a lie and then take it down Obama style because you have no honor. Bring it on... I will win even if the fight isn't fair... whatever that means to people such as yourself.
But they are totally different things. That is like talking about a new engine design for a car and starting off by saying you will call it "jelly" because it sounds better. No, it just sounds ignorant.
What do you think is "forbidden"?The point was to start an argument and debate regarding the forbidden.
Yes BLACK HOLE information paradox. Not singularity.
Only because of people like you. Thanks for not dumping any more crap here. I am, if you will excuse the phrase, relieved.I have way more "stuff" and I am "choosing" to not "dump" it here... the internet is a toilet
Oh god. Not that old cliche again. Why do all you "free thinking outside the box" types all think the same way.My goal is to get people to "think" outside the box....
In other words, you are the typical ignorant fool who thinks that you have some great insight and that scientists are somehow lacking in imagination. Despite the fact you know absolutely zilch about science.
I thought you were going to stop dumping these unsupported and ignorant assertions?Here is some not in my paper that should be obvious if you start thinking based on my idea:
Wow, you really are delusional.Bleh, got to go see Superman...
[that is just a friendly little joke to show that you are not "scaring" people with your "insights" or making people "angry" with your "challenging ideas" - enjoy the movie (I really hope you do mean the movie...)]
Wow- paranoid. Talk about building a straw house for Don Quixote to tilt at.
So you think "Black Hole Synthesis" sounds better "Singulosynthesis"? I was aiming for something had better rhyme with nucleosynthesis since they are processes that compliment each other... It was swapped for naming purposes, since it is my idea I can pretty much name it whatever the hell I like. And Strange, how many accounts you running to make your little attacks? If they were all done with 1 account it would look too obvious?
Let us dumb it down a little... how about all the way. Pick one and lets discuss it if you have the stones.
1. Black Holes Do Not exist
2. Black Holes Exist and emit hawking radiation destroying information in entropy
3. Black Holes Exist and conserve information in entropy via the holographic principle or some other unknown method
You've already done that.Let us dumb it down a little... how about all the way
What a paranoid little crank this is.
These seem mutually contradictory so I'm not sure how they are all supposed to be part of your idea. But tell us about the first one. What is your basis (theoretical and/or evidential) for saying that black holes do not exist? I assume this involves demonstrating a flaw in the Einstein field equations? Or perhaps that one of the standard solutions (Schwarzschild, Kerr, etc.) describing is incorrect?
Fire away...
No, no- Strange is obviously also the Owner and Administrator of two other sites and is out to get him...
I heard Strange is in charge of the NSA AND the CIA.
Now I know who to confront about my missing disinformation paychecks!
They arrived a couple of weeks ago. You put them down and then they got knocked behind that cupboard in the study. (That's what my agents tell me, anyway, after examining the footage from the hidden cameras.)Now I know who to confront about my missing disinformation paychecks!
Crap. Went and looked where you said and found them.
....Thanks...
You guys don't even step in the ring do ya... you just play Master of the Obvious
Of course they are mutually contradictory and they are not my "idea" they are possibilities.
Let me try again, pick one or propose a more rational option, and lets discuss it if you have the stones.
1. Black Holes Do Not exist (was added because it is a possibility that obviously isn't true and yet it is all you talked about... because you are all talk, disinformation, and lastly SPAM SPAM SPAM)
For those not on the short bus or in the padded bus, that leave 2 possibilities... Any thoughts? Any arguments of your own? I know you know better than to choose anything. Do you like Apples? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmRe_fK7pbw
2. Black Holes Exist and emit hawking radiation destroying information in entropy
3. Black Holes Exist and conserve information in entropy via the holographic principle or some other unknown method
Not paranoid, just stating my case since I am free to do so. The Chinese do the same crap on the daily basis when they are not forcing women to have abortions.... people are seeing through the bullshit and are contacting me, from all over the world actually. Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, and others... My hope has been to inspire an original thought.... Likely it will just make you angry, to deal with this anger you will probably go on Starcraft 2 and purge it by slaughtering noobs. Which gives me some understanding as to what level of competition you are used to. But... if you are angry be angry at half priced books in Redmond WA...
The solstice must be bringing out the crazy.
My mistake. I thought you wanted to explain and provide evidence to support your theory. <shrug>
Damn right. You don't answer anything you're asked about. You just shuck and jive.
Umm...AlexG... Telling someone to throw something in the trash is not a question, it is a command, did you ever ask a question? The rest is all wagging the dog nonsense...
I have brought an argument and reason.... all I have seen from you all are:
7. Tactics"Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. ... Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves." p.126
Always remember the first rule of power tactics (pps.127-134):
1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."
2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.
3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."
8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."
9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."
11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."
12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...
"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...
The irony is, I came out with a simple argument and when people are not preforming "conflict tactics" they are actually trying to steal the idea. Do you think I would just give it all away like Henry Comstock? While we are on the topic of delusional, you should check this out this...
Over the last few months I have been monitoring 2nd amendment discussions online from nearly every source imaginable. I noticed some of the most rational and convincing 2nd amendment advocates were using statistics from the FBI crime stats website to make pro 2nd arguments while debunking anti 2nd amendment arguments. I thought this was a good strategy and typed up some arguments with direct links to the crime stats on the FBI website. When I went to revise my argument last week I noticed all the links suddenly went to contextually meaningless data.
After some investigation I found the data I and others had once been using. The data was found chopped up and disorganized in such fashion rendering it useless if you consider the context it was previously used in. In addition it was displayed in such a way you couldn’t find the data you were looking for even if you wanted to.
Three months ago the following linked page used to be a complete summary page for homicides in the US (It was named “2011 Homicide Summary” or something). It once included many more tables that have since been relocated such as those based on race, weapon use, age, totals, and the like: FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 11
Now this complete summary page is gone and has been replaced with “Murder Circumstances”. The data from the former page for homicides in the US data has been chopped up and has been redistributed into various unlabeled tables: FBI — Tables
The "Expanded Homicide Data Tables 1-15" three months ago made up an organized meaningful summary table with sub links to supporting statistics. The FBI has taken organized public data and unorganized intentionally in such a fashion you cannot even use it in a meaningful way now. Any document or arguments made linking the old data that no longer exists now look like works of insanity. If you wanted to edit an old document or argument with links to new data tables you would need to completely redo your work.
There is no rational or even good reason to intentionally disorganize this public data in such a way, none. Why would the FBI maliciously disorganize public data like this? They are not just re-organizing their site or some crap, they are monitoring online usage, posts, references, and actively altering the sources. In the context of what is going on nationally, that is my most rational conclusion.
It seems individuals such as yourselves also run the FBI and God knows what else...
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." — Benjamin Franklin
Oh boy...
No. You have brought random misunderstandings of science. With no logic or reason connecting them. And valid conclusions. Basically, just an impressive demonstration of ignorance and woolly thinking.
I have no idea how all that "2nd amendment" stuff is supposed to have anything to do with science in general or your "theory" in particular. (But then I have no idea what a "2nd amendment" is.)
Something about the right to keep a bear?
I think it's the amendment just after the first one and just before the third.
This is one of the crazier ones we've had lately.
Scientists keep connecting with me on facebook, why would they do that?
I don't think anyone believes anything you're saying.
Bellevue is also the name of a noted mental hospital.
Made edits to comply with the establishment douche bags... it is a philosophical argument... it is on my timeline... if your IQ is over 75 shouldn't be to hard to find.
Never mind that it is infallible and irrefutable.... Not going to waste to much time arguing with a piles of rocks.
https://www.facebook.com/jimmy.vick1
I sincerely encourage you all to invest your entire lives in the hunt for dark energy... I mean REALLY sell out your collective souls to the idea, please...
Such modesty. It is refreshing to such humility on a science forum.
What do you base this opinion on ? For DM to be composed of black holes, those black holes would have to be microscopic in size; this in turn would mean that their life time would have to be extremely short; we would therefore observe DM to be emitting large amounts of Hawking radiation, which does not appear to be the case.
The general consensus now is that this paradox doesn't exist. Even Hawking himself conceded as much a few years back.
Why exactly do you think that ?Black Holes not only violate the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics by their nature, they reverse it in a binary state.
Why are they "timeless" ? What exactly do you actually mean by that ?Black Holes are "timeless" states of matter, energy, and entropy/information.
Pseudo.
Not wasting my time here anymore guys sorry, I have Einstein to vindicate... The Giga Society tester contact me... here is a sweet video to check out as a booby prize The Birth of a Black Hole, Masters of the universe (Hypernovas, Gamma-Ray burst etc.) - YouTube
While I have yet to work out all the details... the Sun will not live as long as most think it will.... Once my simulation is running, you will be the first to know how long it will live. (consider my idea and consider the concept of rain drops all the way through if you can). In a binary black hole merger physical information of a black hole horizon is conserved at the expense of time based on black hole mass.
No you don't. This stuff is all just meaningless gibberish. Good luck anyway with your YouTube video...you'll sure need it.
There have been several gravitational interferometers online for years now around the world. Does it not strike you as rather odd that none have identified the most powerful gravity wave signature believed to exist? The signature bearing theoretical identity of the compact binary black hole system and or merger event. I remember the hype of LIGO going online and the long silence that followed. While at the same time gravitational wave interferometers have found other less powerful compact binary signatures....
Through use of reason alone I have created two new theoretical binary black hole gravitational wave signature patterns which are mass dependent. Due to my warm reception by the science community, I have decided to make things interesting, I have sent this information to every scientist on the LIGO team, every LIGO collaborator, and other gravitational interferometer on the planet. If 20 years go by and scientists still have not found the prized standard model binary black hole merger gravitational wave signature, this is the only other more rational option… It should be clear to you why I do not care who gets credit for discovering it... I just want them found.
If black holes do indeed fail based on a mass relationship, it would imply 2 separate forms of gravitational wave signatures. The first would be two binary black holes of equal mass creating a dual gravitational wave signature that would decrease over time as they both performed Singulosynthesis. The second would involve a binary black hole scenario where there is a large mass discrepancy between the two black holes. One black hole would potentially gain mass and have an increasing signature while the black hole performing Singulosynthesis would lose mass having a reducing gravitational wave signature. Discovering the equal mass gravitational signature first could be used to find the other.
The question is, who would you put your money on?
i.e. I made it up.Through use of reason alone
IOW, 'I am spamming this everywhere and clogging up email boxes, and making a pain in the ass of myself.I have sent this information to every scientist on the LIGO team, every LIGO collaborator, and other gravitational interferometer on the planet.
Would you rather mankind continue to search for the irrational standard model dual black hole binary signature that should have already been found? When would you look for other solutions? Would you wait a century, or two, or three? I threw my stuff out to the masses in attempt to get someone ambitious to add it to one of the engineering runs or to run it against current data... otherwise I would have to wait until 2018 for the public data.... I am after rapid progressioin of my work in as efficient of a manner as possible. Considering the current situation, I would argue it is a worthy carrot for a stick and a small battle worth lossing to win the greater war. I do have a good feeling being in a situation with a binary outcome such as the one I am in. A situation where the standard model has already failed... and the longer fails the more certain I am correct.
Last edited by vickster339; July 11th, 2013 at 10:18 PM.
I would expect stable binary black hole systems to be exceedingly rare; in fact I couldn't even think of any plausible way for these to form and remain in stable orbits. Therefore I am not surprised that no gravitational radiation signatures for these have been detected. If such systems do exist there is also no reason to assume that GR does not correctly model their behaviour.
When we observe something that obviously contradicts what GR models within its domain of applicability.When would you look for other solutions?
There hasn't been any independently verified detections of gravitational waves to date; hence there isn't any date to compare it to (yet).or to run it against current data...
Last edited by Markus Hanke; July 12th, 2013 at 08:14 AM.
I assume "irrational" simply means you do not understand it. And yes, they should continue their search because it is already known that the sensitivity of current instruments make it very unlikely they will be able to detect anything.
What on Earth makes you think that people are not looking at alternatives? That is what scientists do as a matter of course.When would you look for other solutions?
How can your "stuff" be compared against current data when you have no math and therefore nothing to compare. Your random speculations are not science, for this reason.I threw my stuff out to the masses in attempt to get someone ambitious to add it to one of the engineering runs or to run it against current data...
And all the other cranks are equally convinced that their random speculations are brilliant insights and must be correct. For no reason other than "I thought of it!" Very, very sad.the more certain I am correct.
I admit I was incorrect with one respect... no gravitational waves have yet been detected... I have read way too many papers in a short period of time in a poor state of mind. Most papers clearly state in the abstract that "no gravitational waves were detected" however some papers that involved searching for known binaries gave me a false impression.
I sent the spam email out as a form of insurance for I am at a significant disadvantage right now. I do not have the math (just 2 patterns) and neither does anyone else (others also have 2 patterns now). Yet, an individual could take an existing gravitational wave generating program, use my original counter intuitive idea to create a new theoretical wave to search for, and potentially find it in existing data. The LIGO data is not available until 2018... I will have some time to prepare and realize my own defeat/victory if nobody indeed takes me seriously.... in the meantime... I really only care that someone looks for and finds what I am suggesting exists. Whether what I have proposed exists or not end up being for the overall good of science? Whether it exists or not tells us something either way. If the powerful dual diminishing gravitational wave signature I suggest does exist one could infer within some bounds the mass density of a black holes involved in the event... This would be useful for my sub Planck everything generator. Everyone wins...
What is very very sad Strange are people like you... There are only 2 possibilities, either black holes merge according to the standard model which has only been assumed to occur and never verified OR they destroy each other according to my model which has also not been searched for or verified. Preserving physical information in a horizon through a failing black hole at the expense of time is arguably more rational than scrambling physical information in a standard model black hole merger. In a universe of black holes... I am pro black hole abortion for the very same reason one would preserve physical information in the horizon to begin with... are you then black hole pro-life which implies information scrambling, tell me how would you resolve this problem Mr. Strange? Does the physical information in the horizon no longer matter so you can scramble it and get it sorted out later on? Nobody has the stones to take a side, they just call me a crank, or say that I have no math... last I checked the standard model binary black hole merger also seems to have no math... or any math that has been verified.... Pick and choose how you are going to bash me, because I know you have no stones...
Not sure why you would say that, it is obviously not true. How do you think they predict what sort of gravitational waves (and other effects) to look for). A few examples:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.1021v2
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0909.2867v3
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.1767v2
And some cool animations (which obviously requires math): http://www.black-holes.org/explore2.html
And this might be of interest as well: http://www.astro.cardiff.ac.uk/resea...holecollisions
Last edited by Strange; July 13th, 2013 at 03:16 PM.
Way to take me out of context... typical douche bag move "last I checked the standard model binary black hole merger also seems to have no math... or any math that has been verified...." key word is verified... and you still have no stones for ignoring my question.
The math is the math of general relativity, which has been verified.
The numerical relativity has not been verified by a gravitational wave observations, each paper makes that clear... Yes, it is nifty numerical relativity that can be used for matched filtering. Yes, you can make a sweet computer animation with it. Yes, you can pretend for now it is reality. The standard model pretty much knows exactly what it is looking for, on the other hand I am looking for two patterns that I came up with a months ago. Identifying the pattern will reveal the data. Fortunately nothing in the known universe will behave like what I am looking for. I am looking for dual gravitational waves diminishing to extinction in one case, not due to a merger. With this observation I could model the event better and hunt for the other gravitational wave pattern. Hell it might take until they construct the space based gravitational wave observatory to get the necessary data... gives me time to get my crap together... Until 2018... knock yourself out with my idea...
Oops I forgot to mention...
Then Einstein Effect may represent the most powerful gravitational wave signature in the universe. The effect would signal the end of a black hole and the return of space time to a non-black hole state potentially creating a powerful gravitational wave signal from which the other currently unknown binary black hole gravitational wave signatures could be found.
If black holes do indeed fail based on a mass relationship, it would imply 2 separate forms of gravitational wave signatures leading up to the Einstein Effect. The first would be two binary black holes of equal mass creating a dual gravitational wave signature that would decrease over time as they both performed Singulosynthesis to the point of the Einstein Effect. The second would involve a binary black hole scenario where there is a large mass discrepancy between the two black holes. One black hole would potentially gain mass and have an increasing gravitational wave signature while the black hole performing Singulosynthesis would lose mass having a decreasing gravitational wave signature ending with the Einstein Effect. Finding these binary black hole gravity waves is critical to determining the true mass density of a black hole and the rate of material loss due to Singulosynthesis.
Bummer I still have to wait until 2018...
Which Einstein effect are you referring to?
Einstein effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaDue to Einstein's prolific output, the term Einstein effect may refer to any one of a large number of possible effects in different fields of physics.
My apologies, my attempt to not appear vain has created confusion... "The Vick Effect" denotes the return of space time to a non black hole state per the following philosophical argument. If it is proven to exist "The Vick Effect" will be renamed "The Einstein Effect" based on his inspiration. This is when you contact your moderator buddies and block even my most basic argument when I am simply attempting to clarify.
The path to understanding the Rational Universe (condensed version)
The universe is a riddle than can ultimately be expressed in the form of math, but first you must solve the riddle. The following is an argument based on rational dissent regarding the implied consequences of conserving physical information (Quantum determinism and Reversibility) in a black hole horizon. A paradox will be made clear and the most rational solution to it currently possible proposed, if the universe is indeed rational (a universe that does not contradict itself). I argue that Dark Energy is no more than a modern day version of Luminiferous Aether and that our universe is a living universe.
If you destroy physical information with black holes using Hawking radiation, then everything I put forth in this argument is inherently irrational. Then again, a universe created from such an entity would also seem equally irrational. Any effort to preserve physical information in the horizon of a black hole via an entropy hologram or other unknown means creates a horrible problem in the event of a black hole merger. Any physical information contained in the horizon of a black hole is in a quasi-state of equilibrium where no two are identical. Black holes are trying to reach a state of equilibrium however material is constantly added. A constant change to the black hole’s horizon containing physical information amounts to a change in black hole identity. Built into a perceivable universe that is rational must be a natural process to keep the horizons containing the constantly changing physical information of two black holes from merging. A rational universe is committed so conserving physical information (see Thought experiment "Black Hole Billiards"). This is true regardless of what form the physical information contained in a black hole horizon may take. Be it an entropy hologram of or some other unknown state. This is the black hole merger paradox. How do you prevent a black hole merger paradox? The “Standard Model” says you don’t, they merge, and just get bigger over time. This is an irrational assumption.
How then are you to prevent the irrational black hole merger event from occurring? The most rational solution is the very gravity, mass, space-time, physical information, and situation creating the problem between two black holes will ultimately solve it. If black holes must abort each other by their very nature because it is rational to do so, you can see exactly where I am going with this. The universe did not begin with a single rational or irrational self-destructing black hole (I am doing the “Standard Model” a favor here, this is one consensus they do not have a consensus on); I argue it was generated in a process by the abortion of 2 or more black holes. Producing everything we see and concealing a process that has been until now out of mankind’s collective perception. Binary black holes will fail based on their mass and conserve physical information at the expense of time. I argue this process still occurs with every attempted black hole merger albeit on a smaller scale over time following the initial event. To describe this new theoretical process I have created 3 simple theoretical place holders that are arguably as real as Dark Energy or ANY other “Standard Model” constant at this point. Yes, I just put every man made constant in history up for grabs. “The Vick Principle”, “The Vick Limit”, “The Vick Field”, and "The Vick Effect" are simply being used to describe something nobody has thought of to my knowledge.
Singulosynthesis: “The Vick Principle” states that in a perceivable and rational universe the physical information of a black hole must be preserved. In a binary black hole merger once sufficient symmetry loss or instability (there is more on ideas behind this in the section “Black Hole Failure Speculation”) is achieved (likely based on black hole mass) the “Vick limit” is reached and simultaneously the “Vick field” is achieved. The Vick limit signals the end of the black hole and the beginning of Singulosynthesis. It is the point at which the binary black holes turn against each other. During Singulosynthesis contents of the former black hole are ejected from the system. Upon ejection, contents escaping inherit new properties from the distorted physical information (Genesis – the dynamic of restoring physical information at the expense of time). This physical information distribution could possibly be in the form of an entropy hologram. The distribution of the physical information of a black hole when it fails is the Vick field. The Vick field is maintained until the black hole of least mass is extinguished. Moreover, both the Vick limit and the Vick fields are constants, once any black hole reaches the "Vick limit" it will fail. On a cosmological scale this process is the compliment of the standard models stellar Nucleosynthesis, meaning Singulosynthesis synthesizes what we now “describe” as H/He/D/Li (by the standard model) of the universe in the quantities and distributions we observe. It is done by preserving physical information in a black hole horizon at the expense of time from our perceived perspective. It is also the process by which the universe recycles matter, energy, physical information, and entropy periodically over time. Singulosynthesis ends when the black whole fails creating the "The Vick Effect" signaling the return of space time to a non black hole state.
This is the point at which using standard model methods, graphs, new constants, formulas, and math I describe this event propelling mankind into a new paradigm….. I want us to stop and ponder that idea… Is that rational? You want me to use “standard model” methods that cannot even accurately describe the exterior of a black hole (our reality) to describe the interior of two failing unknown realities? Is that rational? The standard model can only “jump the shark” when it comes to this scenario. The physics of the binary failing black hole scenario presupposes our perceived reality. It is not a mystery now why human kind has not described the physics of a black hole accurately, let alone described the physics that exists outside of a black hole. I argue that Singulosynthesis is the most logical candidate for the deterministic process Einstein always believed existed and you can guess what governs this process.
From this moment forward, there is a path to truth and man will need to set some things aside to get what he wants most. The unknown realm of black hole physics presupposes the one we live in and have built our knowledge on, and is in fact doubling down on the illusion to our perception. How then shall we proceed?
Gravitational Wave Detection
The Vick Effect may represent the most powerful gravitational wave signature in the universe. The effect would signal the end of a black hole and the return of space time to a non-black hole state potentially creating a powerful gravitational wave signal from which the other currently unknown binary black hole gravitational wave signatures could be found.
If black holes do indeed fail based on a mass relationship, it would imply 2 separate forms of gravitational wave signatures leading up to the Vick Effect. The first would be two binary black holes of equal mass creating a dual gravitational wave signature that would decrease over time as they both performed Singulosynthesis to the point of the Vick Effect. The second would involve a binary black hole scenario where there is a large mass discrepancy between the two black holes. One black hole would potentially gain mass and have an increasing gravitational wave signature while the black hole performing Singulosynthesis would lose mass having a decreasing gravitational wave signature leading up to the Vick Effect. Finding these binary black hole gravity waves is critical to determining the true mass density of a black hole and the rate of material loss due to Singulosynthesis.
In the event this argument goes anywhere I will rename variables accordingly based on their inspiration:
"The Vick Principle" will become "The Susskind Principle"
"The Vick Limit" will become "The Hawking Limit"
"The Vick Field" will become "The Titan Field" for my high school or after the name of the team that proves its existence.
"The Vick Effect" will become "The Einstein Effect"
“The Rambo” The state of matter and energy inside a black hole, singularities only exist from our perspective.
"Genesis" will stay "Genesis" for obvious reasons moreover it is the effect produced by the Torpedo from Star Trek 2 the Wrath of Khan.
signals the return of space time to non-black hole state.
"The Ted Effect" signals the return of matter, energy, and physical information to space time in a non-black hole state (potentially creating a strange, quark, or neutron star).
Can you describe how the gravitational waves produced by this effect would differ from those predicted by a standard model black hole merger?
I lost track of how many crackpot points he gets.
I am not going anywhere until a binary dual black hole gravitational wave is discovered. I ran my philosophical argument by my man here LiveLeak.com - TALK 2 LL with CRAZYGUY He thinks it isn't too bad...
Is that supposed to be some kind of endorsement?I ran my philosophical argument by my man here LiveLeak.com - TALK 2 LL with CRAZYGUY He thinks it isn't too bad..
Moderator comment: There is no intention on the part of the moderator team to block or alter any of your posts, except those elements that contain inappropriate language, or ad hominems. Your questionable sanity appears to be producing too much entertainment for several members for us to wish to block it. I would, seriously, urge you to consider that you may be deluded. You clearly have an inventive mind - I am sure it could be employed in a much more productive manner than at present. I wish you well.
You mean ... none of them said, "That's it! Of course, why didn't we see it before!!" #surprised
My attempt at creating a unique discussion has fallen flat. Allow me to put it in clearer terms.
Any effort to preserve physical information in the horizon of a black hole (quantum determinism and reversibility) via an entropy hologram or other unknown means creates a horrible problem in the event of a black hole merger. Any physical information contained in the horizon of a black hole is in a quasi-state of equilibrium where no two are identical. Black holes are trying to reach a state of equilibrium however material is constantly added. A constant change to the black hole’s horizon containing physical information amounts to a change in black hole identity. Built into a perceivable universe that is rational must be a natural process to keep the horizons containing the constantly changing physical information of two black holes from merging. A rational universe is committed so conserving physical information not scrambling it or corrupting it. This is true regardless of what form the physical information contained in a black hole horizon may take. Be it an entropy hologram of or some other unknown state. This is the black hole merger paradox. How do you prevent a black hole merger paradox?
If Advanced Ligo and LISA discover the El Durado of gravitational wave astronomy being the gravitational wave signature of binary black hole coalescence then I will be as excited as anyone. I will tip my hat to all for that accomplishment and move on to my next project.
However, if it is not discovered in one, two, or three years what then? (The probability for detection for binary black hole coalescence with advanced LIGO even on the low end is 1 event per month) If not detected, the silence would be deafening. At that point my suggestion would be to attempt a more purist approach with regard to gravitational wave observations. Rather than using numerical relativity to create match paring searches for an event "assumed" to exist in the noisy data produced by an Earth based gravitational interferometer... Acquiring the purest data possible should be the goal, allowing the best observations possible. LISA would be a good example of a pure data collection attempt. Pure data would allow us to use numerical relativity to represent the data for what it is and then analyze it.
Binary black holes must fail based on their mass to conserve the physical information in their horizons at the expense of time. I bet you could never guess what this process creates... and ya it is my idea.
Patterns found in pure gravitational wave data would potentially allow the determination of a black holes true mass density and rate of mass loss during black hole failure. This would then allow man to create sub Planck simulation event since it is beyond our perception. WTF you say! Ya I am that guy...
There are only 2 possible outcomes, if the standard model fails to identify binary black hole coalescence I am correct by default. Did you notice my idea is more rational?
It is straw man time! Bust them out, jack them off, and beat them up! GOGOGOGOGO!
How exactly do you define "physical information" ?A constant change to the black hole’s horizon containing physical information
How do you define the "identity" of a black hole ?amounts to a change in black hole identity.
Is that your personal opinion, or do you assert this to be a law of physics ? If the latter, can you show how that is derived ( e.g. through Noether's theorem etc ) ?A rational universe is committed so conserving physical information not scrambling it or corrupting it.
I don't see any paradox. If two black holes merge, the entropy encoded on its event horizon area is combined. Nothing at all is lost in the process. Where's the paradox ?This is the black hole merger paradox.
Only because when anyone asks questions to find out more about you idea you have a hissy-fit, throw some obscentities around, insult people and storm out.
The misspelling is apt as detecting gravity waves is hard.If Advanced Ligo and LISA discover the El Durado of gravitational wave astronomy ...
Can you explain what you mean by "pure" data and how it differs from the current approach?Acquiring the purest data possible should be the goal, allowing the best observations possible. LISA would be a good example of a pure data collection attempt. Pure data would allow us to use numerical relativity to represent the data for what it is and then analyze it.
Also, can you explain exactly (i.e. quantitatively) what patterns would be observed if your idea is correct and how they differ from what is currently predicted?
No, that is not logical. There are an infinite number of other possibilities. Yours is not necessarily correct by default. The only way to determine which theory is best is to compare its predictions with observation and seeing which gives the best fit. As you have not yet provided a quantitative prediction, it makes it hard to compare your model with the alternatives.There are only 2 possible outcomes, if the standard model fails to identify binary black hole coalescence I am correct by default.
When exactly did the "scientists" become more like worthless politicians? Perhaps worthless politicians of tired ideas is what you really are?
And this is what you do whenever you are asked for more detail or to explain your ideas. It is not surprising the discussion falls flat if you refuse to discuss it.
Time to flounce out again?
This sounds like a cop out to Markus Hanke's questions.
I do not engage in politics. What I did is ask you some very specific and basic question to better understand what it actually is you are talking about. I would appreciate if you could provide the answers.
Moderator Warning: vickster339, you have been asked pertinent and reasonable questions by Markus Hanke. Please respond directly to these questions. Failure to do so will result in this thread being closed and possibly suspension for yourself.
And here is the "hissy fit" behavior that Strange talked about. Folks are asking quite reasonable questions. You take it as a personal attack that we don't instantly accept your handwaving as The Truth. Sorry, but we don't just accept unsupported declarations from A Random Guy On The Internet. Aside from the well-established fact that ARGOTIs are notoriously unreliable, science requires evidence, not just loud assertions.
Make no mistake, it's obvious to all that you are the one who has been assertingly loudly (and therefore acting like a politician). If your hissy fits and other childish behavior were intended to make you look like a self-deluded crackpot, you've succeeded.
Your portrait of the event sounds a little too static... I will allow myself to return to the standard models version of a black hole. In a standard model black hole merger you have two horizons and two singularities with some unknown spacial separation between the individual horizons and singularities. There is material constantly being added to both black holes over time from outside the horizons. From a the black holes perspective there is something else going on. It is thought experiment time! We got 2 black holes a Planck length apart. I have just crossed beyond the horizon of my black hole, and you into yours. My quantum determinism and reversibility are encoded in my horizon and yours is in your horizon. While our chunks are still approaching the singularity within the black hole the horizons merge... this merger occurs at exactly the same point we each entered our individual and exclusive black holes. Your quantum determinism and reversibility in your horizon seems to be overlapping or meshing with mine... yet my chunks nearer to my singularity in my black hole have absolutely NOTHING to do with your quantum determinism and reversibility in yours. How is it then your quantum determinism and reversibility from your horizon is displacing or meshing with mine without your chunks even being in my black hole with me approaching my singularity? If and when your chunks did decide to join my chunks how do the horizons sort out this mess of quantum determinism and reversibility? Where does the singularity merger fit in once the horizons merge and everything in between?
Some guy once said "Imagination is more important than knowledge"...
I feel better that an individual named John Galt is moderating this now....
So you equate "physical information" with quantum states, i.e. the wave function of a given system ?
Globally, black holes are unique determined by just three parameters - mass, angular momentum, and electric charge. Is that what you mean by "identity" ?A black holes changing mass and thus changing physical information in its horizon creates a unique identity. While similar in nature, none are identical.
You are correct, that is the scientific method in a nutshell. This was done, and we already have such a theory - General Relativity. The merger of black holes is just one isolated phenomena, but it is governed by the same laws as any other gravitational interaction. It can be mathematically modelled. Therefore I don't understand your basic argument.At a more fundamental level my argument is for observations creating data, leading to reasoning, and ending with a formal mathematical theory. This is the ideal method is it not?
Of course, I agree. It could even be argued that it hasn't started yet at all. We are still awaiting the first unambiguous detection of a gravitational wave, regardless of its source. The challenge here is not so much one of theory, but one of engineering.On a human time scale Gravitational Interferometry is in its infancy when you compare it to optical astronomy.
I have already mentioned to you before that I would expect the merger of two black holes to be an exceedingly rare phenomenon. The only scenario I could possible think of where that could happen is the collision and merger of two galaxies with black holes at their cores; and even then the chances of the those BHs merging are astronomically low.With regard to advanced LIGO I argue the gravitational wave signature or channel for binary black hole coalescence and ringdown will never be found because it does not exist as it is modeled
What I am trying to say is that the non-detection of gravitational signatures for such an event does not allow us to conclude that our models are wrong. It's a logical fallacy.
Not at all. Merging BHs simply obey the laws of gravity, so it can be modelled via General Relativity. There is nothing inherently "magical" or "special" about a black hole.Moreover, I do not know how to model it precisely, for it must be observed first.
I'm afraid I don't follow you.Your quantum determinism and reversibility in your horizon seems to be overlapping or meshing with mine
What do you mean by "reversibility" ? You are aware that the regions of space-time inside and outside the event horizon aren't causally connected, aren't you ? Any process whose world line crosses an event horizon is by definition not reversible, so I really don't understand your argument at all, or what it has to do with black hole mergers.
And there it is... the final colossal assumption.... no I am not aware that our universe is inherently unknowable nor irrational.So you equate "physical information" with quantum states, i.e. the wave function of a given system?
I am referring to a black holes horizon preserving total physical information of material added which is preserved by quantum mechanics evolution operators
My proposed resolution to the Black Hole information paradox is not listed here yet Black hole information paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia because it has not been observed yet.
While a bit messy this discussion pits the philosophical against the mathematical Talk:Black hole information paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia however it is a fun read.
Globally, black holes are unique determined by just three parameters - mass, angular momentum, and electric charge. Is that what you mean by "identity" ?A black holes changing mass and thus changing physical information in its horizon creates a unique identity. While similar in nature, none are identical.
No, I am referring to quantum mechanics evolution operators being preserved in the horizon via some known or unknown method.
You are correct, that is the scientific method in a nutshell. This was done, and we already have such a theory - General Relativity. The merger of black holes is just one isolated phenomena, but it is governed by the same laws as any other gravitational interaction. It can be mathematically modelled. Therefore I don't understand your basic argument.At a more fundamental level my argument is for observations creating data, leading to reasoning, and ending with a formal mathematical theory. This is the ideal method is it not?
Black holes were indeed predicted by general relativity long before they were discovered. However, there is a powerful assumption that they do merge with no observational evidence to verify it, albeit rare. I also concede that there is no observational evidence that black holes synthesize each other based on their mass to preserve quantum mechanics evolution operators which are preserved in their horizons at the expense of time via many unknowns because it has not yet been observed. (I know this is the worst sentence ever written, I did it for Strange)
Of course, I agree. It could even be argued that it hasn't started yet at all. We are still awaiting the first unambiguous detection of a gravitational wave, regardless of its source. The challenge here is not so much one of theory, but one of engineering.On a human time scale Gravitational Interferometry is in its infancy when you compare it to optical astronomy.
It is indeed an exciting time with advanced LIGO coming up and LISA in 2014. That is why I have chosen now to throw my hat into the ring so to speak.
There are several papers on advanced LIGO binary black hole detection predictions online similar to http://thesis.library.caltech.edu/2007/1/thesis.pdf some papers are rather pricey and I cannot afford to by them or I would. I spend too much of my income supporting the social welfare state right now. Standard model binary black hole mathematically committed so a certain behavior, otherwise why spend billions seeking them out?
I have already mentioned to you before that I would expect the merger of two black holes to be an exceedingly rare phenomenon. The only scenario I could possible think of where that could happen is the collision and merger of two galaxies with black holes at their cores; and even then the chances of the those BHs merging are astronomically low.With regard to advanced LIGO I argue the gravitational wave signature or channel for binary black hole coalescence and ringdown will never be found because it does not exist as it is modeled
What I am trying to say is that the non-detection of gravitational signatures for such an event does not allow us to conclude that our models are wrong. It's a logical fallacy.
I was making the most extreme prediction possible of a possibly rare event indeed. In all likelihood and hope advanced LIGO will discover some binary black holes via standard model methods. Strong gravity wave signatures being detected coupled with nothing observed via any other method would create a strong confirmation. As they are observed over time I predict at some point they will deviate from the current mathematically predicted behavior. This is what I really hope is eventually observed and people realize the significance of. If one of my two proposed gravitational wave deviation patterns were to be observed, I know exactly what I would do next. Some observations take much longer than others... If watching Pitch Drop Experiment At Trinity College Dublin Yields Single Drip After 69 Years (VIDEO) start to finish would reveal to me the final answer regarding binary black holes, I would do it...
Not at all. Merging BHs simply obey the laws of gravity, so it can be modelled via General Relativity. There is nothing inherently "magical" or "special" about a black hole.Moreover, I do not know how to model it precisely, for it must be observed first.
I would agree that they can be modeled with general relativity to an unknown point from which they must be observed. I do not believe in magic either, I believe in reason, and the assumption that black holes are not special is exactly an assumption.
I'm afraid I don't follow you.Your quantum determinism and reversibility in your horizon seems to be overlapping or meshing with mine
What do you mean by "reversibility" ? You are aware that the regions of space-time inside and outside the event horizon aren't causally connected, aren't you ? Any process whose world line crosses an event horizon is by definition not reversible, so I really don't understand your argument at all, or what it has to do with black hole mergers.
It is here Black hole information paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The combination of the two means that information must always be preserved."
Reversible dynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I cannot put it any better than Dolph Lundgren https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c3Y2i-1mD0
Ok, so the entire discussion really boils down to the Black Hole Information Paradox - I think if you had explicitly mentioned that earlier, it could have saved much confusion.
In any case, the situation here is that the BHIP has not yet been conclusively resolved, at least not to the best of my knowledge. I believe that at present the general consensus is the one originally introduced by Stephen Hawking, in that gauge-gravity duality prevents the destruction of any physical information, through the simple fact that the event horizon is not a clear-cut and well defined region of space-time, but fluctuates in accordance with the uncertainty principle. This really just means that Hawking radiation isn't purely black-body radiation, but is subject to quantum corrections which in turn carry precisely the information which, under classical considerations, would appear to get lost. Therefore there is no paradox. I believe this particular resolution is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article.
It should be remembered though that this resolution relies on a number of conjectures, specifically the AdS/CFT correspondence, which, again to the best of my knowledge, is yet to be made mathematically rigorous. Personally I would not call this a "proof" just yet, even though it is an interesting proposal.
I should also stress that this entire subject matter is really outside the real of General Relativity alone; we are dealing with issues of quantum gravity here. This is currently an area of very active and ongoing research, and the final word has most definitely not been spoken here yet.
Solving the BHIP by the approach I have proposed has one advantage over any other. Represent the Singulosynthesis solution to the BHIP as a simple domino, a domino with some unique characteristics. The Singulosynthesis-BHIP domino is larger than any other domino, it is transparent, and yet I can feel the edges of it so I know it is there. When you look beyond where you can feel Singulosynthesis-BHIP domino you notice a line of many other normal black dominoes. The next domino in line is labeled "the second law of thermal dynamics", following that domino is one labeled "the uncertainty principle", following those dominoes is one representing every major cosmological paradox, astronomical problem, incomplete theory, and on down the line. The Singulosynthesis-BHIP domino seems almost impossible to topple but you can clearly see what would be possible if it were to be done. Reason perpetually drives me to unveil this domino fully or extinguish its existence as a possibility. The machine that will run the final simulation will be named Chuck Norris for appropriate reasons.
Well, you are of course free to try that.
I for my part am not nearly enough of an expert on QFT in curved space-times to decide either way ( my area of expertise is geometrodynamics, not QFT ). It is a highly complicated subject which requires years of intensive study to properly master, and many aspects of it are still pending mathematically rigorous derivations. I do, however, get the main lines of thought behind Hawking's 2004 proposal, and even though I can't follow all of his maths, what he states seems perfectly reasonable to me. Basically it boils down to the fact that there isn't a paradox in the first place, because no information is lost at all. For the minute this is what I personally lean towards, after having studied the original paper to the best of my ability.
Assuming the BHIP doesn't exist by math only few can even understand, then black hole horizons would then seem to preserve physical information indeed. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. What exactly is the math behind the horizons of two black holes merging when they are constantly changing? This is the black hole merger paradox. It seems like an impossibly irrational event assumed to occur. Sure one can make a nifty numerical relativistic hydrodynamic simulation of the curved space times swirling together, but that is not where my beef is located. I have thought about horizon mergers for a long time and one day I came to unique realization.Well, you are of course free to try that.
I for my part am not nearly enough of an expert on QFT in curved space-times to decide either way ( my area of expertise is geometrodynamics, not QFT ). It is a highly complicated subject which requires years of intensive study to properly master, and many aspects of it are still pending mathematically rigorous derivations. I do, however, get the main lines of thought behind Hawking's 2004 proposal, and even though I can't follow all of his maths, what he states seems perfectly reasonable to me. Basically it boils down to the fact that there isn't a paradox in the first place, because no information is lost at all. For the minute this is what I personally lean towards, after having studied the original paper to the best of my ability.
For reasons I have already pointed out, the preservation of evolution operators in the horizon is separated from what is represented in the unknown beyond. In a merger, unique constantly changing evolution operators in horizons must do a pretty astounding "something" and sort it out later on... The dismissiveness I have encountered illustrates the power of the assumptions involved and I am trying to make clear the scale of the real problem.
I have a feeling Mr. Hawking has something new to think about. Or he has already thought about it, ceased wanting to, and hoped nobody else would. For the black hole merger paradox to not exist. It seems reasonable to me that Mr. Hawking or another must now take Hawking's math that few understand and mathematically explain a powerful assumption away.
While the former is being resolved, I will proceed with the only other rational alternative. I will hunting for some unusual gravitational waves that the Standard Model Big Bang Nucleosynthesis model would have a difficult time explaining. The LISA team allowing an individual such as myself to become a collaborator would be extremely helpful.
Destroying black hole horizons solves all problems, no horizon, no problem.
Welcome to Black Hole War 2: The Revenge of the Machinist
Argue with me? Listen to Dolph Lundgren!
Drago: You Will Lose - YouTube
They are not constantly changing at all; it is space-time itself which undergoes quantum fluctuations, so the event horizon isn't localizable beyond certain length scales. It's a straightforward application of the uncertainty principle. Anything on a macroscopic level is still governed by GR as normal.What exactly is the math behind the horizons of two black holes merging when they are constantly changing?
Again, as things stand I see no paradox. You are free to believe that you may have found a paradox, but currently that is just that - a personal belief of yours.This is the black hole merger paradox.
I do not see the connection between what we have discussed and the Big Bang, or nucleosynthesis for that matter. Gravitational singularities are fundamentally different to cosmological singularities in that the space-time in the vicinity of the former has vanishing Ricci curvature, whereas the latter has vanishing Weyl curvature. Also, the Standard Model does not deal with gravitational waves at all, since gravity and geometry of space-time are not part of that model.I will hunting for some unusual gravitational waves that the Standard Model Big Bang Nucleosynthesis model would have a difficult time explaining.
Allow me to rephrase the final item and give some clarification. I will be hunting for gravity waves that could not be predicted by any currently known cosmological model. The current scientific consensus of a Big Bang nucleosynthesis hyperinflation universe predicts its own binary black hole merger gravitational waves. Since the leading cosmology theory creates the universe, which creates the binary black holes within it, which create the predicted gravitational wave signatures with ring down I am indeed disagreeing with, I was attempting to throw together a term to encapsulate all that I am indeed disagreeing with. Since they are indeed a result of that cosmology, it would make sense that they should associated in some fashion. In another sense, I have no idea what the hell to call something because neither does anyone else. It is difficult to monitor what all there is a firm consensus on over time, I do my best to try and keep up. It might actually make for a cool statistical website. Crap the URL is taken by the global warming dudes, bummer. I poke at this in my argument "The universe did not begin with a single rational or irrational self-destructing black hole (I am doing the “Standard Model” a favor here, this is one consensus they do not have a consensus on); I argue it was generated in a process by the abortion of 2 or more black holes." I use standard model generically to represent whatever the hell most "scientists" think collectively now.
I suppose some sort of differentiation was not necessary until now.
That is not correct. The uncertainty principle, and hence quantum fluctuations, are physically real and not just an artefact of observation or perception, if that is indeed what you are implying. The HUP is also experimentally well verified, and hence not just an "assumption".
Gravitational waves are a local phenomenon, and unrelated to the cosmological solutions of the EFEs; thus I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here. Cosmological models don't predict gravitational wave signatures from BH mergers.I will be hunting for gravity waves that could not be predicted by any currently known cosmological model.
I presume you are referring to the Lambda-CDM model, and hence the FLRW metric. Neither of these two has anything to do with black holes or gravitational waves.The current scientific consensus of a Big Bang nucleosynthesis hyperinflation universe predicts its own binary black hole merger gravitational waves.
See above. I am not aware of any astrophysical process which directly yields a binary black hole system.Since the leading cosmology theory creates the universe, which creates the binary black holes within it
I am uncertain what you are trying to say here. As mentioned previously, the Lambda-CDM model ( or any other cosmological model for that matter ) makes no predictions which are in any way related to gravitational waves.Since they are indeed a result of that cosmology, it would make sense that they should associated in some fashion.
That is simply because the areas of cosmology and QFT are subject to active and ongoing research. Nothing is set in stone, and consensus changes constantly, which is a healthy state of affairs, and hence precisely how it should be. In fact, I would expect a fundamental paradigm shift in theoretical physics in the not too distant future, related to the topology of space-time on small scales; this might very much alter our understanding of the BB and cosmological evolution.It is difficult to monitor what all there is a firm consensus on over time, I do my best to try and keep up.
The BB was not a black hole; as I have explained previously, gravitational singularities ( black holes ) and cosmological singularities ( BB ) are fundamentally different.The universe did not begin with a single rational or irrational self-destructing black hole
So... Cosmological singularities are not gravitational singularities? Is there a consensus on this? It seems to me they would both have to be gravitational singularities. Or are you telling me that you can have gravitational singularities with identities and I cannot?That is not correct. The uncertainty principle, and hence quantum fluctuations, are physically real and not just an artefact of observation or perception, if that is indeed what you are implying. The HUP is also experimentally well verified, and hence not just an "assumption".
Thank you for making my point. The HUP is experimentally well verified from our current vantage point in the universe. My argument is not based on the constraints of the big bang or any other paradigm except general relativity at this point. The cosmology I am arguing for originated from a deterministic process which implies a "certainty principle" that has yet to be discovered. The HUP is a consequence of the universe recycling itself continually over time by the same deterministic process. It would require a completed simulation to emulate it.
Gravitational waves are a local phenomenon, and unrelated to the cosmological solutions of the EFEs; thus I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here. Cosmological models don't predict gravitational wave signatures from BH mergers.I will be hunting for gravity waves that could not be predicted by any currently known cosmological model.
I am sorry to hear your cosmological solutions using Einsteins field equations have nothing to do with locally observed gravitational waves. My cosmological model does, Cosmic Respiration will produce unique observable gravitational wave signatures from BH mergers. Since the deterministic event I am arguing for presupposes our entire perception of reality, I can only put forward 3 generic patterns to look for. Whether from hunting for them or stumbling on to them, the bottom line is observing the unique patterns will lead to a precise signature. The alternative method of detection I have also mentioned previously. Match pairing searches may indeed lead to the discovery of binary black holes, however I expect they will at some point deviate from the behavior they are currently predicted abide by. It would be critical to not loose track of them if this were to occur.
Using accurate enough gravitational wave signatures from my theoretical failing binary black holes, it is my goal to use numerical relativity to reverse engineer the event via computer simulation. With the end goal being Quantum General Relativity and a final theory of everything.
I presume you are referring to the Lambda-CDM model, and hence the FLRW metric. Neither of these two has anything to do with black holes or gravitational waves.The current scientific consensus of a Big Bang nucleosynthesis hyperinflation universe predicts its own binary black hole merger gravitational waves.
Paradigm disconnect again... You know what is funny, many times I have used the term "standard model" to describe the Lambda-CDM model and that was not specific enough for you and many others, in an attempt to be specific I listed everything that came to mind. However, Lambda-CDM did not come to mind because I always used the term "standard model", for that is what it is...
Lambda-CDM model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia What do you know "The ΛCDM or Lambda-CDM model is a parametrization of the Big Bang cosmological model in which the universe contains a cosmological constant, denoted by Lambda, and cold dark matter. It is frequently referred to as the standard model of Big Bang cosmology, since it is the simplest model that provides a reasonably good match to the following observations"
And good luck forming quasars and galaxies out of the FLRW metric homogenous background of the big bang. From Quasar super clusters to metallicity discrepancies the Big Bang's days are numbered. What is necessary to make the big bang possible is progressively undone by observations indicating it as an impossible event. It takes awhile to pile together all the "paradox's" and "mysteries" to consider them collectively.
See above. I am not aware of any astrophysical process which directly yields a binary black hole system.Since the leading cosmology theory creates the universe, which creates the binary black holes within it
You mentioned one in an earlier discussion, a galaxy merger. I was once again trying to separate the current paradigms of thought from my own.
I am uncertain what you are trying to say here. As mentioned previously, the Lambda-CDM model ( or any other cosmological model for that matter ) makes no predictions which are in any way related to gravitational waves.Since they are indeed a result of that cosmology, it would make sense that they should associated in some fashion.
One again, Cosmic Respiration will have gravitational waves associated with it as mentioned above. It was another attempt at trying differentiate paradigms of thought.
That is simply because the areas of cosmology and QFT are subject to active and ongoing research. Nothing is set in stone, and consensus changes constantly, which is a healthy state of affairs, and hence precisely how it should be. In fact, I would expect a fundamental paradigm shift in theoretical physics in the not too distant future, related to the topology of space-time on small scales; this might very much alter our understanding of the BB and cosmological evolution.It is difficult to monitor what all there is a firm consensus on over time, I do my best to try and keep up.
The good news for me is also the bad news for me. Most will continue with afterbirth analysis within the current paradigm of thought. Current paradigm afterbirth analysis will either inspire me to press forward or to abandon my efforts. I have not seen a single good reason to not press forward with my paradigm. Ideally, some talented afterbirth analysis individuals in the current paradigm will reach a point where other paradigms will become more viable. My hope is to have enough convincing work developed to entice them.
The BB was not a black hole; as I have explained previously, gravitational singularities ( black holes ) and cosmological singularities ( BB ) are fundamentally different.The universe did not begin with a single rational or irrational self-destructing black hole
Argue with me? Listen to Dolph Lundgren!
Drago: You Will Lose - YouTube
This seems to be your usual dumbass closing line.Argue with me? Listen to Dolph Lundgren!
Drago: You Will Lose - YouTube
You're a crank, you don't win ANY argument, except in your own pea brain.
Congrats! You have achieved the bottom tier of File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement1.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for a 12th time.
But not all disagreement models are adequate. I had to make a special one for Tusenfem of CosmoQuest, he achieved the lowest level possible on this model http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c97_1375592171
Argue with me? Listen to Dolph Lundgren!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c3Y2i-1mD0
Last edited by vickster339; August 4th, 2013 at 02:05 AM. Reason: made addition, fixed spelling, edited bad link
You are mixing up things here - the HUP has nothing to do with General Relativity, it is quantum mechanical phenomenon.
This would guarantee you a Nobel price for sure. Good luck with that.Using accurate enough gravitational wave signatures from my theoretical failing binary black holes, it is my goal to use numerical relativity to reverse engineer the event via computer simulation. With the end goal being Quantum General Relativity and a final theory of everything.
Well, perhaps you should have made it clearer that you were referring to the standard model of cosmology, as opposed to the Standard Model of particle physics. They are not the same.Paradigm disconnect again... You know what is funny, many times I have used the term "standard model" to describe the Lambda-CDM model and that was not specific enough for you and many others, in an attempt to be specific I listed everything that came to mind. However, Lambda-CDM did not come to mind because I always used the term "standard model", for that is what it is...
In any case, my point was simply that neither one has anything to do with black holes or gravitational waves.
The FLRW metric is a global solution describing the evolution of space-time in a homogeneous universe as a whole; it does not model local phenomena such as quasars and galaxies. You would need to consider a different class of solutions to do that.And good luck forming quasars and galaxies out of the FLRW metric homogenous background of the big bang.
Again, that is just your personal opinion. In fact, there is currently no observational evidence in existence which contradicts the BB model in any way. It remains the best model we have to explain the evolution of the universe to date.From Quasar super clusters to metallicity discrepancies the Big Bang's days are numbered. What is necessary to make the big bang possible is progressively undone by observations indicating it as an impossible event. It takes awhile to pile together all the "paradox's" and "mysteries" to consider them collectively.
Correct, simply because their space-time geometry is not the same. They differ in Ricci curvature and Weyl curvature as explained earlier.Cosmological singularities are not gravitational singularities?
Yes. It is in fact elementary differential geometry. The concept was first elaborated on by Roger Penrose in 1979.Is there a consensus on this?
What I am saying is that the two types of singularities aren't mathematically or physically equivalent; the BB wasn't a black hole. If you wish I can present the maths on this, but only if you have good knowledge of tensor calculus on manifolds, or else it will be a waste of time on my part. Let me know.Or are you telling me that you can have gravitational singularities with identities and I cannot?
I would like to mention in this context that singularities of both types can be avoided altogether by simply choosing a different connection on manifolds instead of the Levi-Civita connection. This allows torsion to come into the picture, and it can then be shown that no singularities can form in such space-times. The immediate implications are many-fold, but the important one in this context is that the Big Bang is replaced by a "Big Bounce". I am mentioning this merely to show that there is indeed some merit in the idea of replacing the BB with a cyclic model, and that it is technically very easy to do. This is called Einstein-Cartan gravity. I am not linking to the Wiki article here, because I am sad to say that the article contains a serious error; in any case, I think you get the general idea.
I must reiterate though that at the present time there is no reason to choose ECT over GR, because none of the predictions made by the former have actually been observed; that is why the current consensus on gravity remains GR for now. I would not be surprised if that was to change in the future, though.
My advise for you at this time would be to first study the existing models in-depths, including not just their conceptual descriptions, but the actual maths behind them. Only then will you be in a position to judge exactly where their strengths and weaknesses are, and how they all relate to each other within the bigger picture of physics. That is the only possible way to make a meaningful contribution; it will mean hard work and burning the midnight oil, but the rewards are great.
I should mention here that Tusenfem is ( in real life ) a university professor with a PhD in astrophysics and plasma fluid dynamics, and exceedingly knowledgeable in the area geometrodynamics as well. The comment you made above is disappointing and reflects badly on you, and says much more about yourself than it does about Tusenfem. I have had the pleasure to read some of his publications at the university of Utrecht as well as his contributions on Wikipedia, and they are all excellent.
Yes, just another crank.
Can you define what these "unique signatures" produced by your model are? In other words when/if gravity waves are detected, how will we know they are "your" gravity waves rather than corresponding to some other model?
By the way, please try and master the "quote" function; it would make it much easier to pick out your comments. (For some reason, this seems to be a common problem for most people with their own personal theories - a unique signature, you might say.)
You have complained before about people not taking you seriously. Maybe this sort of immature comment may be why.Argue with me? Listen to Dolph Lundgren!
My reply exceeded the character limit so I split it into two parts.
[QUOTE=Markus Hanke;446652]You are mixing up things here - the HUP has nothing to do with General Relativity, it is quantum mechanical phenomenon.
Unfortunately for me, I am not mixing things up at all. Please allow yourself to step into my paradigm for a few moments. There is no dark energy in my paradigm but there is the recycling of entropy. The paradigm I am arguing for begins completely deterministically where everything can be localized and quantum mechanics evolution operators are assigned at a currently unknown interval of time (I really want to know this interval of time and mass loss rate of a failing black hole). When binary black holes fail based on their mass they will preserve quantum mechanics evolution operators at the expense of time in what is synthesized. The distortion of the horizons created by the binary black holes in the event will directly influence the assignment of quantum mechanics evolution operators in a deterministic way. The first stars will then form at different intervals of time from the synthesized material and at different locations in the expanding universe. Some of these stars will Hyper nova at different intervals of time and create black holes once again stripping away quantum mechanics evolution operators and preserving them in the horizon.
The original deterministic process will repeat itself at different intervals of time and at different locations in the universe. Once again the preserved quantum mechanics evolution operators will be reassigned. Over time, the universe will evolve from a deterministic state to a level of complexity that appears semi deterministic, nondeterministic, or even in-deterministic to us. My paradigm would imply a possible connection between the quantity of standard model dark energy we perceive and the evolution of the HUP as we perceive it now since my paradigm recycles quantum mechanics evolution operators over time. The current perceived amount of dark energy in the universe is roughly 68.3%. If my paradigm stands to reason, this may equate to a percentage of 68.3% being the quantity of quantum mechanics evolution operators that have been reassigned since the first event of my theoretical deterministic process. The remaining 31.7% of quantum mechanics evolution operators existing now may have originated from the specific interval assigned from the original deterministic event. This is of course my first guess at relating my paradigm to the HUP. Since I am preparing to move, working, research, and doing other things I have not looked into this possible connection at all. It is just another idea in my "pea brain".
This would guarantee you a Nobel price for sure. Good luck with that.Using accurate enough gravitational wave signatures from my theoretical failing binary black holes, it is my goal to use numerical relativity to reverse engineer the event via computer simulation. With the end goal being Quantum General Relativity and a final theory of everything.
Only 1? Obama got a peace prize in advance of doing what exactly? Throw me a bone.
Well, perhaps you should have made it clearer that you were referring to the standard model of cosmology, as opposed to the Standard Model of particle physics. They are not the same.Paradigm disconnect again... You know what is funny, many times I have used the term "standard model" to describe the Lambda-CDM model and that was not specific enough for you and many others, in an attempt to be specific I listed everything that came to mind. However, Lambda-CDM did not come to mind because I always used the term "standard model", for that is what it is...
In any case, my point was simply that neither one has anything to do with black holes or gravitational waves.
I am in a sense arguing against "Standard Model Everything (excluding general relativity for now)" but I will make a more conscious effort to conform my terms to those of the leading consensus of paradigm's.
The FLRW metric is a global solution describing the evolution of space-time in a homogeneous universe as a whole; it does not model local phenomena such as quasars and galaxies. You would need to consider a different class of solutions to do that.And good luck forming quasars and galaxies out of the FLRW metric homogenous background of the big bang.
I have been collectivizing too many things in order to make a larger point. The homogeneity and isotropy necessary for the big bang to even be possible in every way is shackled by the cosmological principle. It seems to me some recent observations are testing the strength of this shackle more than ever before. Biggest structure in universe: Large quasar group is 4 billion light years across
Continued below
Again, that is just your personal opinion. In fact, there is currently no observational evidence in existence which contradicts the BB model in any way. It remains the best model we have to explain the evolution of the universe to date.From Quasar super clusters to metallicity discrepancies the Big Bang's days are numbered. What is necessary to make the big bang possible is progressively undone by observations indicating it as an impossible event. It takes awhile to pile together all the "paradox's" and "mysteries" to consider them collectively.
While some observations are not completely contradictory to BB they are certainly are not lending it much assistance:
The testing of the cosmological principle with recent observations: Biggest structure in universe: Large quasar group is 4 billion light years across
Observed metallicity discrepancies: Evolution of Galaxies & Metallicity (Thank you William and others)
Small galaxies with large black holes: Small galaxies with large black holes › News in Science (ABC Science) and Henize 2-10 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here are three I can find offhand in my 300+ bookmarks (they really need to reorg them). I can list more later on once I get my crap together.
Paradox's that remain troublesome for Standard Model BB Cosmology and Particle physics, and everything else standard:
The Cosmic Ray Paradox: The Cosmic Ray / Cosmic Microwave Paradox (Thank you Jerry and others)
The Paradox of Youth: http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academi...p06/symp06.pdf
The Faint Young Sun Paradox: Faint young Sun paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Massive Star Formation Paradox: While not mentioned anywhere I can find, I have heard and read snippets regarding this star formation problem. How can the largest stars we observe in the universe have formed? If the thermal velocity needed to begin sustained fusion is localized at the core of a massive forming star, how can a hydrostatic equilibrium establish itself before the violence of the ignition ejects the very fuel that is necessary for a large star to form (this sentence was for you Strange)? While I realize that a highly combustible redneck bonfire is indeed not the same process as the hydrostatic thermal nuclear fusion based equilibrium of a star, this video is analogous to the problem I am describing. Note the lack of a sustained fire and distribution of the fuel. Big A** Redneck Bonfire Explosion! Wow. - YouTube
Once again, book mark problems and time constraints I can produce more later on if you like.
I have done my best to keep the cart in front of the horse. However, the creation of my philosophical argument was done with a great deal more in mind than just the consequences of conserving physical information in the horizon of a black hole during a merger. It was done with as many observations, cosmological paradox's, astronomical problems, incomplete theories, and quantum physical considerations as one mind can consider all at once collectively. The goal became to produce the most rational, elegant, observable, quantifiable, testable, and possible solution to them all. Among the problems considered was star formation. Black hole failure may indeed play a very fundamental role in this event. But first thing is first, I need some gravitational wave observations.
Correct, simply because their space-time geometry is not the same. They differ in Ricci curvature and Weyl curvature as explained earlier.Cosmological singularities are not gravitational singularities?
I will take a closer look later.
Yes. It is in fact elementary differential geometry. The concept was first elaborated on by Roger Penrose in 1979.Is there a consensus on this?
Here is what Google gave me when I searched for "Cosmological Singularity" https://www.google.com/#bav=on.2,or....al+singularity
Where you referring to the BLK singularity? BKL singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What I am saying is that the two types of singularities aren't mathematically or physically equivalent; the BB wasn't a black hole. If you wish I can present the maths on this, but only if you have good knowledge of tensor calculus on manifolds, or else it will be a waste of time on my part. Let me know.Or are you telling me that you can have gravitational singularities with identities and I cannot?
I would like to mention in this context that singularities of both types can be avoided altogether by simply choosing a different connection on manifolds instead of the Levi-Civita connection. This allows torsion to come into the picture, and it can then be shown that no singularities can form in such space-times. The immediate implications are many-fold, but the important one in this context is that the Big Bang is replaced by a "Big Bounce". I am mentioning this merely to show that there is indeed some merit in the idea of replacing the BB with a cyclic model, and that it is technically very easy to do. This is called Einstein-Cartan gravity. I am not linking to the Wiki article here, because I am sad to say that the article contains a serious error; in any case, I think you get the general idea.
I must reiterate though that at the present time there is no reason to choose ECT over GR, because none of the predictions made by the former have actually been observed; that is why the current consensus on gravity remains GR for now. I would not be surprised if that was to change in the future, though.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for your time, I have some new stuff to look at. I agree GR is where it will be at...
Argue with me? Listen to Dolph Lundgren!
Drago: You Will Lose - YouTube
The HUP is at its core a mathematical property of Fourier transforms, and quite independent of any physical considerations. You cannot just "decide" to eliminate it, no more than you can decide that the value of pi was different in the past. It doesn't make sense.
These are not conditions for the BB to be possible, since the FLRW does not model the BB itself. It only models the evolution of the universe after the BB, and homogeneity and isotropy are assumptions used to enable us to find a closed analytical solutions to the field equations. Remember that there is no model in existence which can describe the BB itself, or the first 10^-43 seconds after it.The homogeneity and isotropy necessary for the big bang to even be possible
I agree that there are still unanswered questions, in fact quite a number of them; and I am glad for that, because that is what keeps things exciting and moving forward. At this point in time, and given our current scientific understanding, the BB model remains the best model we have.While some observations are not completely contradictory to BB they are certainly are not lending it much assistance:
Rationality and elegance are irrelevant, but the rest are of course essential to any theory. Particularly quantifiability will be key here. Have you got any maths to present yet ?The goal became to produce the most rational, elegant, observable, quantifiable, testable, and possible solution to them all.
No, but since you mention it, it's an interesting model as well. It's quite different from the FLRW metric, and to be honest I am not certain whether the BKL model is in accordance with current observational data. I would have to research that first.Where you referring to the BLK singularity? BKL singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What I was referring to are the differences in Weyl and Ricci curvature between gravitational and cosmological singularities. See here for a general overview : http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.3382.pdf
No problem.Thank you for your time
My argument is just the beginning... I am in the process of rearranging my life to work on this as much as possible. Now that I know the problem I intend to solve I have some work to do.My advise for you at this time would be to first study the existing models in-depths, including not just their conceptual descriptions, but the actual maths behind them. Only then will you be in a position to judge exactly where their strengths and weaknesses are, and how they all relate to each other within the bigger picture of physics. That is the only possible way to make a meaningful contribution; it will mean hard work and burning the midnight oil, but the rewards are great.
I should mention here that Tusenfem is ( in real life ) a university professor with a PhD in astrophysics and plasma fluid dynamics, and exceedingly knowledgeable in the area geometrodynamics as well. The comment you made above is disappointing and reflects badly on you, and says much more about yourself than it does about Tusenfem. I have had the pleasure to read some of his publications at the university of Utrecht as well as his contributions on Wikipedia, and they are all excellent.
Just because Tusenfem is intelligent, has rank, it indeed presumptive to assume he has honor. You are indeed assuming a great deal and truth has a rather serendipitous way of making itself known. That is all I have to say regarding that.
[QUOTE=Markus Hanke;446653]
Thanks again, today was hot and tiring, must sleep. I will reply to others later.The HUP is at its core a mathematical property of Fourier transforms, and quite independent of any physical considerations. You cannot just "decide" to eliminate it, no more than you can decide that the value of pi was different in the past. It doesn't make sense.
The paradigm I am advocating for has to pretty much throw everything under the bus to begin with as a necessity. Consequently, it has the disadvantage of having to explain everything we perceive now as a necessity. I am trying to be as pure and objective with this idea as possible. I could in all probability hack together something nifty, enticing, and completely wrong. My gut tells me to work on mastering numerical relativity, thereby allowing me to identify the gravitational signatures from my paradigm with some constraints, and create a programmable framework for reverse engineering gravitational wave data into a modeled binary black hole failure simulation. For 26 years I have searched on my own for a path to finding an answer to a question that I have wanted answered the most. At 37, I have discovered the path and the real work lies ahead.
These are not conditions for the BB to be possible, since the FLRW does not model the BB itself. It only models the evolution of the universe after the BB, and homogeneity and isotropy are assumptions used to enable us to find a closed analytical solutions to the field equations. Remember that there is no model in existence which can describe the BB itself, or the first 10^-43 seconds after it.The homogeneity and isotropy necessary for the big bang to even be possible
In all honesty based on your gut... for going sub 10^-43 seconds on a scale from 1-10; How would you rank this idea as it sits? Hell anyone can vote and Strange negative infinity is not an option.
I agree that there are still unanswered questions, in fact quite a number of them; and I am glad for that, because that is what keeps things exciting and moving forward. At this point in time, and given our current scientific understanding, the BB model remains the best model we have.While some observations are not completely contradictory to BB they are certainly are not lending it much assistance:
So it is like a bad wife? So how bad must she get before a divorce is considered?
Rationality and elegance are irrelevant, but the rest are of course essential to any theory. Particularly quantifiability will be key here. Have you got any maths to present yet ?The goal became to produce the most rational, elegant, observable, quantifiable, testable, and possible solution to them all.
It would seem to me that a deterministic process would be elegant in that it would be rationally quantifiable. Nope, no math yet, for I just figured out the problem I intend to solve... in a very real sense time is not on my side.
No, but since you mention it, it's an interesting model as well. It's quite different from the FLRW metric, and to be honest I am not certain whether the BKL model is in accordance with current observational data. I would have to research that first.Where you referring to the BLK singularity? BKL singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What I was referring to are the differences in Weyl and Ricci curvature between gravitational and cosmological singularities. See here for a general overview : http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.3382.pdf
My bad, is there a better path to finding the latest consensus than google?
No problem.Thank you for your time
| « Origin of The Universe | My “Eureka” moment. A cure for cancer. » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
