Thread: Black hole at the center of the universe !!!

I postulate there is a center in our universe and it is a super massive black hole white hole complex and our universe is rotating just as our galaxy rotates this explains the flat appearance of our universe we are in a giant accretion disk propelled by the propellant force of the initial white hole that spawned our universe into existence.eventually our universe will stabilize as the electromagnetic field of our central black hole reaches equilibrium at that point our universe will rotate around it's central black hole. This side of our dualiverse is most likely still in the white hole phase this explains the erratic and unpredictable motions of the galaxies as in dark flow and galactic collisions . If our universe was in the black hole state then the motions of the galaxies would be predictable and uniform just as the solar systems and stars are within the galactic arms of our own galaxy. So the galaxies would be held in place by the gravitational force exhibited by our universe black holes magnetic spiral arms. The galaxies in our universe universe show no sign of the rigid and steady motion generated by a black holes magnetic field lines . So in conclusion our universe has a center that center is currently a white hole eventually that white hole will collapse and become a black hole our universe will rotate steadily and uniformly until the black hole at the center collapses and our universe will be pulled into it and this process will be repeated at universe bs white hole exit.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

I think ...

And there is the problem. You are just making stuff up again.

I know this because you have provided no EVIDENCE. Therefore this is not science.

Please stop doing this.

there is a center in our universe

Evidence required.

it is a super massive black hole white hole complex

Evidence required.

our universe is rotating

Evidence required.

this explains the flat appearance of our universe we are in a giant accretion disk

Evidence required. (And the universe does not "appear flat": it is homogeneously and isotropically distributed all around us in three dimensions.)

the initial white hole that spawned our universe into existence

Evidence required.

Do you begin to see the problem? You are just spouting made-up crap. This is NOT SCIENCE. Stop it. People will just assume you are insane.

Moderator Warning: Deep Thoughts, your post is utterly devoid of science. This is a science forum and while we encourage speculation - it is the life blood of scientific advance - that speculation needs to be founded on evidence and facts, not idle thoughts and superficial nonsense. I am moving this post to Pseudoscience. Until and unless you can raise the standard of your posts, please do not post in the regular science sub-forums again. Any posts you make there are likely to be deleted and you may be suspended.

Ok I'm a little overzealous about ideas at times I will respect your opinion , if my standards of observation do not meet the level of evidence I complety understand and I know these ideas are new . I am not trying to do anything but share the knowledge I've gained by years of study I am still an amateur. I will refrain from posting any obscure and or unsubstantiated claims in the future. Until I can find something with some supporting evidence to go along with it. I do actually read scientific papers on a regular basis, I base my theories partly on extrapolation and the evidence available within the scientific studies I can get ahold of. I do enjoy this forum and I've tried to maintain a certain level of respect tward the other members . So pseudoscience is a place I can post is what I'm getting from this if I think the content is too obscure ?

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

I know these ideas are new

And wrong.

I am not trying to do anything but share the knowledge I've gained by years of study

You appear to have been wasting your time. You haven't gained any knowledge. For example, there is no center of the universe and there is no evidence it is rotating. You cannot build a scientific theory on things you make up.

I do actually read scientific papers on a regular basis

If that is true then why not reference those papers to support you case? (I suspect that, like everything you say, this is untrue.)

So pseudoscience is a place I can post is what I'm getting from this if I think the content is too obscure ?

If you are happy to continue making an utter fool of yourself, then feel free to keep posting your misunderstandings and fairy tales. I will continue to point out that everything you say is incorrect, not supported by evidence and, in many places, contradicted by evidence.

Why you would want to demonstrate your ignorance in public like this, is beyond me. But if you enjoy being laughed at carry on ...

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...10/10-023.html This is a link to nasas dark flow study , I postulate this dark flow is being generated by the formation of one our universes central black holes spiral arms forming.If you look at the picture they provide you might notice the start of some slight rotational motion. The study clearly states current theory cannot explain this motion , it makes sense that the black hole at the center of our universe is causing this motion not something outside of our universe as the individuals doing this study speculate.

You mispelled "fantasise" as "postulate" again. The information in the link does not suport your claim. You are just making stuff up and cherry picking information that you think supports your lunacy. This is not science, it's bullshit.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...0-023.htmlThis is a link to nasas dark flow study , I postulate this dark flow is being generated by the formation of one our universes central black holes spiral arms forming.If you look at the picture they provide you might notice the start of some slight rotational motion.

Repeating bullshit doesn't make it less smelly. The link still does not support your claim.

It was an accident also you are the one of the most disrespectful people I've ever come in contact with , you are slightly obsessed with my posts why don't you contribute to the forum in some positive way instead of engaging in the vile personal attacks?

Pointing out bullshit is not disrespectful, what is disrespectful is to carry on posting unscientific crap on a science forum after it has been pointed out what you are posting is unscientific crap you have just made up.

I do make a postive contributions to the forum, by a) discussing and answering questions about science, have a look in the chemistry and physics forums where people discuss real science for examples and b) point out pseudoscience for the crap it is, like in this thread or have a look in the Trash or this forum for others. I haven't attacked you, I have attacked your idea for the crap fantasy it is.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

You mispelled "fantasise" as "postulate" again. The information in the link does not suport your claim. You are just making stuff up and cherry picking information that you think supports your lunacy. This is not science, it's bullshit.

Attacking someone repeatedly only proves one thing your what we call a heckler those who can't do make fun of those that can it's classic psychology. I won't waste anymore of my time responding to your posts in the future thanks for your ignorant and totally useless input.They shouldn't let drunks in the forum , your anger is toxic.

You are missing the point, I have attacked your IDEA for the crap it is, where have I attacked you in this thread? As for those that can't do, look at my homepage, that's real science not fantasy physics. If you were serious about science you would actually learn some and stop posting ignorant twaddle.

They shouldn't let drunks in the forum

but now I'm sober your nonsense is still nonsense.

your anger is toxic

It's not anger it's an inability to let bullshit go unchallenged, if I feel any emotion towards you it's probably pity.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

I've tried to maintain a certain level of respect tward the other members

I find this almost as hard to believe as most of your other claims.
Since you have failed - completely - to provide support for any of your contentions and refused to answer questions put to you. how exactly do you think you're indicating "respect"?

So pseudoscience is a place I can post is what I'm getting from this if I think the content is too obscure ?

It's not "obscure" it's wrong or unsupported (mostly the former).

Actually your obviously not smart enough to attack my idea saying bullshit doesn't require any actual thought on your part it wouldn't be considered an intelligent criticism in any universe. Also the study I posted a link to does actually support my theory that the big bang doesn't explain these galactic motions and my theory does, and that I don't have to guess because my black hole theory clearly explains that there are spiral arms in the framework of our universes make up. If I'm right I guess you'll be saying I treated that guy like I was a schoolyard bully pat yourself on the back I'm sure everyone's impressed .There being a black hole at the center of our universe explains the seemingly random motion of the galaxies within the dark flow. You have made at least half a dozen disrespectful comments to me about my lack of knowledge and about my inability to grasp reality those are in fact personal attacks but you spin it any way you want, if it makes you feel better.I'm a little shocked this forum let's you get away with your extremely rude behavior.

Standard crank nonsense can be dismissed as such. As I have actually studied and worked in science it is blatantly obvious that your posts are "not even wrong". Comments about your lack of knowledge are not attacks, it is an objective fact based on the nonsense you have posted. Your inability to grasp reality is an objective fact as based on your posts you reject science in favour of making stuff up. If you were serious about learning science you would have endeavoured to actually learn some before making silly assertions.

Part of my job involves reviewing papers for journals, to do this I make critical assessments of scientific writing and assess whether the science content is up to standard quite a lot, that's all I've done to your posts, unfortunately they fell at the first hurdle, the laugh test...

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

Also the study I posted a link to does actually support my theory that the big bang doesn't explain these galactic motions

Yeah?
Quote the relevant part.

and my theory does

You don't have a theory - you have unsupported claims.

There being a black hole at the center of our universe

There is no "centre of the universe".

You have made at least half a dozen disrespectful comments to me about my lack of knowledge and about my inability to grasp reality those are in fact personal attacks

They were observations based on the evidence available.

I'm a little shocked this forum let's you get away with your extremely rude behavior.

You're used to forums where people can get away with making unsupported claims that are in no way science without being called on it? Why don't you go back there?

Here are three separate issues I wish to speak about..

1) You seem unaware that the speculations you are indulging in are not defensible using any recognisable scientific methodology. You refer to "your theory". You need to acquaint yourself with what a scientific theory is.

You do not have a theory. You do not have a hypothesis. It is questionable whether you even have what one could justify calling a speculation. You have a vague idea that has a tiny correlation with a single observation. There are no other supporting observations for the vague idea. There are several observations that contradict your vague idea.

I believe you are a sincere person with a deep interest in science. Unfortunately, at this point you have overestimated your grasp of facts and your ability to speculate. Speculation is not something for the amateur, unless they are a very well informed amateur. You do not yet fit that description. You can do so, but that will require recognising your current, severe, limitations.

2) Other members have doubtless have these same thoughts. They are frustrated that someone could be so arrogant, or foolish to think they have the current capacity to offer meaningful speculations, when they so obviously don't. As a consequence they are robust in their criticism and come very close to - and perhaps even cross - a line separating acceptable from unacceptable behaviour.

However, they have raised a valid point. It seems to me that it is you who is showing scant respect for the scientific method, or the dedication of scientists who work in these fields.

3) A single counterpoint to your 'vague idea': we have mapped the structure of the visible universe. There is no sign of a 'spiral arm'. Your idea is thus disproven.

Distant galaxy clusters mysteriously stream at a million miles per hour along a path roughly centered on the southern constellations Centaurus and Hydra. A new study led by Alexander Kashlinsky at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., tracks this collective motion -- dubbed the "dark flow" -- to twice the distance originally reported."This is not something we set out to find, but we cannot make it go away," Kashlinsky said. "Now we see that it persists to much greater distances -- as far as 2.5 billion light-years away." The new study appears in the March 20 issue of The Astrophysical Journal Letters.*The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said.*The dark flow is controversial because the distribution of matter in the observed universe cannot account for it. Its existence suggests that some structure beyond the visible universe -- outside our "horizon" -- is pulling on matter in our vicinity.
(Yeah?Quote the relevant part.)
This mysterious force accelerating these galaxies is our universes central black hole that's my prediction.

This still does not support your claims (or predictions). I could claim this mysterious force is an invisible unicorn pulling the matter in a cart, I have as much evidence for my "theory" as you do for yours...

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

I postulate there is a center in our universe

In order to make this as simple as possible, how about you provide the mathematical framework that led you to this conclusion. I assume that if you are going to rewrite the entirety of accepted physics from the ground up, you at least have one simple mathematical observation to show us.

This mysterious force accelerating these galaxies is our universes central black hole that's my prediction.

this is not a deep thought. any person can read NASA articles and make then a prediction.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

This mysterious force accelerating these galaxies is our universes central black hole that's my prediction.

The centre of the universe is under my bed.
I checked: there is no black hole there.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

This mysterious force accelerating these galaxies is our universes central black hole that's my prediction.

The centre of the universe is under my bed.I checked: there is no black hole there.

You sure? It would explain those missing socks.

I think people are making a storm in a tea cup. Anyway heres my question, if the acceleration was caused by a black hole wouldn't this cause a convergence of the various galaxies? If so apparently thats not what astronomers have been saying in recent years?

Originally Posted by icewendigo

I think people are making a storm in a tea cup. Anyway heres my question, if the acceleration was caused by a black hole wouldn't this cause a convergence of the various galaxies? If so apparently thats not what astronomers have been saying in recent years?

I think this is the beginning of the formation of our universes spiral arms and the further we look into the universe the more we will witness this convergence of galaxies. This is indicative of the fact that our central black hole is already beginning it's stabilization phase, although this is not overwhelming evidence it definatly helps support my hypothesis that our universe has a supermassive black hole in the center of its overall structure. In the white hole phase as the matter spun into this universe the motion was erratic and resulted in the chaotic motion of galaxies and many collisions between the many groups and individual galaxies.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

I think this is the beginning of the formation of our universes spiral arms and the further we look into the universe the more we will witness this convergence of galaxies.

There is no evidence for this you have just made it up. In fact there is REAL evidence that contradicts it (see point 3 in John Galts post)

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

This is indicative of the fact that our central black hole is already beginning it's stabilization phase,

There is no evidence for this, you have just made it up.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

although this is not overwhelming evidence

It is not evidence at all

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

it definatly helps support my hypothesis that our universe has a supermassive black hole in the center of its overall structure.

This is not a hypothesis, it is, at best, an unsupported wild guess (see John Galts post)

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

In the white hole phase as the matter spun into this universe the motion was erratic and resulted in the chaotic motion of galaxies and many collisions between the many groups and individual galaxies.

There is no evidence for this, you have just made it up.

Yeah, you're wandering off into La La Land again:

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

I think this is the beginning of the formation of our universes spiral arms

What?

and the further we look into the universe the more we will witness this convergence of galaxies

What makes you think so?

This is indicative of the fact that our central black hole

There is no centre to the universe.
So, by extension, there is no black hole there.

is already beginning it's stabilization phase

What's a "stabilisation phase"?

although this is not overwhelming evidence

There is NO evidence, let alone "not overwhelming".

it definatly helps support my hypothesis that our universe has a supermassive black hole in the center of its overall structure.

1) You have no hypothesis -as John Galt pointed out.
2) There is no centre to the universe.
3) There is, therefore, no black hole there.

In the white hole phase as the matter spun into this universe the motion was erratic and resulted in the chaotic motion of galaxies and many collisions between the many groups and individual galaxies.

Pure unsupported speculation.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

I think this is the beginning of the formation of our universes spiral arms and the further we look into the universe the more we will witness this convergence of galaxies.

There is no evidence for this you have just made it up. In fact there is REAL evidence that contradicts it (see point 3 in John Galts post)

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

This is indicative of the fact that our central black hole is already beginning it's stabilization phase,

There is no evidence for this, you have just made it up.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

although this is not overwhelming evidence

It is not evidence at all

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

it definatly helps support my hypothesis that our universe has a supermassive black hole in the center of its overall structure.

This is not a hypothesis, it is, at best, an unsupported wild guess (see John Galts post)

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

In the white hole phase as the matter spun into this universe the motion was erratic and resulted in the chaotic motion of galaxies and many collisions between the many groups and individual galaxies.

There is no evidence for this, you have just made it up.

John galt stated there is no evidence of spiral arms currently I'm saying dark flow is the beginning of this formation not that it already exists. Also saying repeatedly I made it up is not a question, and your blatant admin butt kissing is obvious to say the least. My thread has already been moved to pseudoscience why don't you find another member of the forum to discredit.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

Also saying repeatedly I made it up is not a question

No. But it IS an opportunity for you to provide support for your claims.
You know, the support that you have repeatedly been asked for and failed to provide.

My thread has already been moved to pseudoscience

Should have been trashed and locked.

why don't you find another member of the forum to discredit.

Don't be silly. How is it possible to "discredit" someone with no credit, or credibility, in the first place?

All you've done is post wild unsupported claims - and outright bullshit - with not one iota of back up or justification.

Crap, just crap. You HAVE just made up a load of nonsense, so much I thought it was worth pointing out every bit of of it. Why would I ask YOU a question, you've shown you have no understanding of the subject. Me, a butt-kisser, lol, you should hang around a bit more, I seem to have a reputation for being blunt not a butt-kisser, also how is directing you to a point made by John butt-kissing (clue it isn't, there is a thing in science called citation, if someone has previously made a point you are using in your argument you refer to it, that's what I did here). Whether you are in pseudoscience or not you don't get a free rein to post unsupported nonsense without critiscism. If you don't like the criticism stop posting unsupported nonsense or find another forum to pollute.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

Also saying repeatedly I made it up is not a question

No. But it IS an opportunity for you to provide support for your claims.You know, the support that you have repeatedly been asked for and failed to provide.

My thread has already been moved to pseudoscience

Should have been trashed and locked.

why don't you find another member of the forum to discredit.

Don't be silly. How is it possible to "discredit" someone with no credit, or credibility, in the first place?All you've done is post wild unsupported claims - and outright bullshit - with not one iota of back up or justification.

Are you two a couple ? Your accusations are actually pointless , I have been writing scientific theories and creating groundbreaking conceptual advances for years. I don't understand why you and your buddy are so desperate to argue against my ideas , I have a great idea why don't you create a new idea so I can tell you your wrong or would that be out of your comfort zone is it too much fun too pick on the new guy in a desperate and obvious attempt to get him banned. It doesn't mean I'm wrong just because you don't think I can be right for all you know I have even more revolutionary ideas that are also correct. The redundancy of your accusations shows a serious lack of thought, you ask for evidence then you say my evidence isn't evidence it's like your dancing in metaphorical circles, at my expense. I ask you do you really care about science or do you just want to show me how superior you are ?

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

I have been writing scientific theories and creating groundbreaking conceptual advances for years.

please describe one or two of these 'theories'. also what scientific papers were they published and under what name ?

Just more rubbish showing the true crank behind the posts.

Check out your score: Crackpot index

My "theories" or "results" have been published, see the home page. Argue with them if you want.

Stop playing the victim, if you don't like how people respond to your posts stop making stuff up. I'm not trying to get you banned, you are doing a good enough job on your own, I'm just pointing out your posts are nonsense.

Look up how the scientific method works, you are "wrong" because there is no evidence supporting your wild eyed guesses. Science says "no evidence, wrong by default".

The "accusations" are not redundant, this is nominally an educational forum, pointing out bullshit to casual readers who come here to learn is a public service.

You have presented no evidence, none of the links you provided or quotes you have cut and pasted support your claims.

Of course I care about science, it is what I do for a living, that is why I find people who pretend they are interested in science but actually just make stuff up because they are too lazy to study contemptable.

I request that this thread is relocated to the Trash Can. Even this sub-forum is not suited for this utter lack of science.

I feel like I'm being ignored. Do you have any maths or are you just speaking out of your depth between tokes?

Again:

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

I postulate there is a center in our universe

In order to make this as simple as possible, how about you provide the mathematical framework that led you to this conclusion. I assume that if you are going to rewrite the entirety of accepted physics from the ground up, you at least have one simple mathematical observation to show us.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

Are you two a couple ?

Ooh, an attempt at an ad hom.

Your accusations are actually pointless

Wrong: you haven't supported a single claim of yours so far.

I have been writing scientific theories and creating groundbreaking conceptual advances for years.

Really?
I take it then that the "scientific theories and groundbreaking conceptual advances" are nothing whatsoever to do with the subject you're posting on. Because there's no science in your posts, they're not theories and they're certainly not "groundbreaking" (because nutcases don't break ground so much as foertilise it with bullshit).

I don't understand why you and your buddy are so desperate to argue against my ideas

Do you think one possible reason is that there's nothing to support your ideas?

I have a great idea

Not evidenced.

It doesn't mean I'm wrong just because you don't think I can be right

Correct.
You're wrong because you're going against facts. And have nothing to support you.

for all you know I have even more revolutionary ideas that are also correct.

The word "also" is not only extraneous but wrong: you haven't been correct so far.

The redundancy of your accusations shows a serious lack of thought, you ask for evidence then you say my evidence isn't evidence it's like your dancing in metaphorical circles, at my expense

It's because you haven't given any evidence.

I ask you do you really care about science or do you just want to show me how superior you are ?

I care about science: what you're posting is unsupported crap.

Examples:
there is no centre to the universe.
there is no black hole "at the centre of the universe".
your claims about "ancient wisdom" are nonsense.
you persistently misuse the term "electromagnetic black hole".
you have claimed to have mathematics - but haven't shown any.
what "numbers" you have given are - again - unsupported and may just as well have been pulled out your arse.
any link you have given as "support" has failed to substantiate your claims.
This means that YOU aren't doing science.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Crap, just crap. You HAVE just made up a load of nonsense, so much I thought it was worth pointing out every bit of of it. Why would I ask YOU a question, you've shown you have no understanding of the subject. Me, a butt-kisser, lol, you should hang around a bit more, I seem to have a reputation for being blunt not a butt-kisser, also how is directing you to a point made by John butt-kissing (clue it isn't, there is a thing in science called citation, if someone has previously made a point you are using in your argument you refer to it, that's what I did here). Whether you are in pseudoscience or not you don't get a free rein to post unsupported nonsense without critiscism. If you don't like the criticism stop posting unsupported nonsense or find another forum to pollute.

If you look back through this thread you will clearly see you have in fact polluted my thread with rude and redundant comments I doubt you care about anything , and it is more likely your using this forum as a way to assert your false sense of superiority over others.I don't mind the criticism it's the insulting and disrespectfull way you go about it that I don't like. Thinking your right does not give you the right to be belittling.

You can't polish a turd, it was pretty much polluted as soon as you hit "post". I notice you still have provided no evidence and are now behaving exactly the way you (falsely) criticised me for earlier. Respect is earned, on a science site it is earned by making knowledgeable posts and/or asking sensible, pertinent questions and thinking sensibly about any answers you are given, it is not earned by posting ridiculous assertions and made up nonsense. You want respect? Stop posting crap and try and earn some.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

and it is more likely your using this forum as a way to assert your false sense of superiority over others.

You got that wrong.
When it comes to science, PhDemon's sense of superiority (over you) is anything but false - it's fully justified.

I don't mind the criticism it's the insulting and disrespectfull way you go about it that I don't like.

It's insulting and disrespectful the way you expect us to simply take your word without providing any evidence for your claims.

Thinking your right does not give you the right to be belittling.

And YOU thinking YOU'RE right does not give you the right to ignore science and evidence.

how were you able to get your 'theories' peer-reviewed ? and published ? without encountering criticism ?

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

how were you able to get your 'theories' peer-reviewed ? and published ? without encountering criticism ?

Quite, criticism is how ideas progress, you submit a manuscript and have to address the criticisms (using evidence!) to satisfy the reviewers and the editor. What you don't do is make up some more nonsense and whine that people are picking on you and trying to get you banned.

even the greatest scientists of the world encountered heavy criticism. Newton, Einstein, Galileo, Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg. etc, all of them encountered criticism.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

What you don't do is make up some more nonsense and whine that people are picking on you and trying to get you banned.

I'm just having "fun" imaging if the real world operated the ways cranks on the internet do...
Waiter! I ordered steak, this is mud with a side order of dung.
Yes sir, the chef's thinking outside the box today and doesn't see why he should conform to the fascist dictates of culinary fashion. Bon appetit.

Or how about the monthly pay cheque?
Boss my wages didn't go into the bank.
I have a theory that money is the root of all evil and that people work better if I give them a daisy chain at the end of the month. No more evil cash for lucky you. Wear this round your neck, you'll feel better.

The exponential and increasing expansion of the universe fits with a white hole being the propellant force , the unknown source of gravitational potential causing dark flow fits with a black hole beginning it's formation of spiral arms. I really don't understand how you can all state I'm not talking about science, cosmology is based on observation and evidence and although science has had a hundred years to prove the big bang it's done a poor job at best. I am not the only individual trying to create a more cohesive and encompassing universe theory. The center of the universe is not observable. I'm not saying it is I'm just stating there is a black hole white hole complex at that center. Science has discovered that most of the space within an atom is empty , science has long known that most of the space in the universe is empty . These two facts are deeply connected the ancient Hindus had an advanced cosmology , and believed this universe was one universe among billions of other universes of varied sizes.In The center of atoms there is most likely a subatomic black hole, just as there is a black hole in the center of every galaxy, and thus by extrapolation I can easily and plainly state there is a black hole at the center of every universe. This is not evidence it is the most likely scenario based on observation and available information ascertained by scientific endeavor I will continue to expand on my ideas as I've previously stated. The big bang is a linear concept that lacks elegance, there is no end point abd there is no cyclic nature within its structure of we observe the natural world around us we can easily see that everything in this universe is cyclical the seasons lifecycles orbital rotations . The theories I propose are in fact logical and cyclical and there is a flow and elegancee within the structure of my dual universe theory.

this is more like a blog than a discussion. we are getting a chapter each post.

A blog of nonsense. Deep thoughs, aka PureGenius, has been banned from other science sites for posting exactly this kind of made up garbage. He really believes what he imagines is real. He's never completed High School, and has never studied any kind of science.

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

I have been writing scientific theories and creating groundbreaking conceptual advances for years.

please describe one or two of these 'theories'. also what scientific papers were they published and under what name ?

he does not answer very simple nonscientific questions either.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

The exponential and increasing expansion of the universe fits with a white hole being the propellant force

What white hole?

the unknown source of gravitational potential causing dark flow fits with a black hole beginning it's formation of spiral arms

Evidence that these spiral arms are forming?

I really don't understand how you can all state I'm not talking about science, cosmology is based on observation and evidence

Because you consistently fail to provide said evidence or observations.
Which means that there's much more you don't understand: science being one of those things.

and although science has had a hundred years to prove the big bang it's done a poor job at best.

Science doesn't "prove" things.
BB is the best explanation we have so far.

I am not the only individual trying to create a more cohesive and encompassing universe theory.

Correct.
But, notably, you ARE one of a few trying to do so based on nothing but ignorance, guesswork and unsupported claims.

The center of the universe is not observable.

Because it doesn't exist.

I'm not saying it is I'm just stating there is a black hole white hole complex at that center.

And you're wrong.
It's that simple.

Science has discovered that most of the space within an atom is empty , science has long known that most of the space in the universe is empty . These two facts are deeply connected

Supposition.

the ancient Hindus had an advanced cosmology

Unsupported claim.

and believed this universe was one universe among billions of other universes of varied sizes.

So what? Belief isn't science.

In The center of atoms there is most likely a subatomic black hole

I agree!
If we define "most likely" as "absolutely not true".

just as there is a black hole in the center of every galaxy

Supposition: Astronomers believe that supermassive black holes lie at the center of virtually all large galaxies. And: almost every galaxy in the Universe.

and thus by extrapolation I can easily and plainly state there is a black hole at the center of every universe.

Wrong again.
But logic isn't your strong point, is it?

This is not evidence it is the most likely scenario based on observation and available information ascertained by scientific endeavor

Not onl;y is it not evidence, it's not based on observation, not based on available information and it's not science.

The big bang is a linear concept that lacks elegance

In other words: you don't like/ understand it so it's wrong.

The theories I propose are in fact logical and cyclical and there is a flow and elegancee within the structure of my dual universe theory.

And are not only not theories they're also not logical.

Originally Posted by AlexG

A blog of nonsense. Deep thoughs, aka PureGenius, has been banned from other science sites for posting exactly this kind of made up garbage. He really believes what he imagines is real. He's never completed High School, and has never studied any kind of science.

If everything you say is accurate then how do explain my extensive knowledge of the universe . I've also already stated I've never been kicked out of a science forum for my ideas it's absurd that you would make a false statement just to discredit me. I understand my ideas are so far reaching they scare people that cannot fathom the depths of my thought process. I have in fact spent thousands of hours studying science, my education level is really not relevant although I will say I do not have any degrees .

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

how do explain my extensive knowledge of the universe .

i can say those words too: 'i have extensive knowledge of the universe' it does not make it true.

cannot fathom the depths of my thought process

oh my. are you a reincarnation of Einstein? or maybe Maxwell ?

Extensive knowledge? From your posts so far what you know would fit on a matchbox. As for your thought processes the only thing I can't fathom is how you think you are making sense

If everything you say is accurate then how do explain my extensive knowledge of the universe

You don't have ANY knowledge of the universe, extensive or not. You're an idiot.

I've also already stated I've never been kicked out of a science forum for my ideas it's absurd that you would make a false statement just to discredit me.

You were banned from Science Forums where you posted under the name PureGenius. You were banned for posting made up nonsense, just as you're doing here.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

then how do explain my extensive knowledge of the universe

As you have clearly demonstrated time and time again: you DO NOT have an "extensive knowledge of the universe".
What you have is an apparently unshakeable (and unjustified) faith in your own meaningless and incorrect crap.

I understand my ideas are so far reaching they scare people that cannot fathom the depths of my thought process.

What's actually scary is that anyone can be so blind to reality.
And your thoughts are shallow.

I have in fact spent thousands of hours studying science

Then you've wasted that time because you haven't learned a thing.

I will say I do not have any degrees .

I'll believe that.
You also apparently don't have two brain cells to rub together.

Originally Posted by AlexG

You were banned from Science Forums where you posted under the name PureGenius. .

his forum names show he is consistent with how he views himself.

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

I have been writing scientific theories and creating groundbreaking conceptual advances for years.

please describe one or two of these 'theories'. also what scientific papers were they published and under what name ?

you sir started this by making such statement. you should answer these questions.

The*puranic*view asserts that the universe is created, destroyed, and re-created in an eternally repetitive series of cycles. In Hindu cosmology, a universe endures for about4,320,000,000 years*(one*day of Brahma, the creator or*kalpa) and is then destroyed by fire or water elements. At this point,*Brahma*rests for one night, just as long as the day. This process, named*pralaya*(literally*especial dissolution*in*Sanskrit, commonly translated as*Cataclysm), repeats for 100 Brahma years (311 Trillion, 40 Billion Human Years) that represents Brahma's lifespan. Brahma is regarded as a manifestation of Brahman as the creator.In current occurrence of Universe, we are believed to be in the 51st year of the present Brahma and so about 156 trillion years have elapsed since He was born as Brahma. After Brahma's "death", it is necessary that another 100 Brahma years (311 Trillion, 40 Billion Years) pass until a new Brahma is born and the whole creation begins anew. This process is repeated again and again, forever.


This is an interesting discussion I am glad that your all so enthusiastic about my lack of knowledge. I would appreciate questions and or some logical arguments against my ideas although I have been amused I am not in the least impressed I hoped to get more intelligent feedback. The fact is I actually know more than I'm willing to post in forum I do respect your opinions even if I don't agree. I assure you I am serious about these ideas. I like science so much this is actually quite enjoyable from my perspective I'm learning more about current theory from what your not saying than I could possibly learn from what you might say. The fact of the matter is I've made several scientific predictions that I will probably never be given credit for . l I'm doing this all because I am 95 percent sure I'm right about 95 percent of what I've stated in forum. Also if science is really judged by wether it is the most likely explanation I'm sure I've already met that criteria. I will continue to expand on and define my ideas . Time modulation black hole physics and the structure of the dualiverse will be my main focus. I think personally that maybe I should be encouraged and not be told I'm an idiot, but that's just my opinion and I'm sure that is totally irrelevant to most of you. Scientific axioms are not permanent sometimes knowledge and information force science to abandon old concepts and create new axioms and new concepts. I have discovered more of the universes secrets in two years than science has figured out in 100 years , when I created the dual universe black hole time mirror theory I had no idea how upset the scientific community would be, I assure you my intent was positive and this conceptual framework makes perfect sense. I know all about the idea of the singularity at the center of black holes. I'm saying not only do black holes not collapse when matter enters them but it is accelerated up to 1,000 times the speed of light , I'm also saying there is no singularity instead there is continuous motion of the matter through a wormhole and dependant on the size of the black hole the distance between a black hole to a white hole exit can be any distance up to trillions of light years. I also postulate our galaxy has been through a black hole and while inside traveled a distance of 25 sextillion miles always under the influence of time dilation and this created the effect of lengthening human lifespans up to 100,000 years. I calculated this and all the effects of this motion in a very short period of time. I discovered the formula for time dilation hidden within the ancient vedas of India. The ancient Hindus stated that our universe will exist for 311 trillion years is modern science so advanced that it could either prove or disprove thier statement, and furthermore why would an ancient civilization make this statement based on conjecture that idea in itself is like saying the universe isn't 13.7 billion years old we just suppose it is and put it in all our text books and some future civilization is going to come along and say that's absurd they were fantasizing does anyone but me see how illogical that thought process is ?

Stop copy pasting your text walls. If you're not going to put in the effort to format, why should anyone put in the effort to read your post?

this is like a cornucopia except with poop.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

If everything you say is accurate then how do explain my extensive knowledge of the universe .

That's a joke right? An "extensive knowledge" of the universe would require extensive knowledge of physics and you haven't been able to supply me with an even rudimentary equation regarding your crazy hypothesis.

Sadly I think he's serious, he actually believes this crap makes sense... Oh BTW post #57 is utter bullshit from start to finish.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

The*puranic*view asserts that the universe is created, destroyed, and re-created in an eternally repetitive series of cycles. In Hindu cosmology, a universe endures for about4,320,000,000 years*(one*day of Brahma, the creator or*kalpa) and is then destroyed by fire or water elements. At this point,*Brahma*rests for one night, just as long as the day. This process, named*pralaya*(literally*especial dissolution*in*Sanskrit, commonly translated as*Cataclysm), repeats for 100 Brahma years (311 Trillion, 40 Billion Human Years) that represents Brahma's lifespan. Brahma is regarded as a manifestation of Brahman as the creator.In current occurrence of Universe, we are believed to be in the 51st year of the present Brahma and so about 156 trillion years have elapsed since He was born as Brahma. After Brahma's "death", it is necessary that another 100 Brahma years (311 Trillion, 40 Billion Years) pass until a new Brahma is born and the whole creation begins anew. This process is repeated again and again, forever.

So what?
This is not science.
Why are you referring to mythology on a science site?

I hoped to get more intelligent feedback

Then post something intelligent.
Support your claims.
Stop ignoring facts.

The fact is I actually know more than I'm willing to post

It would be hard to know any less.

I like science

Then start doing science.

The fact of the matter is I've made several scientific predictions

Unsupported.

I'm doing this all because I am 95 percent sure I'm right about 95 percent of what I've stated in forum

Doesn't stop you being wrong.

Time modulation black hole physics and the structure of the dualiverse will be my main focus.

In other words bullshit with a side order of bullshit.

I think personally that maybe I should be encouraged and not be told I'm an idiot

Then stop being an idiot.

I have discovered more of the universes secrets in two years than science has figured out in 100 years

No.

when I created the dual universe black hole time mirror theory

It's not a theory.

I'm saying not only do black holes not collapse when matter enters them but it is accelerated up to 1,000 times the speed of light , I'm also saying there is no singularity instead there is continuous motion of the matter through a wormhole and dependant on the size of the black hole the distance between a black hole to a white hole exit can be any distance up to trillions of light years. I also postulate our galaxy has been through a black hole and while inside traveled a distance of 25 sextillion miles always under the influence of time dilation and this created the effect of lengthening human lifespans up to 100,000 years. I calculated this and all the effects of this motion in a very short period of time. I discovered the formula for time dilation hidden within the ancient vedas of India. The ancient Hindus stated that our universe will exist for 311 trillion years is modern science so advanced that it could either prove or disprove thier statement, and furthermore why would an ancient civilization make this statement based on conjecture that idea in itself is like saying the universe isn't 13.7 billion years old we just suppose it is and put it in all our text books and some future civilization is going to come along and say that's absurd they were fantasizing does anyone but me see how illogical that thought process is ?

All of this is unsupported (and insupportable) bullshit.

Yep post #57 has definitely gone "full retard".

I will say this I have finally figured out the mathematics of black holes thanks for pushing me to really think about it you guys are great !!! I only slept one hour last night who knew sleep deprivation and insults could turn out to be so productive the universe never ceases to amaze me.

Sure. I'm guessing you struggling with 20% tips, Hawking.

Another unsupported claim (and in this case an outright lie).

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

I will say this I have finally figured out the mathematics of black holes

I'll take that as more delusion.

thanks for pushing me to really think about it you guys are great !!!

You've given zero evidence so far of being able to think.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

Actually your obviously not smart enough to attack my idea

It requires no brains to attack your idea because you provide NO EVIDENCE. Anyone can tell it is crap.

Also the study I posted a link to does actually support my theory that the big bang doesn't explain these galactic motions and my theory does, and that I don't have to guess because my black hole theory clearly explains that there are spiral arms in the framework of our universes make up.

Please show, in appropriate mathematical detail, the degree to which the predictions made by your model match observation.

Alternatively, admit you can't do that because your model is a load of made-up crap.

If I'm right

Don't worry. You aren't.

I'm a little shocked this forum let's you get away with your extremely rude behavior

I am shocked that you think that it makes sense to post made-up crap on a science forum. Of course your idea is going to be ridiculed. Because it is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

This mysterious force accelerating these galaxies is our universes central black hole that's my prediction.

Please explain how your theory is better than mine: the so-called dark flow is produced by unicorn farts.

Note that I have exactly the same evidence for my theory as you do. Mine also explains dark energy, dark matter and the matter anti-matter imbalance.

Also, your theory is just silly, whereas mine is profound and True. I have been working on it for 10 years longer than you have yours.

Therefore my Farting Unicorn theory is right and yours is wrong.

my black hole theory clearly explains that there are spiral arms in the framework of our universes make up.

No spirals here.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

I would appreciate questions

Why? I have asked questions which you have ignored. But now you have explicitly asked for questions, I hope you will answer and not be as dishonest as you have been up to now:

QUESTION 1: Please provide evidence from peer reviewed scientific papers supporting your claim that there is a centre of the universe.

QUESTION 2: Please provide evidence from peer reviewed scientific papers supporting your claim that there is a white hole (or was it black hole?) at the centre of the universe.

QUESTION 3: Please provide evidence from peer reviewed scientific papers supporting your claim that the universe is rotating.

All of the above should include specific quotations from the cited papers, plus detailed calculations that demonstrate the results are consistent with your model.

QUESTION 4: Please show the full mathematical formalism of your theory. In particular show the predictions it makes regarding the so-called dark flow.

If you are unable to provide this information, please admit that you do not have a theory, model or even hypothesis.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

I will say this I have finally figured out the mathematics of black holes

Please provide evidence to support this claim; i.e. show us the mathematics that you have "figured out".

Farting unicorn theory I'll have to Google it, and Alex that is a very tiny portion of our universe, the beginning of gravitational formations is only observable through red shift ie the dark flow study and the fact that galaxies multiple are all heading in one direction at odds with the big bang theory , was my statement regarding the correlation with my theory .

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

NASA - Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe This is a link to nasas dark flow study

Actually, this is a link to a press release. Can you explain why you have linked to a press release rather than a peer-reviewed paper?

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

I have been writing scientific theories and creating groundbreaking conceptual advances for years.

please describe one or two of these 'theories'. also what scientific papers were they published and under what name ?

please answer these very simple nonscientific questions

Yeah, and you STILL can't provide any support for your claims.
Tell me, did you intend to grow up with zero integrity?
Or is it just a persona you assiduously adopt on line?
I only ask because, so far, you have shown no inclination to treat us with respect of any sort (lack of replies to questions, lack of supporting evidence/ links, multiple resorts to mythology and concomitant false claims...)
You bleat repeatedly about how we're treating you, yet you have displayed extreme arrogance and dishonesty throughout.

and the fact that galaxies multiple are all heading in one direction

They're not.

yet you have displayed extreme arrogance and dishonesty throughout.

Arrogance and dishonesty or simple honest mental illness.

there is a black hole in the center of your ass. Stop talking crap

To be honest, he's no worse than you.He won't answer a simple question and you won't f**k off.

Just where is the center of the universe?

(Just where is the center of the universe? )

I don't think we can locate the center at this point our telescopes cannot see far enough to witness our universes central black hole but I'm fairly certain our telescopes are going to reach the point soon when we can pinpoint the super massive black holes signature radio emissions or even be able to zero in on the surrounding highly luminous gases that are most likely swirling around it. If perhaps we could pinpoint the direction that the gravity waves science has detected recently are coming from that would at least tell us wich way to look.

lol

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

lol

My answer is that amusing , because everyone buys into the four dimensional there is no center concept that idea is weak and lacks logic can one pinpoint the center of a galaxy yes can we pinpoint the exact location of the largest black hole in the universe maybe not yet but we will soon be able to . It's pretty straight forward .

Total ignorance coupled with unwarranted ego gives you the crank Deep Thoughts. He didn't know any physics or astronomy when he was 'PureGenius' at the science forums and he hasn't learned any since.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

My answer is that amusing , because everyone buys into the four dimensional there is no center concept that idea is weak and lacks logic can one pinpoint the center of a galaxy yes can we pinpoint the exact location of the largest black hole in the universe maybe not yet but we will soon be able to . It's pretty straight forward .

So you are saying that general relativity is wrong?

That is quite a bold claim.

I notice that you still haven't answered any questions yet...

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

I have been writing scientific theories and creating groundbreaking conceptual advances for years.

Please provide citations to the peer reviewed journals these theories have been presented in.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

I don't understand why you and your buddy are so desperate to argue against my ideas ,

They are arguing against your idea because it is:
a) Unsupported
b) Wrong
c) Based on false premises
d) Seriously misinterpreting bona fide observations
e) Lacking any scientific rigour
f) Contradicted by the facts
g)Devoid of mathematics

Your inability to recognise these shortfalls is disappointing and rather sad.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

I have a great idea

No. You have a ludicrously simple idea that might be amusing if brought up in a pub after drinking eight pints of beer, but has the scientific credibility of a lamellibranch with neuron damage.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

I have a great idea why don't you create a new idea so I can tell you your wrong or would that be out of your comfort zone is it too much fun too pick on the new guy in a desperate and obvious attempt to get him banned.

They would very likely be pleased if you were banned. They would be much more pleased if you were to recognise your limitations and start to make sensible posts. If you explored topics via a series of questions, rather than nonsensical speculations you would find they (and many other members) would do their utmost to help you educate yourself.

Since you choose not to do that - and since the moderator team, myself included, have seen fit to let you continue to post your nonsense - they have appointed themselves as 'police' to point out to less informed lurkers, how silly your ideas are. I would prefer if they did so more politely, but I cannot disagree with their objective.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

It doesn't mean I'm wrong just because you don't think I can be right for all you know I have even more revolutionary ideas that are also correct. The redundancy of your accusations shows a serious lack of thought, you ask for evidence then you say my evidence isn't evidence it's like your dancing in metaphorical circles, at my expense. I ask you do you really care about science or do you just want to show me how superior you are ?

Deep Thoughts, you do appear to be seriously deluded as to your competence level. You need a reality check.

And, a friendly reminder, I'm waiting for the citations to your groundbreaking theories.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

This mysterious force accelerating these galaxies is our universes central black hole that's my prediction.

Thanks. We can leave it at that then and mark it up as just another prediction made by people who have deluded themselves into thinking they have the required knowledge and evidence to make meaningful predictions. Believe it or not, I know how you feel. But that feeling is misguided.

@Deep Thought, here's a new idea. I think that, perhaps, fundamental particles are actually stable vortices in spacetime (or some higher dimensional analog). Feel free to point out how wrong it is, but it won't make much difference. See, whether it's wrong or not is secondary here (though it probably is wrong however much I might like the idea). The point is, I know that I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to be able to compare my idea to known, repeatable observations.

On a related note, here's a simple test to see if you understand the basis of the scientific method. I have a rule in mind. It applies to a sequence of three numbers. Either the sequence matches the rule or it doesn't. It does match the sequence 2, 4, 8. Now, your job is to guess my rule. You can give me a sequence and I'll tell you if it matches or not. How a scientist would approach this differs from how most other people would.

I don't have citations , I don't have enough evidence to satisfy anyone it's only speculation, based on the information I have available to me. I'm currently working on my black hole theory. I observe and I study , if an idea isn't up to my standards I create an idea that is. I never claimed to be perfect if my ideas are proven to be wrong I would be happy to say so . The big bang is not a sufficient theory that's all I'm saying . I do not have the education level of most scientists but that doesn't automatically mean I'm wrong. I can gather more information that is in favor of my theories.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

if an idea isn't up to my standards I create an idea that is.

That isn't science.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

I don't have citations

In other words your "groundbreaking theories" haven't been published and probably consist of badly-scrawled incoherent crap in a scrap bok somewhere.

if my ideas are proven to be wrong I would be happy to say so

But, and here's the kicker: you have nothing to show that you're correct.
(And, in point of fact, you HAVE been shown that you're wrong: and you refuse to acknowledge that).

I do not have the education level of most scientists but that doesn't automatically mean I'm wrong.

But using "ancient knowledge" and pseudoscience does.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

The big bang is not a sufficient theory that's all I'm saying

The BB Theory is indeed a theory in the scientific method sence of the term. your stuff is just ungrounded unscientific speculation.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

I don't have citations , I don't have enough evidence to satisfy anyone it's only speculation, based on the information I have available to me.

Good. We are making progress: you admit that is just ignorant rambling not based in reality.

I'm currently working on my black hole theory.

Except it won't be a theory. It will be more ignorant speculation with no basis in science.

I observe and I study , if an idea isn't up to my standards I create an idea that is.

How about testing an idea against EVIDENCE rather than your "standards". Especially as your standards appear to be based on total ignorance of science.

I never claimed to be perfect if my ideas are proven to be wrong I would be happy to say so .

Your ideas are obviously wrong and yet you appear unwilling to admit it.

The big bang is not a sufficient theory that's all I'm saying .

Not sufficient in what way? Because you personally don't like it? Well, that is too bad. It works: it is based on sound theory, it is consistent with the evidence, it makes quantifiably testable predictions.

When you have an equally good theory, you can come back and present it.

Currently all you have is ignorant and baseless speculation. Go and learn some basic physics.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

I don't have citations , I don't have enough evidence to satisfy anyone it's only speculation,

What John Galt was asking for were citations to support your boast that you "have been writing scientific theories and creating groundbreaking conceptual advances for years." As you have none, we can dismiss your claim as having no evidential basis. Yeah, I have a two-line proof of Fermat's last theorem; it's way simpler than Wiles' bloated version. Just don't ask to see it.

..., if an idea isn't up to my standards I create an idea that is. I never claimed to be perfect if my ideas are proven to be wrong I would be happy to say so .

Sorry, but your claim is fully contradicted by the evidence in this thread.

The big bang is not a sufficient theory that's all I'm saying .

No, you are not saying simply that. You are making an evidence-free assertion beyond the BBT, and insisting that you're right.

I do not have the education level of most scientists but that doesn't automatically mean I'm wrong. I can gather more information that is in favor of my theories.

No one is dismissing you solely because your formal education is not that of most scientists. We are dismissing because, despite that lack, you feel qualified to make claims that are simply unjustified. That's standard, silly, crank behavior.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

I don't have citations , I don't have enough evidence to satisfy anyone it's only speculation, based on the information I have available to me. I'm currently working on my black hole theory. I observe and I study , if an idea isn't up to my standards I create an idea that is. I never claimed to be perfect if my ideas are proven to be wrong I would be happy to say so . The big bang is not a sufficient theory that's all I'm saying . I do not have the education level of most scientists but that doesn't automatically mean I'm wrong. I can gather more information that is in favor of my theories.

Great minds and humble minds alike recognise their own limitations. Failure to recognise these limitations is not a great problem for great minds, for their skills, insight, dedication and knowledge leave few limitations. Humble minds, such as yours and mine, are in quite a different situation. We had best understand that our skills are limited, our insights fragmentary, our dedication ephemeral, and our knowledge inadequate. Recognising these limitations means we will be circumspect in generating hypotheses, very open to guidance and cautious about any claims we might make. Any other approach is that of an arrogant fool.

Originally Posted by Deep Thoughts

I've also already stated I've never been kicked out of a science forum for my ideas

Until now.

I'm kicking you off for three days for the following reasons:

1. Failure to properly address any questions directed at you.
2. Failure to provide justification through evidence or reasoned argument for any of your claims.
3. Persistent posting of demonstrably false ideas.
4. Delusions of adequacy.

When you return I expect to see each of these issues addressed, or the suspension will become permanent.