Saying it's so isn't the same as providing any support or evidence.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Absolute time dilation is when a change in state occurs within a closed frame of reference.

The time frame of reference for the universe is a limit approaching infinity.

If your frame of reference is from the larger domain, then the universe has a life with a limit approaching zero.

There is an event horizon between the two. We cannot observe the larger domain. We cannot see past the event horizon of the big bang.
Finality for the universe has not happened yet.

In the larger domain, our entire universe is occuring in a time frame of reference with a limit approaching zero.

The region below the event horizon of a black hole is also beyond our observation. At the singularity in the black hole mass/energy is being converted to dark matter. The process of that happening is outside of our observational frame of reference.

Dark matter has reached the physical state of finality.
The universe will reach finality when all mass/energy has decayed to dark matter.

Another event horizon will occur then, but it will not matter if we could observe it or not, because there will be finality of our existance well befor that event horizon.

The universe is finite.

It is important because the understanding of the process does make predictions which can be tested.

Note the earlier predictions about galaxy formation, and black hole jets ejecting dark matter.


The voyager anomoly is not just an ion sphere around our galaxy. It is a very faint dark matter shell as well.

I make these predictions based on my concept of what a unverse is.

Just because something is beyond our observation, does not mean its physical effects on the universe is beyond understanding or observation.

You might not be able to observe what goes on inside the black box, but you can deduce it from what comes out. And you can make predictions about future discoveries from those deductions.

It is important.
It is a very big deal.
And it is why time travel to the past is not possible.
It is why there is entropy.
It is the very foundation of our existance.

Understanding it gives us an understanding of our universe and expands our science, our prospects of development.

The proof or evidence is in the predictions that I have made.

Black holes eject dark matter in their jets.
Dark matter is essential to the formation and evolution in galaxies.
Understanding of dark matter and its behavior may give us the science to make use of it.

I think you are wrong about what constitutes a prediction in the scientific sense.

A prediction isn't just a story you make up.

It's a logical consequence of an internally-consistent model that also accounts for all of the observations already made.

Also, it's clear that you aren't really talking about black holes. Black holes are a specific phenomenon with specific properties in the mainstream model. Those properties do not include having jets that eject matter of any kind. Maybe you're thinking of the jets sometimes emitted by accretion disks of matter spiraling in towards a black hole?

Whatever it is you're talking about, it's not black holes. Pick a new name for it. And then show us the model that predicts its properties.

Just because the particles ejected from a black hole have not been detected yet does not mean they are not.

The accepted model of what a happens inside a black hole is flawed in that it does not recognize what is happening at the planck scale.

What is seen as the jets from the black hole is the nintynine percent that we can detect.

My model also predicts a behavior at the singularity near the planck scale that is not yet recognized.

We currently only recognize dark matter in large quantities because it bends light due to gravitational lensing and influences galaxy angular velocity.

We have no technology yet to detect it in smaller quantities. The halo around galaxies has been collecting since the black hole first formed.

Hawking radiation is not the primary cause for a black hole to evaporate.

At some point this will be recognized.

This is part of the model I have proposed.

By the definition of a universe as a uniparticle in the process of changing state, all the rest follows.

Until you can define what a universe is, then any model of everything is seriously flawed and incomplete.

My model is internally-consistant. And it does take into account what has already been observed. Where it deviates from your expectations is where the current understanding is incomplete.

It is not just something I made up, as you put it.

By the same reasoning, it does not mean that they are either.


What proof do you have for this statement?

Even Hawking radiation is contested. We have no evidence that black holes evaporate. Do you? Proof, not a hypothetical model, please,

What rest?
You have absolutely no proof, yet you say you did not make it up? Don't understand... Plus, your model consists of one sentence. The complexity of the universe reduced to one sentence? Hardly likely...

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Lets make a comparison.
String theory. Membranes crunching into each other streatching strings through dimensions.

Do you consider string theory as anything more viable?

What I propose is a conceptually more solid.

As to what rest that follows.

Time/entropy and time having positive values only.
Black hole dynamics, where singularity is internal to the BH.
Particles near Planck scale exhibit only gravitation
Dark matter behavior and how it is produced.
Evolution of the universe to a homogenous finality.

These are all predicted if the universe is indeed the internal mechanism of a particle in the process of changing state.

Curvature in time (absolute time dilation) also predicts that the universe can have finite energy while space/time can look flat and inflationary to infinity.

I did not just throw out a bunch of terms. It is a consistant and comprehensive model.

I don't mind if we call it an unproven model.
There is only one truth and time will reveal as we learn more.

Entropy. That the universe is a collection of phase transitions as all mass/energy evolves to ever lower energy states.

All mass/energy processes involve a net loss of energy.
There is friction and chaos.
This makes the very first phase transition (big bang) and thus time irreversable.

These are all functions of time/entropy. A set of properties as a subset of a larger domain. This is where I first asked myself why this should be so. What larger domain could satisfy all of these requirements.

The first thing that became emergent from this exploration is that Black Hole dynamics, singularity, and behavior at Planck scale were not fully understood.

As with all discoveries, what I have learned is just enough to understand how many more questions there are to ask. I still have a lot more questions than answers.

I do not have specific math models of each detail, just an outline and some definitions.

But you cannot unnderstand it anything until you can define the question.

String theory is one question that left me with no answers.

The Universe as a particle in phase transition, that question offered answers.

So here we are.

I don't buy Hawking radiation. I think it is wrong as well.

Your logic is fallacious.

While you are moving back to the past, there is a continuity. It is only at the endpoints of your motion that there is an apparent discontinuity.

However, going forward there are apparent discontinuities as well--you appear to go from zero to a finite speed, which would be infinite acceleration. However, we know that that is not what actually happens, we know that objects can go from zero to not-zero speed without the problem of infinite acceleration. This incremental acceleration happens everyday, in all our mundane activity.

But, the same thing can happen with the "going back" scenario. There is no impossible discontinuity at the endpoints.

I totally disagree with your logic about time. And so does relativity.

I can make no sense of your statements, so I am unsure how to respond.

My bold for reference. Perhaps you should emulate Einstein and learn the necessary math, so you can tell better whether your idea is good, bad or indifferent. If it take ten years, so be it.

Why?

Hawking radiation? I can only admire people whose knowledge is great enough to make an informed judgement that Stephen Hawking is wrong. Being a lesser mortal, I tend to assume he is likely to be right.

He failes to define what the mangled form of matter is.

However if it proves to be correct, it would not invalidate my model.

I just do not believe in it.
No particular objection.

Do you have an actual theory to discuss, or are you going to subject us to a never-ending series of assertions? Your terse delivery is already a challenge to parse, but I for one would be disinclined to make the effort if you are just going to pontificate on how the universe should work, without discussing something quantitative and falsifiable. Are we back to Aristotle, and his arrogant declaration of how many teeth a horse should have?

No one is asking you to believe or disbelieve in Hawking radiation "just because." Provide your scientific argument for why Hawking's derivation is flawed.

Should this be a new ATM thread?

What is a lesser mortal? Does elevating another human to God-like status require unquestionable faith?

I'm not attacking you or Hawking. I'm not defending bart5050's unsupported opinions. I'm attacking the idea that this was presented as a valid point of debate.

Perhaps I should, but I have worked out the proofs to my own satisfaction.

I present the model, and have no way of presenting the arduous proofs that I have built as mental constructs.

I arrived at these conclusions several decades ago. However I kept hitting a wall in there were no examples of dark matter that I was aware of.

They should be there but they were not, missing matter just did not verify it for me.
Then I read a brief about the dark matter halo around solar systems and that was my verification.

When I read about the Voyager anomoly, that was further verification.
There will be a large amount of mass/energy in this halo around the galaxy. But a very thin shell of dark matter as well that will be difficult to detect.

I present what I have and to the best of my ability.

Consider it or not as you wish, or not.

A call it a model because I do not present arduous proofs that were largly mental constructs.

Interesting that when someone makes very clear statements, you are unable to make sense of them*. There's a kind of symmetry here...

*Not that this stops you disagreeing.

__________________
Nothing beautiful was ever made from gravel.

I have been discussing my theory to the best of my ability to relate it.
I call it a model because a theory would require rigorous math proofs that I cannot relate.

If only you could see what I do inside my head, then I would call it a proof.

However I am fully confident that my predictions will be found correct.

As for Hawking radiation, I do not think the commutation of an electron at the event horizon would be likely to seperate the two and send one below the horizon whle one escapes into space. They would lose entanglement as well.

If this occured above the event horizon, then that would not reduce the black hole mass. If it occured below the event horizon, then there is no defined vector for one commutation to escape.

I could be wrong about that, and do not find that it would significantly change my model in either case.

Show me one verification of a negative time rate of progression, anywhere in the universe, and my hole model collapses.

Show that a particle is spinning backwards in time.
Show that any product of a collider event appears before the collision.
Show me anywhere that entropy does not apply.

I think that this will not be found.

It is not about ego or who is a mere mortal.

We are all mere mortals.

It is that I believe this model to be significant and that it should be related for consideration if anyone should care to.

I have been through a life changing event and am no longer interesting in working on the proofs.

It would be remiss of me to die and not relate it in some manner.

OK, I will try.

At no point does time dilation require infinte acceleration.

Consider an electron being accelerated in a magnetic field.
At some very high velocity it s undergoing time dilation.

From the cathode to the anode it sees less travel time than what we observe it to be.

At all points existence for the obsever and the electron is continuous.
There is no discontinuity of existance.
Conservation of energy is mantained.

I cannot come up with any examples for time going backwards, there are none.

Demonstate even one verifiable example and I will withdraw everything.

My model has no allowence for a negative rate of progression for time.

When I read about the Voyager anomoly, that was further verification.
There will be a large amount of mass/energy in this halo around the solar system. But a very thin shell of dark matter as well that will be difficult to detect.

This is a corrected statement of an earlier post.
I typed galaxy where I meant solar system.
I edited it, but do not see the correction applied when I clicked save.

Want to make my meaning clear.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

You do?????

__________________
Nothing beautiful was ever made from gravel.

M-theory is still awaiting experimental verification of a prediction. Am not aware of M-theory-based cosmologies positing membranes crunching into eacht stretching strings through dimensions. In our case (universe), an M-theory-based cosmology called ekpyrotic posits two parallel branes colliding to form our universe. In our universe, strings are all open-ended (tied to our brane), and can not be stretched through dimensions. Gravity, is a closed string and can disappear from our universe.

What you proposing is not in the same intellectual class as M-theory.
You have really lost me here. Please show how these conclusions are derived.
Where are we exactly?

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Good question. If the OP really just wants to document his ideas after his "life change", as he's stated, then I don't know if this thread should continue. The OP could just put a document online somewhere (as I've already suggested), and his real purpose will have been fulfilled.

I am attempting to answer every question to the best of my ability.
I would like for everyone to fully understand every concept.
My intint is to convey every aspect as comprehensivly as possible.

Make of it what you will.

My statment is that I no longer desire to continue the work.
So I relate it to the level of completion to date.

That is not the purpose at all.

Feed back is indeed invited and appreciated.

If you just need a reason to shut it down for your own agenda, do so.

You're already on record here as saying that you have no desire to put in the time to work out the math of your theory, that you've moved on to other things, and that you just want this stuff documented for posterity. This is not a place for "feedback" -- it is for you to present an ATM claim, and be prepared to defend it. You have been asked explicitly to do so, and have responded by continually presenting us with a list of your assertions. The only one with some type of agenda, it would seem, is you. Do you understand the difference between a scientific theory and a list of beliefs?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►