The Black Hole at The Center of The Universe

[astrocat]

There is a Black Hole at the Cosmic core, and I'm the only on who knows. I call this Black Hole Mable, Mother of All Black hoLEs. Mable has the most masively attractive body in the Universe and this is the Mable Theory.

Hubble's Increasing Expansion of the Cosmos (E/) is only PART (1/4 to be exact) of the pattern of effects the Cosmos is undergoing. The other parts are the Speeding Up (S/) the Cooling Down (T\) and the Loss of PRESSure (P\), so that we get S/T\E/P\.

All falling objects do the S/T\E/P\ thing as they fall.

LANDING Objects, say, a Ball, Slow and Stop (S\) Warm (T/) Compact Up (E\) and ComPRESS (P/) or S\T/E\P/. The opposite pattern, if you will note.

That's the important part, seeing the difference between these two patterns.
If you can see the difference, then don't you agree the Cosmos could be falling? Into a Black Hole. At the Center of the Universe? Why not?

[ToSeek]

1. Because there is no center of the universe.
2. Because the matter in the universe is moving apart, not coming together.

(Thread moved from Astronomy to ATM, with a temporary redirect.)

[mugaliens]

Does anyone else reading these kinds of posts get the impression that someone poured a little too much milk on their fruit loops in the morning?

[Nowhere Man]

Should we, or should we not, tell this fellow about Lawsonomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsonomy)?

Fred

[garykpo]

1. Because there is no center of the universe.
2. Because the matter in the universe is moving apart, not coming together.

(Thread moved from Astronomy to ATM, with a temporary redirect.)

ok i like you you are smart thanks for sayin what i wanted to

[bigsplit]

There is a Black Hole at the Cosmic core, and I'm the only on who knows. I call this Black Hole Mable, Mother of All Black hoLEs. Mable has the most masively attractive body in the Universe and this is the Mable Theory.

Hubble's Increasing Expansion of the Cosmos (E/) is only PART (1/4 to be exact) of the pattern of effects the Cosmos is undergoing. The other parts are the Speeding Up (S/) the Cooling Down (T\) and the Loss of PRESSure (P\), so that we get S/T\E/P\.

All falling objects do the S/T\E/P\ thing as they fall.

LANDING Objects, say, a Ball, Slow and Stop (S\) Warm (T/) Compact Up (E\) and ComPRESS (P/) or S\T/E\P/. The opposite pattern, if you will note.

That's the important part, seeing the difference between these two patterns.
If you can see the difference, then don't you agree the Cosmos could be falling? Into a Black Hole. At the Center of the Universe? Why not?

There could be a universal attractor, but it could not be at the center of a "ball" shaped or spherical universe. If it were, we would see blue shift dominate the skies as matter would be squeezed closer together.

I believe there may be a universal attractor, but the shape of the universe would be funnel shaped as described by the Steiner Group of the Universitat of Ulm in Germany (btw, my idea predates his paper). Although Steiner never mentions a great attractor, I have considered such an attractor at the narrow end of the funnel. If the mass of the funnel is rotating with its angular momentum being decayed by the radial attraction of the universal attractor as it moves down the funnel, a red shift dominated sky would be predicted due to the inverse square law along with acceleration of the "expansion". This is a long shot however.

So there would be no center per say as I believe you have visualized, but there could be a universal attractor.

[trinitree88]

Does anyone else reading these kinds of posts get the impression that someone poured a little too much milk on their fruit loops in the morning?

:shifty: :lol: mugs. thanks it was a long day today....pete

[RussT]

There could be a universal attractor, but it could not be at the center of a "ball" shaped or spherical universe. If it were, we would see blue shift dominate the skies as matter would be squeezed closer together.

I believe there may be a universal attractor, but the shape of the universe would be funnel shaped as described by the Steiner Group of the Universitat of Ulm in Germany (btw, my idea predates his paper). Although Steiner never mentions a great attractor, I have considered such an attractor at the narrow end of the funnel. If the mass of the funnel is rotating with its angular momentum being decayed by the radial attraction of the universal attractor as it moves down the funnel, a red shift dominated sky would be predicted due to the inverse square law along with acceleration of the "expansion". This is a long shot however.

So there would be no center per say as I believe you have visualized, but there could be a universal attractor.

[I believe there may be a universal attractor, but the shape of the universe would be funnel shaped as described by the Steiner Group]

Yes, and I cover this concept in the Cosmic Censorship thread.

Which means that the wording in the title itself is badly convoluted!

It is the 'singularity' that would be at the 'so called' center of the universe, NOT the Black Hole, and the world lines from that singularity would have to be in a 'cone shape' out to the Event Horizon, which cannot be 360 degrees.

As for the redshift/blueshift, as long as we (our galaxy) are going faster towards the 'singualrity'/great attractor, than all the galaxies behind us, they would be redshifted, as would the ones ahead of us that are going faster towards it, BUT ALL of the galaxies on the 'other side' of the 'cone shape' funnel, that are going towards the singularity would be blueshifted, and we definitely do not see that.

But the thing that makes it even more unlikely is the Fractal clusters and especially the Voids, where we 'see' all of the clusters spreading apart from.

I believe this would be absolutely impossible regardless of how large the Black Hole that we would be in was!

[Thanatos]

A tootsie roll universe? To say it has a center means it must have boundaries. Find an edge and you are onto something.

[wisp]

A good first post.
Astronomers have collected evidence that suggest all galaxies have supermassive black holes at their centres. Their masses are about 0.5 per cent (typically several million to a billion solar masses) of that of their host galaxies.
http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2004/quasarbh/

How they came to exist is a mystery. Which came first, the galaxy or the supermassive blackhole? Or did they form together in the early universe? And if they did form together, how could a young galaxy develop a supermassive black hole so quickly? Is it not more likely that the supermassive black hole was a fragment blasted out from something bigger – an ultra-suppermassive black hole or MABLE, which could be the center of our visible universe? Our visible universe could itself be part of a bigger universe.

[RussT]

Is it not more likely that the supermassive black hole was a fragment blasted out from something bigger – an ultra-suppermassive black hole or MABLE,

No, it simply doesn't work that way.

To form any black hole there needs to be a gravitational collapse. The first hypothesized black holes were stars and it was pretty well established that it took a star somewhere between 3 and 8 times larger than our sun for the degenerative matter process below the Neutron stage to occur, for the mass to be large enough for a black hole to form.

Now they believe they have found a Netron star that may have been 40 times the size of our sun originally (can't remember where I saw that), so that 3 to 8 may be wrong, OR their could be some variables about star sizes and processes that have not been well constrained yet.

BUT, the 2 real problems come into play when it comes to HyperNova and the progenitors of SMBH's.

The Nuker Team have determined that the star speeds in the outer edges of the discs of spiral galaxies, has a direct proportionality to the Mass of the SMBH's in each of their repective galaxies, and this could only be true if the Birth of the MBH was intimately tied to the 'materials' in the outer disc at Birth.

BUT OF Course, they are adhering to (better known as Job Security) the highly speculative concept that the entire universe was 'full' of Hydogen/Helium, from the promordial Gamma Radiation (and because NO ONE can figure out what 'could' have graviationally collapsed!), so they are trying to show how a 'large cloud of hydrogen' could have collapsed to create a SMBH.

However,"IF"the highly speculative concept that the universe started off as High Energy Gamma Radiation is not right, then the creation of the SMBH is what causes the High Energy Gamma Radiation that makes the electrons/protons and the Hydrogen/Helium to make the baryonic matter for each galaxy.

And, this can also show how the statement that SR forbids Black Holes and GR demands them, can be remedied!

[astrocat]

Hubble only got 1/4 of the Cosmic Pattern S/T\E/P\, where S/ represents the increasing Speed of the Cosmos and T\ is the loss of Temperature, E/ is the increasing Expansion that Hubble noticed, and P\ represents the declining Pressure.

That's S/ T\ E/ P\ , okay?

When you drop a Ball, for example, it will Speed Up S/, lose Temperature T\, gain Expansion (E/) and lose Pressure P\. Note;- same pattern as Cosmos.

When this ball LANDS on the floor, it Slows and Stops (S\) Warms Up (T/) Compacts (opposite of Expands) (E\) and comPRESSes (P/) against the floor. That's S\T/E\P/ , the exact OPPOSITE to the Falling Ball. Hope you can see the difference between these two opposite patterns (The Cosmos and the falling Ball, versus the LANDING ball).

The Cosmos is falling (Gravitating). Besides that, it has an AXIS, about which it rotates. The Cosmos is a Whirlpool or Vortex, and there is a Black Hole propelling it. That's Mable, Mother of All Black hoLEs, the Black Hole at the Center of The Universe.

[millstonemike]

Hello,

Just a layman's question ....

As a result of Hubble's discovery/conclusion of the increasing rate of universe expansion, one theory proposes "dark Energy" as the source the "acceleration".

Could it be that relativity is a work. That is, as gravity slows the galatic matter, the reduction in relatavistic speed is causing distance/time to lenthen causing Hubble's observations?

Regards ...

[Nereid]

astrocat, please take the time to read the BAUT rules (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864), especially the one relating to presentation of ATM (Against the Mainstream) ideas.

I have moved your second post into this thread.

I note that you have not answered any of the questions asked of your ATM idea, as presented. Please do not post anything in BAUT, in any forum, until you have addressed the questions here.

This is a warning. Next violation of BAUT rules and your posting privileges will be suspended.

[bigsplit]

astrocat, please take the time to read the BAUT rules (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864), especially the one relating to presentation of ATM (Against the Mainstream) ideas.

I have moved your second post into this thread.

I note that you have not answered any of the questions asked of your ATM idea, as presented. Please do not post anything in BAUT, in any forum, until you have addressed the questions here.

This is a warning. Next violation of BAUT rules and your posting privileges will be suspended.

Hey Nereid,

What questions? I haven't seen any posted, but I could have missed something.

[Nereid]

Hubble only got 1/4 of the Cosmic Pattern S/T\E/P\, where S/ represents the increasing Speed of the Cosmos and T\ is the loss of Temperature, E/ is the increasing Expansion that Hubble noticed, and P\ represents the declining Pressure.

That's S/ T\ E/ P\ , okay?

When you drop a Ball, for example, it will Speed Up S/, lose Temperature T\, gain Expansion (E/) and lose Pressure P\. Note;- same pattern as Cosmos.

When this ball LANDS on the floor, it Slows and Stops (S\) Warms Up (T/) Compacts (opposite of Expands) (E\) and comPRESSes (P/) against the floor. That's S\T/E\P/ , the exact OPPOSITE to the Falling Ball. Hope you can see the difference between these two opposite patterns (The Cosmos and the falling Ball, versus the LANDING ball).

The Cosmos is falling (Gravitating). Besides that, it has an AXIS, about which it rotates. The Cosmos is a Whirlpool or Vortex, and there is a Black Hole propelling it. That's Mable, Mother of All Black hoLEs, the Black Hole at the Center of The Universe.In this ATM idea of yours, astrocat, what role does gravity play?

Specifically, to what extent does your idea incorporate a theory of gravity different from GR?

[astrocat]

Our visible universe could itself be part of a bigger universe. I like wisp. He talks Science! Yes, of course, the Observable Universe is called that because it is the part of the Universe we can know about. Why don't we start by looking at everything we know about the Observable Universe, so that we can better visualise ther rest of the Cosmos? How about it. I'll start the ball rolling by saying the Observable Universe is Cooling Down. Anyone agree?

[stutefish]

I like wisp. He talks Science! Yes, of course, the Observable Universe is called that because it is the part of the Universe we can know about. Why don't we start by looking at everything we know about the Observable Universe, so that we can better visualise ther rest of the Cosmos? How about it. I'll start the ball rolling by saying the Observable Universe is Cooling Down. Anyone agree?
I don't know. How about you give us your evidence for why you think the Observable Universe is cooling down, and then ask if we agree?

[speedfreek]

I'm seeing too many mentions of Hubble's increasing expansion to let them go unchecked.

Hubble observed the redshift of objects and it was theorised that these redshifts meant the universe was expanding. Just expanding. Hubble knew of no increasing expansion, except in the way that, by definition, expansion means an increase in distance. Saying increasing expansion in relation to Hubble is like saying expanding growth or lengthening stretching!

Now, the acceleration of the metric expansion of space was only discovered a few years ago, long after Hubble was dead.

The Cosmos is falling (Gravitating). Besides that, it has an AXIS, about which it rotates. The Cosmos is a Whirlpool or Vortex, and there is a Black Hole propelling it. That's Mable, Mother of All Black hoLEs, the Black Hole at the Center of The Universe.

The cosmos is falling or gravitating relative to what? An axis implies a centre but there seems to be no centre to our observable universe. Everything is expanding away from everything else, at the large scales, so anywhere can be considered the centre.

[astrocat]

In this ATM idea of yours, astrocat, what role does gravity play?

Everything, Nereid. That's the beauty of the Mable Theory, it requires only gravity to operate. There is no need for any of the 'repulsive' forces (Big Bang, Dark Energy) that really nobody can understand. My theory is based on the Laws of Newton, Bernoulli, Boyle, and the Joule-Thomson Effect. I also agree with Einstein, that the Cosmological Constant was indeed,the 'greatest blunder' of his career. All I am trying to do, is :neutral:put the 'Science' back in Astronomy.

[Nereid]

In this ATM idea of yours, astrocat, what role does gravity play?Everything, Nereid. That's the beauty of the Mable Theory, it requires only gravity to operate. There is no need for any of the 'repulsive' forces (Big Bang, Dark Energy) that really nobody can understand. My theory is based on the Laws of Newton, Bernoulli, Boyle, and the Joule-Thomson Effect. I also agree with Einstein, that the Cosmological Constant was indeed,the 'greatest blunder' of his career. All I am trying to do, is :neutral:put the 'Science' back in Astronomy.As you are no doubt very well aware, there are clear, observable, differences between the Newtonian theory of gravity and GR.

AFAIK, every test done, to date, to see which theory better describes the way the universe actually works has 'found for GR', or; if you prefer, 'shown - at the many sigma level - that the Newtonian theory is inconsistent with the observational/experimental results'.

To what extent do these well-established experimental and observational results mean that the astrocat ATM idea also fails to explain how the universe seems to 'work'?

[astrocat]

How about you give us your evidence for why you think the Observable Universe is cooling down, and then ask if we agree?

Okay, Stutefish, how about the Isometric (same all the way thru') Background Radiation that shows us the Universe was once warmer?

[astrocat]

Just expanding. Hubble knew of no increasing expansion, except in the way that, by definition, expansion means an increase in distance.

Quite right, Speedfreak. Hubble only knew 'Expansion', but I say (E/) because I use the 'E' to double for Entropy, as well, and Hubble definitely pointed out the Rising Entropy (E/) in the Observable Universe, even if he didn't realise it, tho' I'm sure he did.

[astrocat]

Specifically, to what extent does your idea incorporate a theory of gravity different from GR?

Well, you got me. What the heck is GR? I mean, I know Newton's Laws were questioned and 'reputedly' improved on, but didn't Newton say that every atom in the Cosmos has a Gravitational Attraction for every other atom in the Cosmos? Are you saying this is wrong,:sad:, Nereid?

[astrocat]

Hey Nereid, What questions? I haven't seen any posted, but I could have missed something.

Thanks, Bigsplit.:shhh: You're OK

[Nereid]

Specifically, to what extent does your idea incorporate a theory of gravity different from GR?Well, you got me. What the heck is GR? I mean, I know Newton's Laws were questioned and 'reputedly' improved on, but didn't Newton say that every atom in the Cosmos has a Gravitational Attraction for every other atom in the Cosmos? Are you saying this is wrong,:sad:, Nereid?The theory of General Relativity (or, if you prefer, the General Theory of Relativity).

In this ATM idea of yours, astrocat, what role does gravity play?

Specifically, to what extent does your idea incorporate a theory of gravity different from GR?

As you are no doubt very well aware, there are clear, observable, differences between the Newtonian theory of gravity and GR.

AFAIK, every test done, to date, to see which theory better describes the way the universe actually works has 'found for GR', or; if you prefer, 'shown - at the many sigma level - that the Newtonian theory is inconsistent with the observational/experimental results'.

To what extent do these well-established experimental and observational results mean that the astrocat ATM idea also fails to explain how the universe seems to 'work'?

When may we expect to see some answers to these questions?

[astrocat]

Hello,Just a layman's question .... As a result of Hubble's discovery/conclusion of the increasing rate of universe expansion, one theory proposes "dark Energy" as the source the "acceleration".

Could it be that relativity is a work. That is, as gravity slows the galatic matter, the reduction in relatavistic speed is causing distance/time to lenthen causing Hubble's observations?

Dark Energy, Millstone Mike, is an unknown 'repulsive force', a re-work of Einstein's Cosmological Constant, which he later denounced in the strongest terms he could, warning others not to go there, referring to it as 'the greatest blunder' of his career.

How about simple Gravity, a well known 'attractive force' being responsible for the 'distance/time lengthening'. After all, when things fall, they are known to Speed Up.

[astrocat]

That is, as gravity slows the galatic matter,

Millstone Mike, gravity doesn't slow anything. It does, however, Speed things Up. How did you get 'slows'?

[astrocat]

The cosmos is falling or gravitating relative to what? An axis implies a centre but there seems to be no centre to our observable universe. Everything is expanding away from everything else, at the large scales, so anywhere can be considered the centre.

The Cosmos is falling into Black Hole. I call this Black Hole, Mable. This shouldn't be any surprise as we're already falling into the Black hole at the center of our Galaxy. An Axis is 'a line around which something rotates - Encarta'. The Observable Universe is Expanding. It's also Cooling Down, Speeding Up, etc. essentially doing all the things a falling body does.

You're right, there is no center to the Observable Universe. It's the Universe that has the Center.

[mugaliens]

1. Because there is no center of the universe.
2. Because the matter in the universe is moving apart, not coming together.

(Thread moved from Astronomy to ATM, with a temporary redirect.)

(uh, TIC, ok?)

No center?

Everything have center. Tree have center. Cat have center. Even rock have center.

Without center, we not have balance. No balance, no happiness, no peace, no joy.

Must find center!

You - you know universe. Must find center of universe so universe happy, have balance, happiness, and peace.

Know center - peace.

No center - Baaaahhhhh! Got to have center!

[mugaliens]

The Cosmos is falling into Black Hole. I call this Black Hole, Mable. This shouldn't be any surprise as we're already falling into the Black hole at the center of our Galaxy. An Axis is 'a line around which something rotates - Encarta'. The Observable Universe is Expanding. It's also Cooling Down, Speeding Up, etc. essentially doing all the things a falling body does.

You're right, there is no center to the Observable Universe. It's the Universe that has the Center.

Yeah, but when it blew, it did so at velocities beyond escape velocity, which means we'll never fall back, even if we do slow down (asymptotic to a postive velocity away from the "center")

However, the repulsive dark matter stirs the pot, providing acceleration, so we're not actually slowing down. Rather, the rate of the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Yes, we may fall into the Milky Way black hole. Yes, portions of the Andromeda galaxy and Milky Way may combine, including (exceedinly slight possibility) their black holes.

However, the remains will continue to accelerate away from most other galaxies.

[astrocat]

There could be a universal attractor, but it could not be at the center of a "ball" shaped or spherical universe.

As for the shape of the Cosmos, because it's so obviously a Whirlpool, or Vortex, I'd say it was just like the Whirlpool Galaxy (M51) or our own Milky Way. Like these Galaxies, the Cosmos also has an Axis and requisite Black Hole at its center.

[astrocat]

Does anyone else reading these kinds of posts get the impression that someone poured a little too much milk on their fruit loops in the morning? Reel syuntific mugaliens:doh:

[astrocat]

1. Because there is no center of the universe.
2. Because the matter in the universe is moving apart, not coming together.

I. If it has an Axis, around which it is rotating, there could easily be a center, and
2. Matter in the Observable Universe is moving apart, not coming together. When things fall, they do tend to move apart.

[astrocat]

Should we, or should we not, tell this fellow about Lawsonomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsonomy)?

I went there. Not interested...:hand:

[astrocat]

BUT, the 2 real problems come into play when it comes to HyperNova and the progenitors of SMBH's...the baryonic matter for each galaxy.

Sorry, what's SMBH (something about Black Holes, right?) and what does 'baryonic' mean?
Let's write in terms others understand; I try to put the meaning in brackets behind the word, if I think it's a word readers may not understand. Just a suggestion, Russ T...

[astrocat]

ok i like you you are smart thanks for sayin what i wanted to Everyone's entitled to their opinion, Garykpo.

[speedfreek]

2. Matter in the Observable Universe is moving apart, not coming together. When things fall, they do tend to move apart.

What exactly do you mean by the term fall?

If you mean objects will "fall" towards a black hole at the centre of the universe, then as all the objects are pulled towards it, they get closer to each other until finally all the objects meet at the black hole.

This is the total opposite of what we observe. It is the opposite of the cosmic expansion.

Even if we can only see a very small fraction of the whole universe, if the "centre" was outside our observable universe, objects in our section would still be getting closer together and would all be moving towards it.

If you believe the universe is swirling like a vortex, being slowly pulled towards a central black hole, and we can only see a tiny fraction of it all, then maybe we wouldn't be able to detect your supposed axis of rotation, but we would be able to detect the gradual pull towards the unseen centre.

But we don't.

[astrocat]

As you are no doubt very well aware, there are clear, observable, differences between the Newtonian theory of gravity and GR. Does GR Gravity state that there is a gravitational attraction between every single atom in the Cosmos for every other atom? That's the Gravity I'm talking about, Nereid?.

[astrocat]

What exactly do you mean by the term fall? If you mean objects will "fall" towards a black hole at the centre of the universe, then as all the objects are pulled towards it, they get closer to each other until finally all the objects meet at the black hole.

You make some really interesting points, Speedfreek. This one, about falling - you have to know how things fall.

When things fall, they actually tend to come apart (Expand). That's because the part nearestthe Gravitational Attraction that the thing is approaching actually gets a bigger Gravitational Attraction than the part of the thing that is furthest away from this Gravitational Attraction. This Expansion is what Hubble noticed. It's actually a part of falling.

Speeding Up, Cooling Down (Loss of Kinetic Energy) and Expanding, these are all parts of falling.

[astrocat]

What exactly do you mean by the term fall? then as all the objects are pulled towards it, they get closer to each other. No they don't. They tend to come apart, Speedfreek. An easy mistake to make.

[astrocat]

Even if we can only see a very small fraction of the whole universe, if the "centre" was outside our observable universe, objects in our section would still be getting closer together and would all be moving towards it.

You're right in everything except the 'getting closer'. Objects in our section will tend to come apart (Expand) as we move towards the center.

If you believe the universe is swirling like a vortex, being slowly pulled towards a central black hole, ...being exponentially speeded up as it's pulled towards a central Black Hole, is what I believe.[/QUOTE]

and we can only see a tiny fraction of it all, then maybe we wouldn't be able to detect your supposed axis of rotation,

It has been detected, Speedfreek, in 1998, by Borge Nodland (University of Rochester) and John P. Ralston (Kansas U.) but we would be able to detect the gradual pull towards the unseen centre.

But we don't. The 'gradual' pull towards the unseen center is Increasing Exponentially. That's how things fall. This Speeding Up was detected in 1998.

[astrocat]

Yeah, but when it blew, it did so at velocities beyond escape velocity, which means we'll never fall back, even if we do slow down (asymptotic to a postive velocity away from the "center") Nothing 'blew', AFAIK, Mugaliens. The early Universe started relatively smoothly, according to COBE, WMAP etc.

However, the repulsive dark matter stirs the pot, providing acceleration, so we're not actually slowing down.
There is no 'repulsive dark matter'. It was invented to explain the Speeding Up. Attractive Gravity does it better.

Rather, the rate of the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Yes, we may fall into the Milky Way black hole. Yes, portions of the Andromeda galaxy and Milky Way may combine, including (exceedinly slight possibility) their black holes.

However, the remains will continue to accelerate away from most other galaxies.

This 'acceleration away', I call Expansion. Expansion is a part of falling. So is accelerating (Speeding Up).

[astrocat]

There could be a universal attractor, but it could not be at the center of a "ball" shaped or spherical universe.
The shape of the Cosmos is not a 'ball', but kind of flat, like a Galaxy.

If it were, we would see blue shift dominate the skies as matter would be squeezed closer together. Because the center of the Galaxy moves faster than the outer edges, there is going to be some Expansion noticeable within the Galaxy. That's red shift, Bigsplit.

I believe there may be a universal attractor, but the shape of the universe would be funnel shaped
There's a local attractor at the center of the Milky Way, but I don't see any funnels in Space. I do, however, see many Whirlpools, including M51 and our own Milky Way.

as described by the Steiner Group of the Universitat of Ulm in Germany (btw, my idea predates his paper). Although Steiner never mentions a great attractor, I have considered such an attractor at the narrow end of the funnel. If the mass of the funnel is rotating with its angular momentum being decayed by the radial attraction of the universal attractor as it moves down the funnel, a red shift dominated sky would be predicted due to the inverse square law along with acceleration of the "expansion". This is a long shot however. [\QUOTE]

Just flatten your 'funnel', Bigsplit, 'till it conforms with the kind of formation we see all the time (Galactic) and you've got it.

[QUOTE] So there would be no center per say as I believe you have visualized, but there could be a universal attractor.

Sure, Galaxies have centers. Well done, about the Universal Attractor. You're on the right path, Bigsplit.:)

[Noclevername]

Millstone Mike, gravity doesn't slow anything. It does, however, Speed things Up. How did you get 'slows'?

I think that should say, "slows down the expansion of matter."

[astrocat]

the redshift/blueshift, as long as we (our galaxy) are going faster towards the 'singualrity'/great attractor, than all the galaxies behind us, they would be redshifted, as would the ones ahead of us that are going faster towards it, BUT ALL of the galaxies on the 'other side' of the 'cone shape' funnel, that are going towards the singularity would be blueshifted, and we definitely do not see that.

RussT, perhaps the galaxies on the 'other side' of the great attractor are beyond our Observable Universe. Maybe, if we could see them, they would indeed be blue-shifted.

[astrocat]

A tootsie roll universe? To say it has a center means it must have boundaries. Find an edge and you are onto something.
Look at it this way... The Milky way has a center, and it has boundaries, but how can you find the edge?
Sure, you can have a center without a clearly defined edge.

[astrocat]

A good first post.
Astronomers have collected evidence that suggest all galaxies have supermassive black holes at their centres. Their masses are about 0.5 per cent (typically several million to a billion solar masses) of that of their host galaxies.
http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2004/quasarbh/

How they came to exist is a mystery. Which came first, the galaxy or the supermassive blackhole?
The Cosmos has Clumped Up, wisp. Stars have Accretion Discs (Rings of collected material) and Earth is part of Sol's Accretion Disc.
As a Star grows ever more massive (Clumps Up) it turns into a Black Hole (if it eats, rather than gets eaten) with a whole Galaxy for its Accretion Disc.

The two things, Black Hole and Accretion Disc, evolve side by side, so it's hard to say which comes first; It's a joint effort.

And if they did form together, how could a young galaxy develop a supermassive black hole so quickly?

As I say, it's a two way street. How a Black Hole could develope a young Galaxy or vice versa is just a part of Clumping Up.

Is it not more likely that the supermassive black hole was a fragment blasted out from something bigger – an ultra-suppermassive black hole or MABLE, which could be the center of our visible universe? Our visible universe could itself be part of a bigger universe.

Yes, the Observable Universe (as we call it) is part of the Universe itself. An ultra-supermassive Black Hole, like Mable, center of the Universe (but not the center of the Observable Universe) evolved gradually, over a great length of Time, eating its way to its present size. Hope you can see that.

[astrocat]

As you are no doubt very well aware, there are clear, observable, differences between the Newtonian theory of gravity and GR.

Does GR say things Speed Up when they fall? If it does, that's fine by me, Nereid.

AFAIK, every test done, to date, to see which theory better describes the way the universe actually works has 'found for GR', or; if you prefer, 'shown - at the many sigma level -

Sigma level? Never heard of it. Sorry.

that the Newtonian theory is inconsistent with the observational/experimental results'. Are you saying Newton was wrong? Doesn't his Theory of Universal Gravity count for anything? Now I'm confused.
To what extent do these well-established experimental and observational results mean that the astrocat ATM idea also fails to explain how the universe seems to 'work'?

To what extent does my Mable Theory fail to explain how the universe seems to work? I didn't know failed to explain anything. Tell me one thing the Cosmos is doing, and I'll explain it for you, using Scientific Laws, names, dates, easily understood terms etc. etc.

That's where the Mable Theory excells. 'Fail to explain'? I don't understand.

[astrocat]

I think that should say, "slows down the expansion of matter."
I don't know of any Slowing Down of the Expansion, NoName. Not sure where you got that.

[astrocat]

(uh, TIC, ok?)

Good post, Muggsy, but what the heck is TIC?:confused:

[speedfreek]

Because the center of the Galaxy moves faster than the outer edges, there is going to be some Expansion noticeable within the Galaxy.

The centre of a galaxy does NOT move faster than it's outer edges. This was the observation that Vera Rubin made in the 1970's that led to the search for something else to hold galaxies together. The stars at the edges of galaxies move at the same rate as stars at the centre, and this is why it is theorised that galaxies must have a lot of unseen mass to exert the gravity required to stop the outer stars simply speeding away into intergalactic space.

Did you know this?

Are you saying Newton was wrong? Doesn't his Theory of Universal Gravity count for anything? Now I'm confused.

Newtons law works on a simple level, but misses out on some key issues that led to the need for a better understanding of gravity. Einstein's General Relativity is a whole lot more accurate than Newtons law was. Newtons principles of motion do not take into account phenomena we have observed, like gravitational time-dilation.

Our GPS satellites use Einstein's rules, otherwise their clocks would be wrong!

[Nereid]

Does GR Gravity state that there is a gravitational attraction between every single atom in the Cosmos for every other atom? That's the Gravity I'm talking about, Nereid?.If you do not know what GR is, then please ask a question, or three, in BAUT's Q&A section.

FWIW, GR is the basis for the most successful cosmological theory we have today, the LCDM concordance model.

[Nereid]

As you are no doubt very well aware, there are clear, observable, differences between the Newtonian theory of gravity and GR.Does GR say things Speed Up when they fall? If it does, that's fine by me, Nereid. If you need to learn some standard astrophysics/cosmology, please go to a library, or ask some questions in BAUT's Q&A section.

This ATM section is for those with ATM ideas to present them, and to address challenges other BAUT members may choose to make to those ideas (as presented).AFAIK, every test done, to date, to see which theory better describes the way the universe actually works has 'found for GR', or; if you prefer, 'shown - at the many sigma level -
Sigma level? Never heard of it. Sorry.Perhaps you could request that this thread be closed, so that you may take the time you need to learn the basics of modern cosmology (the science)?that the Newtonian theory is inconsistent with the observational/experimental results'.Are you saying Newton was wrong? Doesn't his Theory of Universal Gravity count for anything? Now I'm confused.May I suggest that if you are unaware of the many (millions?) of high quality astronomical observations which are inconsistent with Newton's gravitational theory, but consistent with GR, then you are probably not ready to present any ATM ideas here in BAUT?

If you would like to learn more about the failure of Newtonian gravity, and the success of GR, in terms of consistency with good observational and experimental results, why not ask approporiate questions in BAUT's Q&A section?To what extent do these well-established experimental and observational results mean that the astrocat ATM idea also fails to explain how the universe seems to 'work'?To what extent does my Mable Theory fail to explain how the universe seems to work? I didn't know failed to explain anything. Tell me one thing the Cosmos is doing, and I'll explain it for you, using Scientific Laws, names, dates, easily understood terms etc. etc.

That's where the Mable Theory excells. 'Fail to explain'? I don't understand.It seems that my question was unclear; let me try again.

Please show, quantitatively, that your idea is consistent, quantitatively, with GR.

[RussT]

Sorry, what's SMBH (something about Black Holes, right?) and what does 'baryonic' mean?
Let's write in terms others understand; I try to put the meaning in brackets behind the word, if I think it's a word readers may not understand. Just a suggestion, Russ T...

How someone can have a full fledged theory of how the universe works and not understand these two terms is beyond me.

But it is quite obvious that there are other 'basic' things that are not understood either.

There wouldn't be a 'MABLE" Black Hole at the center of the universe (if there is a center), it would be the 'singularity' that was at the center! Which would mean that we were/are "IN" the Black Hole. Which we are NOT!

And this...
Originally Posted by astrocat
Millstone Mike, gravity doesn't slow anything. It does, however, Speed things Up. How did you get 'slows'?

Truely shows that you do not understand gravity.

As any mass comes towards a planet, it is falling in the gravity well, However, once it goes past, then what happens astrocat?

Yep, it begins slowing down, because then it has to climb up the well wall.

That is actually not easy to visualize, but think of it like this. When a comet comes in toward the sun, it is being accelerated, BUT once past the sun, it begins slowing and going into its parabola/ellipse shaped path around the sun, and is slowed as it gets farther away until its arc comes around to begin being accelerated again by the sun on its return journey.

That is how they 'slowed' the Last Mars orbitor (I think it took like 35 revolutions) to place it in orbit around Mars!


As a Star grows ever more massive (Clumps Up) it turns into a Black Hole (if it eats, rather than gets eaten) with a whole Galaxy for its Accretion Disc.

No, stars do not make SMBH's. And NO, the 'discs' of galaxies are NOT accretion discs!


As I say, it's a two way street. How a Black Hole could develope a young Galaxy or vice versa is just a part of Clumping Up.

How a SMBH (Super Massive Black Hole) can create a galaxy is quite simple actually!

ALL you have to understand is that the Hydrogen/Helium was NOT already here/there!!!

That simply means that the creation of the SMBH creates the Electrons/Protons>>Hydrogen/Helium!

If a SN1a or Type II is as bright as a single galaxy, and that creates a stellar size black hole, then what would be expected of the 'brightness' of something creating a millions to billions of sol masses Black Hole?

[astrocat]

How someone can have a full fledged theory of how the universe works and not understand these two terms is beyond me. Well, now that you have 'explained' SMBH (Super Massive Black Hole) to me, it's quite obvious. But to dump on me because I don't know what 'baryonic' means, I don't think that's quite fair.

But it is quite obvious that there are other 'basic' things that are not understood either.

There wouldn't be a 'MABLE" Black Hole at the center of the universe (if there is a center), it would be the 'singularity' that was at the center! Which would mean that we were/are "IN" the Black Hole. Which we are NOT!

If you want to call it a 'Singularity', I guess that's OK. But I'm not suggesting we are there (at the center) yet. I call it Mable because it's a lot shorter than writing 'the black hole at the center of the universe' every time.

And this...
Originally Posted by astrocat
Millstone Mike, gravity doesn't slow anything. It does, however, Speed things Up. How did you get 'slows'?

Truely shows that you do not understand gravity.

As any mass comes towards a planet, it is falling in the gravity well, However, once it goes past, then what happens astrocat?

Yep, it begins slowing down, because then it has to climb up the well wall.

That is actually not easy to visualize, but think of it like this. When a comet comes in toward the sun, it is being accelerated, BUT once past the sun, it begins slowing and going into its parabola/ellipse shaped path around the sun, and is slowed as it gets farther away until its arc comes around to begin being accelerated again by the sun on its return journey.

That is how they 'slowed' the Last Mars orbitor (I think it took like 35 revolutions) to place it in orbit around Mars!

Okay, okay, I admit I was wrong. I realised my error almost as soon as I had written it. Of course, Gravity can slow things down. Thanks though, for explaining it like you did. I found your explanation very interesting - about the last Mars orbiter.

No, stars do not make SMBH's. Not for a very long Time, I agree. But Stars eat and get eaten. SMBHs are what they eat, and I'm sure they eat Stars, among other things. Also, according to my research, Clumping Up is a genuine Physical Phenomenon, with a Why, When, Where and How. I know you think Stars burn out, and they do - but they also grow, along with their Accretion Disks. Sol eats, so does Earth. I don't want to argue, but I'm pretty sure of this.

And NO, the 'discs' of galaxies are NOT accretion discs!
Whoops! And I thought these Discs were Accreted over time, by the long Galactic Arms scouring the surrounding Space, collecting Space Dust etc. Hey, I'm sorry (but I still think it).


How a SMBH (Super Massive Black Hole)
Thanks again. I wish others would do this. I knew it was about Black Holes. It's so obvious now!

can create a galaxy is quite simple actually!

ALL you have to understand is that the Hydrogen/Helium was NOT already here/there!!!

That simply means that the creation of the SMBH creates the Electrons/Protons>>Hydrogen/Helium!

If a SN1a or Type II is as bright as a single galaxy, and that creates a stellar size black hole, then what would be expected of the 'brightness' of something creating a millions to billions of sol masses Black Hole?

Galaxies create Black Holes? I know Galaxies feed the Black Hole, once it's there, but I thought Black Holes were created by the Gravitational Collapse of Super Massive Structures in a particular location. In answer to your question, the 'brightness' of such a Black Hole, could surely never shine out.

I'm glad, though that you mention structures 'millions to billions' of Sol Masses. You see, as we work our way down thru' the Cosmic Vortex, we are encountering greater and greater Gravitational Forces; Years ago, such structures could hardly be considered. Now they are finding such structures; almost every day, it seems, an even more massive Black Hole is found.

[astrocat]

I now have to do some research or Nereid is going to close me down. I'll be back soon.

[astrocat]

Specifically, to what extent does your idea incorporate a theory of gravity different from GR?

Fair enough, Nereid. Let's go on.

As you are no doubt very well aware, there are clear, observable, differences between the Newtonian theory of gravity and GR.

A bowling ball on a matress will still attract (by Earth's Gravity) a ping-pong ball rolled towards it. The ping-pong ball will fall into the depression made by the bowling ball, unless rolled in exactly the right way, to orbit the bowling ball. Maybe this does better describe how Gravity works. Interestingly, the ping-pong ball cannot avoid 'an attraction' towards the bowling ball.

AFAIK, every test done, to date, to see which theory better describes the way the universe actually works has 'found for GR',

So okay, GR beats Newton. I see most of the (rather unsatisfactory) models of the Cosmos are based on the Big Bang. Which never happened - in my studied opinion.

or; if you prefer, 'shown - at the many sigma level

I'm still working on that.

- that the Newtonian theory is inconsistent with the observational/experimental results'.

It seems to me, that GR is more of an attempt to 'unify' Newtonian Theory with GR, rather than an attempt to debunk Newton. But here's the kicker...

To what extent do these well-established experimental and observational results mean that the astrocat ATM idea also fails to explain how the universe seems to 'work'?

When may we expect to see some answers to these questions?

I'm still working on it. But it's coming!

[RussT]

If you want to call it a 'Singularity', I guess that's OK. But I'm not suggesting we are there (at the center) yet. I call it Mable because it's a lot shorter than writing 'the black hole at the center of the universe' every time.

I really don't think you understand the difference between the universe as a whole existing as one huge black hole, that we are inside of VS a huge Black Hole existing at a so called center of the universe.


Not for a very long Time, I agree. But Stars eat and get eaten. SMBHs are what they eat, and I'm sure they eat Stars, among other things.

No, stars do NOT eat SMBH's! And once a star is born, the amount of Matter it attracts is negligable compared to its already very large mass.


Also, according to my research, Clumping Up is a genuine Physical Phenomenon, with a Why, When, Where and How.

Yep, it's called Gravity. Newton described(s) it very well, and when Einstein came up with SR (Special Relativity), that set a new course. In setting that course, he (Nor anyone else) could find or identify a "Luminiferous Aether" (Light/photon carrying Medium), and so he made a decision that it could not exist. And so nurmerous decisions were made on how to format the desciption of Space and Time, based on the Non-Medium Assumption that have persisted and even gone farther than the orginals, but always 'insisting' that no light carrting medium could exist.

However, once he developed GR (General Relativity/Gravity) he 'insisted' (or in his words..."GR is unthinkable without an Aether/Medium") that the curvature of space could not happen unless there was an Aether/Medium.

And the Battle has raged ever since.

It is my contention that there IS a Aether/Medium, and that that is the "Exotic Matter" traveling at "c" (The speed of light in the Vacua) (the Vacua is the Vacuum of space with NO baryonic (Google it) Matter in it. BUT that Vacua IS ALL of Space as the Non-Baryonic Matter...DM that is traveling at "c", carrying the photons/light.

Now, since all that DM is gravity, and it is traveling at "c", that is a dimesionless Background (It is going right through ALL the baryonic matter) Gravity Field.

So, That is the 'extra Gravity' holding the stars in the galaxies, and the 'extra Gravity' that holds the galaxies in their clusters (Most of the time)


And NO, the 'discs' of galaxies are NOT accretion discs!


Whoops! And I thought these Discs were Accreted over time, by the long Galactic Arms scouring the surrounding Space, collecting Space Dust etc. Hey, I'm sorry (but I still think it).

When I said the discs of galaxies were not accretion discs, I was refering to the accretion disc of a SMBH, which are very close to and directly affected by the SMBH. (google Black Hole accretion disc).

And NO, the discs of galaxies are NOT formed by the accumulation of gas/stars by galactic arms. This was suggested once, when they found a galaxy that had always been seen as a 'compact' bright object, and then all of a sudden, pictures were taken that showed a whole galaxy with spiral arms where they hadn't seen any before. This is basically a case of much better equipment and technolgy, especially in different EM tools like IR and X-Ray.


Galaxies create Black Holes? I know Galaxies feed the Black Hole, once it's there, but I thought Black Holes were created by the Gravitational Collapse of Super Massive Structures in a particular location. In answer to your question, the 'brightness' of such a Black Hole, could surely never shine out.

NO, I didn't say Galaxies create SMBH's! I said...When a SMBH is created, that creates a HUGE Gamma Radiation Event, and that High Energy gamma Radiation creates the electrons/protons to make the Hydrogen/helium that will 'eventually start making stars. And the star forming starts in the Core.

http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/public/images/ngc2915/

SO, You are right...by gravitational collapse of millions to billions of sol masses. BUT, there is nothing out that there (In space) that is even close to this mass to collapse to a SMBH (and hydrogen clouds make stars when they collapse/condense). SO, remember I said above that 'space' was made up of the DM Medium, which is a dimensionless Gravity Field? Well, when two 'sections' "Branes" of this collide, Kabooooooomm, GAMMA RADIATION is definitely "Observed" when the SMBH is first forming from this collision.


In answer to your question, the 'brightness' of such a Black Hole, could surely never shine out.

So, in answer to your statement...YES it certainly can....When it is first being formed!!!

BBC Death Star
"STAN WOOSLEY: If you took all of the stars in all of the galaxies and all of the quasars and everything in the Universe and put them all together at one point at the distance of a gamma ray burst it would not be as bright as the gamma ray burst."

SO. as I said, if a SN1a or Type II shines as bright as 1 galaxy and makes a stellar sized black hole, how big would the black hole be, from an explosion that shined as bright as BILLIONS of galaxies?:D

[astrocat]

I didn't mean to post this, but I dont see an exit button, or a cancel. This is the wrong post. Sorry:whistle:

[astrocat]

But Stars eat and get eaten. SMBHs are what they eat, and I'm sure they eat Stars, among other things. What i meant was like, as in 'You are what you eat!' SMBHs (Super Massive Black Holes) are what they eat. That's Stars and Lesser Black Holes, right? [/QUOTE] Also, according to my research, Clumping Up is a genuine Physical Phenomenon, with a Why, When, Where and How. But at least you recognise it. You don't deny it's happening?

[RussT]

What i meant was like, as in 'You are what you eat!' SMBHs (Super Massive Black Holes) are what they eat. That's Stars and Lesser Black Holes, right? Also, according to my research,[/QUOTE]

Ah, I see. And yes, we have all had cases where our wording wasn't quite what it should have been.

Quote: astrocat
Clumping Up is a genuine Physical Phenomenon, with a Why, When, Where and How.

Quote: astrocat
But at least you recognise it. You don't deny it's happening?

How could anyone deny that Gravity exists? Describing all aspects of it correctly is an entirely different problem!!!

And, out of everything I posted, these are the only two things you found of significance to respond to.

[astrocat]

Also, according to my research, And, out of everything I posted, these are the only two things you found of significance to respond to.[/QUOTE]

RussT. I like hearing from you. You talk Science! I've been busy (I work) and have been dieing to answer your Post 43, I believe it was. Just gimme Time, I promise. What I have to do first and foremops is to thank Nereid for turning me onto GR. Later, RussT.

[astrocat]

If you do not know what GR is, then please ask a question, or three, in BAUT's Q&A section.

FWIW, GR is the basis for the most successful cosmological theory we have today, the LCDM concordance model.

The scales have fallen from my eyes, Nereid. I have seen the light. You have changed me, my mind, everything, and all I can do is thank you. Your methods seemed, to me, almost hostile, but now I know, you are the most tolerant person I have met! I spent all last weekend at Wikipedia. I got a headache, but when I got it, I was elated. How many times can I thank you.

Hey, and anybody else - go to GR. You have to. I didn't realise..!

[astrocat]

The centre of a galaxy does NOT move faster than it's outer edges. This was the observation that Vera Rubin made in the 1970's that led to the search for something else to hold galaxies together. The stars at the edges of galaxies move at the same rate as stars at the centre, and this is why it is theorised that galaxies must have a lot of unseen mass to exert the gravity required to stop the outer stars simply speeding away into intergalactic space.

Did you know this? Vera Rubin's 1970's Observations certainly led us to wonder 'where is this missing mass?' But now we know there's a Black hole there - actually several - and this CDM (Cold Dark Matter) is so darn hard to detect - think for a second tho', What's Cold,Dark and Hard to See? We are just beginning to find out about these Black Holes. They're all over - starving and eyeing our own Black Hole like the Black Hole in Andromeda is eyeing ours! Or vice-versa, but one of them will win.

Newtons law works on a simple level, but misses out on some key issues that led to the need for a better understanding of gravity. Einstein's General Relativity is a whole lot more accurate than Newtons law was. Newtons principles of motion do not take into account phenomena we have observed, like gravitational time-dilation.

Our GPS satellites use Einstein's rules, otherwise their clocks would be wrong!

Well said, Speedfreek, but thanks to Nereid that I can understand you,even.

[speedfreek]

Vera Rubin's 1970's Observations certainly led us to wonder 'where is this missing mass?' But now we know there's a Black hole there - actually several - and this CDM (Cold Dark Matter) is so darn hard to detect - think for a second tho', What's Cold,Dark and Hard to See? We are just beginning to find out about these Black Holes. They're all over - starving and eyeing our own Black Hole like the Black Hole in Andromeda is eyeing ours! Or vice-versa, but one of them will win.

But how can a black hole at the centre of a galaxy account for the speed of the outermost stars being so much faster than expected compared to the inner stars? The unseen mass or gravity needs to be where the outer stars are, to have that effect on their motion, but without the unseen mass or gravity being relatively stronger where the inner stars are.

The gravitational effect (or unseen mass) must be pretty uniform across the galactic disc, rather than concentrated in the centre, in order to explain the motions of the stars in galaxies.

[Premodial]

I have heard relatively recently about a physicists that came up with a equation to approximately guess how big the universe "could" (huge quotes on that) be.
Normal calculators cannot calculate it, but, like Stephen hawking's "No boundary" theory, the "center of the universe" does not work. But as always its just a theory = ]

[astrocat]

But how can a black hole at the centre of a galaxy account for the speed of the outermost stars being so much faster than expected compared to the inner stars?

I understand the jury is still out on that one. NASA has fixed two particular stars, both near each other, but at different distances from the center, and in such a short period of Time, seems unwilling to commit on exactly how the Galaxies are evolving, unless, of course, this is out of date (someone help me here) - or are they, as I strongly suspect, Vortices (Plural of Vortex) drawn inwards by the growing Gravitational Force (Space-Time Distortion, I should say) at the center.

Meanwhile, it's my opinion that most people think a Galaxy is a Whirpool (another name for Vortex - Encarta) and of course it is. I would even say, that's how the Whirpool Galaxy (M51) got it's name.

The unseen mass or gravity needs to be where the outer stars are, to have that effect on their motion, but without the unseen mass or gravity being relatively stronger where the inner stars are.

I don't have any problem with the Mass beinbg concentrated in the center. Things aren't like they used to be.

The gravitational effect (or unseen mass) must be pretty uniform across the galactic disc, rather than concentrated in the centre, in order to explain the motions of the stars in galaxies.

There you go again, Speedfreek. Why not at the center? I believe that's the more modern way of thinking, anyway.

[astrocat]

How someone can have a full fledged theory of how the universe works and not understand these two terms is beyond me. Now I do.

But it is quite obvious that there are other 'basic' things that are not understood either. Try me!

There wouldn't be a 'MABLE" Black Hole at the center of the universe (if there is a center)...

Everything have center. Cat have center... Must have center...

...it would be the 'singularity' that was at the center!

I'm with you right up to here...

Which would mean that we were/are "IN" the Black Hole.

That plain doesn't follow, RussT

Which we are NOT! And written in Capitals... Whelll RussT, you sure told me.

The rest we already dealt with. I like you RussT. I'll say it again. Keep talking Science to me!

[RussT]

But how can a black hole at the centre of a galaxy account for the speed of the outermost stars being so much faster than expected compared to the inner stars? The unseen mass or gravity needs to be where the outer stars are, to have that effect on their motion, but without the unseen mass or gravity being relatively stronger where the inner stars are.

The gravitational effect (or unseen mass) must be pretty uniform across the galactic disc, rather than concentrated in the centre, in order to explain the motions of the stars in galaxies.

Actually, Zwickey noticed the need for Dark Matter much earlier than Vera Rubin, but that was cluster dynamics. Vera was the first for galaxy rotation curves. Also, Zwickey's 'call' for DM was NOT Non-Baryonic DM. It was just called the 'missing mass problem', and was expected at that time to be baryonic matter that was missing.

BUT, mainstream has none of the answers to the questions posed, and infact, ever since "Exotic Matter" has been proposed, modeling it has become the key to cosmology.

Now, the fact that it is there, that it does exist (That it is needed to explain galaxy rotation curves and cluster dynamics) is NOT Big Bang Theory dependent. BUT as soon as you start trying to show "WHAT" that Dark Matter is actually doing, it does become theory dependent.

BY what it is doing, I mean...what its 'mass' is and how fast it is moving, which does effect how the baryonic matter reacts/moves in relation to it.

SO, when mainstream tried modeling Neutrinos (Hot Fast Dark Matter) as the "extra Gravity" of Dark Matter needed, they ran into a major problem.

DM traveling at "c" (or close to it) could not be shown to account for the 'large structure' developement of the clusters, super clusters and galaxies according to the FLRW Hubble relation of an expanding universe in the 13.7 billion year time limit.

SO, what did they do? They invented/made up another particle...the WIMP (Weakly Interacting "Massive" Particle)

SO, they "ASSUME" that it is "SLOW" (what speed(s) they assign it I do not know, I never see that published!), and they "ASSUME" a 'mass limit' (I have seen something on that but don't recall what it is), and THEN they do a 'computer simulation' with those 'assumed' values (so the DM will be able to 'semi-clump'), and then call those simulations "Observational Evidence" of what that DM is doing in the galaxies and clusters! They even "Super-impose" colored (Usually blue) representations of their 'computer generated' 'supposed DM motion, onto real photos of 'space objects' (So far just clusters) and call that "Observational Evidence" of how the DM is interacting with the baryonic matter.

It is ALL 'made up'...it's a theory...and since it is not the Higgs Boson (another made up and theorized particle, which really tells a story about the state of affairs of QM), I would like to know where the full family of electron/proton/neutron WIMP particles and Anti-particles is!!!

See here for a better perspective on all of this...

Why do we Still Believe in Newton's Law ? Facts, Myths and Methods in Gravitational Physics

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0702009

The Nuker Team is 'close' to the answer of the stars speeds in galaxy rotations, BUT they of course 'assume' that all the Hydrogen/Helium was already there at the SMBH's Birth and therefore cannot come to the correct relationships/correlations.

[astrocat]

I have heard relatively recently about a physicists that came up with a equation to approximately guess how big the universe "could" (huge quotes on that) be.

Does he believe, like me, that the Cosmos has a calculable mass?

Normal calculators cannot calculate it, but, like Stephen hawking's "No boundary" theory, the "center of the universe" does not work. But as always its just a theory = ]

Fascinating...

[astrocat]

To what extent do these well-established experimental and observational results mean that the astrocat ATM idea also fails to explain how the universe seems to 'work'?

I understand now, that Newton's Laws don't hold up 1. near a Black Hole and 2. near the Speed of Light.

GR (General Relativity) holds true 1. right up to the Black Hole and 2. right up to the Speed of Light.

GR does not invalidate the Mable Theory, but adds some new and interesting parameters, for example, if there really is a Black Hole where I say it is, then that basically fixes the amount of mass that there is within the Universe (Cosmos), making this mass a 'constant' amount.

Some mass is lost to various 'energies generated', for example Kinetic Energy (Heat, in the infra-red section) commonly referred to as the MBR (Micro- wave Background Radiation) and the burning (Loss of Heat) of Stars over the history of the Cosmos.

Apart from this (negligeable) loss of Mass, balanced by the additional Mass of new, accreted (collected) matter that the Cosmos' Galactic-like Arms have swept out from the surrounding void, this Mass does not change.

Working down thru' the Cosmic Vortex, we cannot help but notice the growing gravitational forces acting on us, that is to say, the increasing Curvature of the Space Time Continuum. According to GR, this will cause Time to Slow Down, something very hard to detect, except from our observations of certain outward bound satellites launched decades ago, in a different Time, as it were.

These satellites are bound to show a slower than expected progress, as it now takes them longer (in our Time) to cover a certain distance, and observations of the Pioneer space crafts seem to confirm this.

In this way, GR actually helps the Mable Theory to explain 'how the Cosmos seems to 'work.'

[bigsplit]

Astrocat -


I have been a strong proponent of a Universal attractor at the vertex of a horn shaped vortex topography for many years now. So let's look at what possible evidence there could be to strengthen the argument.

Red shift shows expansion - things are moving apart. The model of a universal attractor with the said topography would predict the acceleration of this expansion...which has been verified. Since we are moving towards a SMBH "down" a narrowing curvature, it would be safe to assume that there are fewer galaxies or clusters at a given redshift closer to the vertex than in the opposite direction towards the bell of the horn. This is due to the amplification of "marginal" differences in distance due to the strengthening force from the universal attractor for those bodies closer to the vertex.

Using inverse square and this insight one could conclude that there should be a significant difference in the acceleration of the expansion of those bodies at a given redshift towards the vertex than there are for the bodies towards the bell of the vortex. Since there should be more galaxies towards bell at a given red shift then it would imply, if our concept is correct, that at any given z a minority fraction of the bodies should show a greater acceleration.

Once and if this could be confirmed, we could then calculate the distance and our proximity to the universal attractor and completely shatter the comsmological principle.

This is testable. You just have to find the data that confirmed acceleration and any new data to this regard and do lots of math. Otherwise the argument falls into a subjective catagory. Since I have for years now failed to seek out this information and gain the quantitative expertice to interpret it correctly, I have been relatively silent on this issue. But, I assure you that you are not the only one who holds your position and although you may be the only one brash and/or ignorant (not an insult) enough to claim you "know" this to be true. I have for several years now been a member of this and the board with which it merged and have held this position. Your thread will shortly die off unless you have the capcity or know how to present this argument quantitatively.

[astrocat]

BUT, mainstream has none of the answers to the questions posed, and infact, ever since "Exotic Matter" has been proposed, modeling it has become the key to cosmology. That's why I like you, RussT.

Now, the fact that it is there, that it does exist (That it is needed to explain galaxy rotation curves and cluster dynamics) is NOT Big Bang Theory dependent. BUT as soon as you start trying to show "WHAT" that Dark Matter is actually doing, it does become theory dependent.

BY what it is doing, I mean...what its 'mass' is and how fast it is moving, which does effect how the baryonic matter reacts/moves in relation to it. Here, I can help.
Knowledge of its true Mass would stagger you and me... Just as great would be its Speed. Is 'baryonic matter' the most common type of sub-atomic particle?

The Nuker Team is 'close' to the answer of the stars speeds in galaxy rotations, BUT they of course 'assume' that all the Hydrogen/Helium was already there at the SMBH's Birth and therefore cannot come to the correct relationships/correlations. Thanks for your input on the matter, RussT.

[RussT]

Now, the fact that it is there, that it does exist (That it is needed to explain galaxy rotation curves and cluster dynamics) is NOT Big Bang Theory dependent. BUT as soon as you start trying to show "WHAT" that Dark Matter is actually doing, it does become theory dependent.

BY what it is doing, I mean...what its 'mass' is and how fast it is moving, which does effect how the baryonic matter reacts/moves in relation to it.

This whole thing should have been in quotes, like this.

Astrocat, quote like this,...

[QUOTE=astrocat]
Here, I can help.
Knowledge of its true Mass would stagger you and me... Just as great would be its Speed. Is 'baryonic matter' the most common type of sub-atomic particle?

Okay, help us understand...what does this... [Knowledge of its true Mass would stagger you and me.]...mean?

And this...[Just as great would be its Speed.]???


[Is 'baryonic matter' the most common type of sub-atomic particle?]

What are you really asking here?

[astrocat]

Astrocat - I have been a strong proponent of a Universal attractor at the vertex Sorry,vertex? of a horn shaped vortex Horn Shaped? topography for many years now. So let's look at what possible evidence there could be to strengthen the argument.

Red shift shows expansion - things are moving apart.

Locally.

The model of a universal attractor with the said topography would predict the acceleration of this expansion...which has been verified. Since we are moving towards a SMBH "down" a narrowing curvature,

Got any models for your universe? My Cosmos is modeled perfectly, every time you pull the plug on a Swirl of Water. ...it would be safe to assume that there are fewer galaxies or clusters at a given redshift closer to the vertex than in the opposite direction towards the bell of the horn. This is due to the amplification of "marginal" differences in distance due to the strengthening force from the universal attractor for those bodies closer to the vertex.

'bell of the horn? Amplification? I'm exactly 180 degrees from the Big Bang. Where are you?

Using inverse square and this insight one could conclude that there should be a significant difference in the acceleration of the expansion of those bodies at a given redshift towards the vertex than there are for the bodies towards the bell of the vortex. Since there should be more galaxies towards bell at a given red shift then it would imply, if our concept is correct, that at any given z a minority fraction of the bodies should show a greater acceleration.

Once and if this could be confirmed, we could then calculate the distance and our proximity to the universal attractor and completely shatter the comsmological principle.
Universal attractor? Hmmmm, I like it. But the Cosmological Principle was pretty well shattered when they discovered the Cosmos had an Axis.

This is testable. You just have to find the data that confirmed acceleration and any new data to this regard and do lots of math. Otherwise the argument falls into a subjective catagory. Since I have for years now failed to seek out this information and gain the quantitative expertice to interpret it correctly, I have been relatively silent on this issue.

I'm the mirror image of the Big Bang. What are you?

But, I assure you that you are not the only one who holds your position

Ahaaaa!

and although you may be the only one brash and/or ignorant (not an insult) enough to claim

Yeah, that's me...

you "know" this to be true.

I got it from Jesus. So what? Where'd you get yours? You gonna get rough? Huh?

I have for several years now been a member of this and the board with which it merged and have held this position. Your thread will shortly die off unless you have the capcity or know how to present this argument quantitatively.

'Course I can. I know my GR. I know Time is slowing down due to ever increasing Gravitational Waves that we are encountering. Bet you didn't know that? Or are you going to tell me I'm wrong? Lookit, Buddy, I'm up against the Whole World! You think I'm going to be bothered..? Never mind. Quantitatively! Hah.

[astrocat]

This whole thing should have been in quotes, like this.

Astrocat, quote like this,... [QUOTE(CAPS)= name]

Okay, okay...

Okay, help us understand...what does this... [Knowledge of its true Mass would stagger you and me.]...mean?

And this...[Just as great would be its Speed.]???

You talk about 'It', which is okay by me, but I get shot down if I segue with 'It'? I found 'It' kinda unsatisfactory, but 'It's' different, RussT. Or is it my language. How unscientific of me.

[Is 'baryonic matter' the most common type of sub-atomic particle?]

What are you really asking here?

I know what a Baryon is and what it's made of. Do you, RussT? I just thought I could sneak a question in there, for some kind-hearted soul to answer, before I got in trouble.

[dirty_g]

mate your rally babbling a load of frankly strange things. I don't mean to be rude but you seem to be going in circles and not accepting current science and are challenging it with older theorys too. It's like me trying to tell everyone that the worlds still flat and that we are going to fall off it eventually. please admit defeat on this one.

[RussT]

Okay, okay...



You talk about 'It', which is okay by me, but I get shot down if I segue with 'It'? I found 'It' kinda unsatisfactory, but 'It's' different, RussT. Or is it my language. How unscientific of me.



I know what a Baryon is and what it's made of. Do you, RussT? I just thought I could sneak a question in there, for some kind-hearted soul to answer, before I got in trouble.

astrocat, you are just playing words games.

You did not answer even 1 of the 3 queries above.

[astrocat]

astrocat, you are just playing words games
Okay, RussT, then play with these words; GR proves me right! Let's talk GR and see who knows what they're talking about, and who doesn't.

I'll start. GR (General Relativity) is not easy to understand, for some, and this is partly because it's hard to explain. Now, however, for the first Time in History, we have an example of it unfolding right before our eyes!

What's happening will blow your mind, just as it blew mine. There are two satellites, Pioneer 10 and 11, that seem to have slowed down, or at least, they are not where they should be - not yet.

Of course, it's impossible for them to have slowed. What's really happening is that their Time, the late sixties (wasn't it?) was faster than ours.

Our Time, you see, is slower. It's taking these satellites longer than it should, to get out there!

These satellites really should get a move on. (Now imagine saying this very slowly, with slurred speech, and pointing up.) "Those satellites are late. It's taking them forever to get where they're going." How fast do we see them going? How fast do the Slow Speech People. Who's right?

That's us, in our Slower Time. Two Times, see. Sixties and now.

But Why?

Why is our Time Slowing Down? And why is it only Astrocat can explain this to us so clearly?

Because Gravity Slows Time.

This is one of the cornerstones of GR. But you knew that.

I should have said, if you increase Gravity, Time slows. Sure, take a watch up a mountain, further from Earth's surface (this has been done) and it speeds up. Less gravity, okay?

It's all relative, of course, but why is Gravity increasing? It's okay, we're talking GR, and GR is quite 'at home' here... but put on your seat belts, everyone - we're going in!

Gravity is increasing because, ultimately it has to, because like it or not we're entering the final stage of Galactic (Whoops) I meant Cosmic Evolution.

Outside Cosmos, void - some gas, some dust. Slim pickings. Nevertheless, long Galactic like Arms sweep these voids of even their most meager possessions, so greedy is the villain at the center, who's show this is..

Down the Arms, Clumping Up happens. Dust Particles become Rocks. Rocks Planets, and look, Accretion Disc (called Moon).

Planets eat or get eaten. Become Big. Nuclear Fires start inside. Whole Planets for Accretion Disc.

Star becomes Black Hole with entire Galaxy for Accretion Disc.

All the Time, Speeds Increasing, Cooling Etc. Etc (See first Post) Clumping Up now at a Maximimum. Expansion at Max, Loss of Pressure at Max. Highest Entropy, in this zone of Least Density paradoxically with the Biggest Clumps.

Herenow, at the Cosmic Core, here it's all Black Holes, with not a Star in sight. Each Black Hole eats its Accretion Disc here, or else has it ripped away in fierce Hi-Speed battles with other, now bloated, but hungrier than ever , Black Holes, untill, one by one, they MEET MABLE.

Here now, as we approach the Center of The Universe, we're beginning to see these Black Holes - and just how many of them there are! There's a rumour that a Black Hole has been spotted without it's Accretion Disc - a sure sign we're gettin' there.

Exposure to all these heavyweights is increasing the Gravitational Waves bearing down on us. This is GR. This extra gravity is slowing our Time. More GR. Because our Time is visibly Slower than Sixties Time shows us the Pioneer satellites in two different Times, at once. And get this..! In two different Spaces!!

They wont be in the same place. It's all relative. What say, RussT. Now you tell me about GR, something prefferably that I didn't know. How about telling us about Baryons (made of 3 Quarks, people).

You did not answer even 1 of the 3 queries above.

Well, I thought I did. I tried.

[astrocat]

mate your rally babbling a load of frankly strange things. I don't mean to be rude but you seem to be going in circles

Spirals, actually.

and not accepting current science

GR, Dirty. I'm with GR. You got something more modern?

and are challenging it with older theorys too.

Newton's okay, long as you stay away from Black Holes and the Speed of Light.

[QUOTE] It's like me trying to tell everyone that the worlds still flat and that we are going to fall off it eventually. please admit defeat on this one./QUOTE]

But the World's not flat, Dirty!

[RussT]

Okay, RussT, then play with these words; GR proves me right! Let's talk GR and see who knows what they're talking about, and who doesn't.

I'll start. GR (General Relativity) is not easy to understand, for some, and this is partly because it's hard to explain. Now, however, for the first Time in History, we have an example of it unfolding right before our eyes!

What's happening will blow your mind, just as it blew mine. There are two satellites, Pioneer 10 and 11, that seem to have slowed down, or at least, they are not where they should be - not yet.

Of course, it's impossible for them to have slowed. What's really happening is that their Time, the late sixties (wasn't it?) was faster than ours.

Our Time, you see, is slower. It's taking these satellites longer than it should, to get out there!

These satellites really should get a move on. (Now imagine saying this very slowly, with slurred speech, and pointing up.) "Those satellites are late. It's taking them forever to get where they're going." How fast do we see them going? How fast do the Slow Speech People. Who's right?

That's us, in our Slower Time. Two Times, see. Sixties and now.

But Why?

Why is our Time Slowing Down? And why is it only Astrocat can explain this to us so clearly?

Because Gravity Slows Time.

This is one of the cornerstones of GR. But you knew that.

I should have said, if you increase Gravity, Time slows. Sure, take a watch up a mountain, further from Earth's surface (this has been done) and it speeds up. Less gravity, okay?

It's all relative, of course, but why is Gravity increasing? It's okay, we're talking GR, and GR is quite 'at home' here... but put on your seat belts, everyone - we're going in!

Gravity is increasing because, ultimately it has to, because like it or not we're entering the final stage of Galactic (Whoops) I meant Cosmic Evolution.

Outside Cosmos, void - some gas, some dust. Slim pickings. Nevertheless, long Galactic like Arms sweep these voids of even their most meager possessions, so greedy is the villain at the center, who's show this is..

Down the Arms, Clumping Up happens. Dust Particles become Rocks. Rocks Planets, and look, Accretion Disc (called Moon).

Planets eat or get eaten. Become Big. Nuclear Fires start inside. Whole Planets for Accretion Disc.

Star becomes Black Hole with entire Galaxy for Accretion Disc.

All the Time, Speeds Increasing, Cooling Etc. Etc (See first Post) Clumping Up now at a Maximimum. Expansion at Max, Loss of Pressure at Max. Highest Entropy, in this zone of Least Density paradoxically with the Biggest Clumps.

Herenow, at the Cosmic Core, here it's all Black Holes, with not a Star in sight. Each Black Hole eats its Accretion Disc here, or else has it ripped away in fierce Hi-Speed battles with other, now bloated, but hungrier than ever , Black Holes, untill, one by one, they MEET MABLE.

Here now, as we approach the Center of The Universe, we're beginning to see these Black Holes - and just how many of them there are! There's a rumour that a Black Hole has been spotted without it's Accretion Disc - a sure sign we're gettin' there.

Exposure to all these heavyweights is increasing the Gravitational Waves bearing down on us. This is GR. This extra gravity is slowing our Time. More GR. Because our Time is visibly Slower than Sixties Time shows us the Pioneer satellites in two different Times, at once. And get this..! In two different Spaces!!

They wont be in the same place. It's all relative. What say, RussT. Now you tell me about GR, something prefferably that I didn't know. How about telling us about Baryons (made of 3 Quarks, people).



Well, I thought I did. I tried.


What say, RussT

I say Google, Google, and google some more! OR as CM would say...get thee to a library.

2 or 3 days ago you didn't even know what Baryonic Matter was, and you just got done thanking Nereid profusely for "Introducing" you to General Relativity (which did not include Special Relativity!!! Ooopps, I know it's a curve ball), and now you are spouting all this 'stuff????? (BTW, I have very specific and critically defined reasons for why I am saying things are different than mainstream!!!)

I'll point out a couple of things and then let you get to your googling!

First of all, I'll tell you a little secret... [Now you tell me about GR, something prefferably that I didn't know.]

The reason it is SO surprizing that the stars in the outer part of the discs have the 'flat' rotation curves that Vera Rubin found, is that those stars CANNOT 'feel' the SMBH's gravitational pull hardly at all (If at all)!!! That is why, at their speeds, they should be flying out of the galaxy. That is why the "Extra Gravity" is needed, to explain them not flying out of the galaxy.

BUT, what is even MORE surprizing than that, is the fact that the speeds of those stars, even though they cannot feel the SMBH's gravitational pull, are intimately linked, at a very high sigma (Direct correlation), to the Mass of their respective SMBH's.

Now, I am saying that the creation of the SMBH is making the Electrons/Protons, that is making the Hydrogen/Helium for each galaxy seperately, BECAUSE the universe did NOT start off as High Energy Gamma Radiation!!! That is JUST AN ASSUMPTION!!!

NOW, as far as your MABLE goes, as you can see from the above, a Large Black Hole, that has an event horizon isn't all that powerful as an attractor!!!

The largest Black Holes that exist in nature (IN our universe) are SMBH's that are in the centers of galaxies. And when a SMBH is created, it creates a High Energy Gamma Radiation Event, that makes a galaxy, NOT a universe!!! AND, Naked Singularities CANNOT exist, or 'expand' or emit Gamma Radiation!

AND, as I said before, arms of galaxies don't go 'sweeping up' gas/dust/stars! And besides, what ever they would be sweeping up, that gravity already existed!!!

SO, gravity is not increasing in that way, and Time is not slowing because of it!

So, google, google, google.

[astrocat]

I say Google, Google, and google some more! OR as CM would say...get thee to a library.

2 or 3 days ago you didn't even know what Baryonic Matter was, and you just got done thanking Nereid profusely for "Introducing" you to General Relativity (which did not include Special Relativity!!! Ooopps, I know it's a curve ball), and now you are spouting all this 'stuff????? (BTW, I have very specific and critically defined reasons for why I am saying things are different than mainstream!!!)

That was then, RussT. This is now! I know you have strong reasons for saying what you say.

I'll point out a couple of things and then let you get to your googling!

Groan, more work?

First of all, I'll tell you a little secret... [Now you tell me about GR, something prefferably that I didn't know.] Yeah, let's hear it.

The reason it is SO surprizing that the stars in the outer part of the discs have the 'flat' rotation curves that Vera Rubin found, is that those stars CANNOT 'feel' the SMBH's gravitational pull hardly at all (If at all)!!! You can't feel the gravitational pulls that act on you, other than the one single pull of Earth's Gravity. But they're there. You feel the average of all the pulls together. But one of those pulls comes from Mable.

That is why, at their speeds, they should be flying out of the galaxy. That is why the "Extra Gravity" is needed, to explain them not flying out of the galaxy.

BUT, what is even MORE surprizing than that, is the fact that the speeds of those stars, even though they cannot feel the SMBH's gravitational pull, are intimately linked,

Galaxies, again. Lucky for me I don't have to concern myself with them. I'm only interested in the Cosmic Vortex, It's just like a Galaxy, anyway.

at a very high sigma (Direct correlation)

Thanks RussT. Now I know.


to the Mass of their respective SMBH's.

Now, I am saying that the creation of the SMBH is making the Electrons/Protons, that is making the Hydrogen/Helium for each galaxy seperately, BECAUSE the universe did NOT start off as High Energy Gamma Radiation!!! That is JUST AN ASSUMPTION!!!

Not quite sure I understand 100%. I am, tho', a quick study.

NOW, as far as your MABLE goes, as you can see from the above, a Large Black Hole, that has an event horizon isn't all that powerful as an attractor!!!

You go stand beside a Black Hole. Tell me it isn't all that powerful.

The largest Black Holes that exist in nature (IN our universe) are SMBH's that are in the centers of galaxies.

Good point, RussT

And when a SMBH is created, it creates a High Energy Gamma Radiation Event, that makes a galaxy, NOT a universe!!!

Capitals again. They tell me something, RussT.

AND, Naked Singularities CANNOT exist, or 'expand' or emit Gamma Radiation!

Capitals are considerd 'shouting', around here.

AND, as I said before, arms of galaxies don't go 'sweeping up' gas/dust/stars!

Gas and Dust, sure. But they're not strong enough at the tips to pull in a Star.

And besides, what ever they would be sweeping up, that gravity already existed!!!

Huh?

SO, gravity is not increasing in that way, and Time is not slowing because of it!

So, google, google, google.

Well, RussT. People have now seen your GR, and mine Let's hear from them! Who knows their GR better, folks?

[Tensor]

Well, RussT. People have now seen your GR, and mine Let's hear from them! Who knows their GR better, folks?

Neither of you.

[bigsplit]

Sorry,vertex?

See this: http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/formulas/faq.cone.html

Horn Shaped?

Read this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4879

Got any models for your universe? My Cosmos is modeled perfectly, every time you pull the plug on a Swirl of Water.

Whirlpools make good visuals.


'bell of the horn? Amplification? I'm exactly 180 degrees from the Big Bang. Where are you?

You say nothing of beginnings. The bell is open end of the vortex. Amplification means an effect becomes more noticeable and measurable.




I'm the mirror image of the Big Bang. What are you?

Reinterpretation of t=0 (that means the beginning of time) and what happened and why the universe may be a funnel



I got it from Jesus. So what? Where'd you get yours? You gonna get rough? Huh?


Its a long story, and no I am not going to get rough.


'Course I can. I know my GR. I know Time is slowing down due to ever increasing Gravitational Waves that we are encountering. Bet you didn't know that? Or are you going to tell me I'm wrong? Lookit, Buddy, I'm up against the Whole World! You think I'm going to be bothered..? Never mind. Quantitatively! Hah.

I am not going to tell you that you are wrong. Only that "time slowing down" is more of an SR thing, and do not forget about the relativity issue. Our time is slowing down relative to what as viewed by whom? I certainly do not want to discourage you, the realization of the mountain of knowledge you, I or anyone else has to attain to properly argue such a theory is discouraging enough.

Remember Goethe once said within boldness lies guiness.. and you are certainly bold. But also remember the addage....Success in 10% inspiration and 90% prespiration. Do not dismiss the advice that others are giving you or dismiss their criticism, you can learn from it.

Oh, and BTW....Russ knows much more about GR that I probable ever will....listen to his objections to your assertions. By understanding that you may have a brilliant visualization but lack the technical and scholarly knowledge to properly present it to the scientific community will carry you a long ways. Not only in understanding the weaknesses of your proposition, but also in woriking through some of the hang up points others may have and them actually helping you.

Trust me when I tell you I have been exactly where you are today. I understand the clarity in which you visualize what is happening in the universe. I also understand your frustrations in not being able to help others see what you see. Most around here demand data and quantifiable assertions...and such is the nature of science and the subject of the forum.

Good luck astrocat...believe it or not I am pulling for you.

[dirty_g]

To begin with you were using Newtonian laws of gravity to explain it which has been replaced by GR. GR goes against what you are saying.

No the worlds not flat but the science you were using goes nearly as far back as that theory does.

The current science you use also doesnt make much sense to me and i'm very much a layman.

[astrocat]

Neither of you. Okay, Tensor, you're on. Why don't you tell us about your GR?

[astrocat]

To begin with you were using Newtonian laws of gravity to explain it which has been replaced by GR. GR goes against what you are saying.]

At the beginning, I just knew Newton. Newton's fine untill you hit the really big numbers. When you look up, you see Stars.. These Stars are moving, they're going somewhere. This isn't Newton or GR, that's just what we see. But now I also know GR. What's wrong with that?

[QUOTE] No the worlds not flat but the science you were using goes nearly as far back as that theory does.

Can we move on?

The current science you use also doesnt make much sense to me and i'm very much a layman.

I'm an amateur, also. We're the same. Specifically tho', what doesn't make sense? I think you should tell me, Dirty.

[astrocat]

See this: http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/formulas/faq.cone.html Went there. Okay now about'Vertex', but a cone?

Read this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4879

Yet another Big Bang based Theory. There never was a Big Bang. COBE showed us a perfectly smooth, evenly distributed, Cloud of Hot Hydrogen, Ask Eli Dwek, of NASA.

Whirlpools make good visuals.

'Specially when they're doing everything the Cosmos is doing!

You say nothing of beginnings.

Lookit, Bigsplit... Where we came from, matters not one whit - compared to where we are going! Why did God put eyes in the front of your head? To help you see where you came from?

The bell is open end of the vortex. Amplification means an effect becomes more noticeable and measurable.

And the narrow end is the Big Bang, right?

Reinterpretation of t=0 (that means the beginning of time) and what happened and why the universe may be a funnel

Tell you what... You keep looking back, and I'll keep looking forward. Then we won't have any conflict

Its a long story, and no I am not going to get rough.
I am not going to tell you that you are wrong. Only that "time slowing down" is more of an SR thing,

It's also a cornerstone of GR.

...and do not forget about the relativity issue. Our time is slowing down relative to what as viewed by whom?

Relative to Time in the 1960s! Viewed by us, when we see Pioneer 10 & 11 in the newspaper.

I certainly do not want to discourage you, the realization of the mountain of knowledge you, I or anyone else has to attain to properly argue such a theory is discouraging enough.

Glad you can see that!

Remember Goethe once said within boldness lies guiness.. and you are certainly bold. But also remember the addage....Success in 10% inspiration and 90% prespiration. Do not dismiss the advice that others are giving you or dismiss their criticism, you can learn from it.

Gotcha, Bigsplit.

Oh, and BTW....Russ knows much more about GR that I probable ever will....listen to his objections to your assertions. By understanding that you may have a brilliant visualization but lack the technical and scholarly knowledge to properly present it to the scientific community will carry you a long ways. Not only in understanding the weaknesses of your proposition,

Hey, hey, watchit, Buddy! Weaknesses? Where's the Weakness? You better come clean, Bigsplit.

but also in woriking through some of the hang up points others may have and them actually helping you.

Trust me when I tell you I have been exactly where you are today. I understand the clarity in which you visualize what is happening in the universe. I also understand your frustrations in not being able to help others see what you see. Most around here demand data and quantifiable assertions...and such is the nature of science and the subject of the forum.

Good luck astrocat...believe it or not I am pulling for you.

Well, okay Bigsplit. I guess we're still friends. But I want to hear about these weaknesses... You can't leave it at that!

[bigsplit]

Well, okay Bigsplit. I guess we're still friends. But I want to hear about these weaknesses... You can't leave it at that!

Well the first thing that pops in my mind is you say the Big Bang never happened and at the same time you say not to look back....this is contridictory. If you say the Big Bang did not happen, then what did?


Another point is you dismiss Steiner when he described the very topography (the geometric shape) of the Universe in which you are trying to propose. He came to his hypothesis based on the evaluation of the empirical date (the CMB) that is available. It is not another Big Bang theory, that is just a decription of where the CMB is commonly thought to have originated, he mentions. Oh and BTW, my ideas preceeded the publication of his hypothesis.

You say that you are not thinking of the galactic scale but the Universal scale. Yet, you seek to use the pioneer anomoly as the sole evidence for your presumptions. The fact is that the pioneer craft have not even escaped the solar system, much less the galaxy. If there were time dialation (slow down of time) due to a Universal Attractor, the effects would be the same on earth as they would be on the pioneer craft. In other words, the clocks on earth would have slowed at the same rate as the clocks on the poineer and thus no net observable difference.

And finally (for now), one can never comprehend the present nor begin to peer into the future unless and until he/she understands the past.

[astrocat]

Well the first thing that pops in my mind is you say the Big Bang never happened and at the same time you say not to look back....this is contridictory. If you say the Big Bang did not happen, then what did?

How 'bout a Big, hot, dense, soupy Cloud of Hydrogen', just like tyhe one COBE showed us. Oh, I love these little satellites.


Another point is you dismiss Steiner when he described the very topography (the geometric shape) of the Universe in which you are trying to propose. He came to his hypothesis based on the evaluation of the empirical date (the CMB) that is available. It is not another Big Bang theory, that is just a decription of where the CMB is commonly thought to have originated, he mentions. Yeah, but it's Based on the Big Bang. Oh and BTW, my ideas preceeded the publication of his hypothesis. Your ideas are all I want to hear, not Steriners.

You say that you are not thinking of the galactic scale [\QUOTE] Too much controversey. NASA won't commit. The subject's frozen. I don't need it.


[QUOTE] ...but the Universal scale. Safer. Yet, you seek to use the pioneer anomoly as the sole evidence Proof, actually, Bigsplit. That's proof.

for your presumptions. The fact is that the pioneer craft have not even escaped the solar system, much less the galaxy. If there were time dialation (slow down of time) due to a Universal Attractor I preferr 'Gravity Waves.' That's GR. the effects would be the same on earth as they would be on the pioneer craft. In other words, the clocks on earth would have slowed at the same rate as the clocks on the poineer and thus no net observable difference.

Looking at pioneers clock from here, it would seem slow. Actually, it's not, but if we look at it with our Time, which is running slower, it's slow. Anybody know why it's slowing? How good is your GR?

And finally (for now), one can never comprehend the present nor begin to peer into the future unless and until he/she understands the past.

Some motorcycle racers have mirrors. Some don't. Those without say you don't need them. Some riders never look back. I think they feel they can probably do better on the road ahead without mirrors.

[Nereid]

The scales have fallen from my eyes, Nereid. I have seen the light. You have changed me, my mind, everything, and all I can do is thank you. Your methods seemed, to me, almost hostile, but now I know, you are the most tolerant person I have met! I spent all last weekend at Wikipedia. I got a headache, but when I got it, I was elated. How many times can I thank you.

Hey, and anybody else - go to GR. You have to. I didn't realise..!I'm glad that I have helped you understand things better.

However, it seems that you have not yet answered the question I asked in post #54 (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=990426&postcount=54):

"Please show, quantitatively, that your idea is consistent, quantitatively, with GR."

If you have answered this, please point to the post(s) which contain a quantitative account of the consistency between your idea and GR.

If you have not answered, please show, quantitatively, that your idea is consistent, quantitatively, with GR.

[dirty_g]

were you not taught about very basic GR at school or at least aware of it and that it overtook Newton??

I know what your trying to say about the Blackhole at the centre of the universe and that we are falling into it but it doesnt have a centre does it???!!! It's expanding. Not everythong has a centre I sould think. Where is the centre of my skin?? not my body but my skin?? can you tell me? No you can't as it s=doesnt have a centre. Have you heard of the balloon analogy?? like the universe is the surface of a ballons skin exanding? Forger the air inside as that wouldnt be there. The surface of a balloon has no centre either.

[astrocat]

Please show, quantitatively, that your idea is consistent, quantitatively, with GR.

I lost this post. Sorry. Yes, of course, if 'quantitaively' means (1.) to do with Quantity or (2.) In a measurable way - Encarta.

By a stroke of luck, Pioneer 10 & 11 have made the news because they seem to show that our Time is Slowing. And why? Well I'm asking too, except there just happens to be a cornerstone of GR that 'Time Slows Down, when it is exposed to Increasing Gravity'.

Increasing Gravity? How is your Big Bang gonna 'splain that one?

Because of our position, within the Cosmic Whirlpool, we are 'transitioning' from the 'The second, Intermediate zone. Half way down, from a zone of Stars and Black Holes, we have evolved to the third, and final stage of the Cosmos' Evolution, a zone of Least Density and, paradoxically, the Biggest Clumps. Here, all Stars get eaten. Here it's dark. Here's Mable.

There's obviously more Gravity here, at the Center. We're beginning to notice it. This increasing Gravity. We're getting neare to Mable - Naturally, and in complete harmony with all the laws of Science.

Einstein, Newton, Bernoulli, Lord Thomson and Mr Joules, these are my heros. Whether I like it or not, I owe you, Nereid, Big Time. I'm also a big fan of Dr. Allan Dressler and his Seven Samurai - who noticed a 'Pronounced Streaming Effect', at work within the Cosmos.

About Time we noticed it, too - this Increasing Gravity. I've been warning people of this in a previous post, that we're encountering bigger and bigger Gravitational Waves, only I didn't call them that, because then, I didn't know GR.

I'm sure. I'll find that post, and the date and number, and compare it to this date. And that will give you, Nereid, an actual Time Period (measurable) as well as a Number, again measurable, to show you a distance between when I said that, and being able to prove it, now, using these two small satellites.

GR is on my side. Who would'a thunk it? COBE was too. WMAP, all of them. I love these little droids, they help me so much. In a quantitative way, of course.

[Nereid]

I lost this post. Sorry. Yes, of course, if 'quantitaively' means (1.) to do with Quantity or (2.) In a measurable way - Encarta.

By a stroke of luck, Pioneer 10 & 11 have made the news because they seem to show that our Time is Slowing. And why? Well I'm asking too, except there just happens to be a cornerstone of GR that 'Time Slows Down, when it is exposed to Increasing Gravity'.

Increasing Gravity? How is your Big Bang gonna 'splain that one?

Because of our position, within the Cosmic Whirlpool, we are 'transitioning' from the 'The second, Intermediate zone. Half way down, from a zone of Stars and Black Holes, we have evolved to the third, and final stage of the Cosmos' Evolution, a zone of Least Density and, paradoxically, the Biggest Clumps. Here, all Stars get eaten. Here it's dark. Here's Mable.

There's obviously more Gravity here, at the Center. We're beginning to notice it. This increasing Gravity. We're getting neare to Mable - Naturally, and in complete harmony with all the laws of Science.

Einstein, Newton, Bernoulli, Lord Thomson and Mr Joules, these are my heros. Whether I like it or not, I owe you, Nereid, Big Time. I'm also a big fan of Dr. Allan Dressler and his Seven Samurai - who noticed a 'Pronounced Streaming Effect', at work within the Cosmos.

About Time we noticed it, too - this Increasing Gravity. I've been warning people of this in a previous post, that we're encountering bigger and bigger Gravitational Waves, only I didn't call them that, because then, I didn't know GR.

I'm sure. I'll find that post, and the date and number, and compare it to this date. And that will give you, Nereid, an actual Time Period (measurable) as well as a Number, again measurable, to show you a distance between when I said that, and being able to prove it, now, using these two small satellites.

GR is on my side. Who would'a thunk it? COBE was too. WMAP, all of them. I love these little droids, they help me so much. In a quantitative way, of course.In other posts, here in BAUT, I've used the expression 'maths, numbers, equations, and stuff' and an alternative to 'quantitative'.

It's your idea, so how you go about showing quantitative consistency is, to a large extent, up to you.

Here's a suggestion: show the consistency between your idea and the Einstein field equations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations).

Here's another suggestion: show - using math, numbers, equations and stuff - how your idea can be used to predict the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, and that such predictions match those from GR.

Whichever way you choose, do be sure to show the quantitative consistency.

- - - - - -
New question: in what way(s) is COBE on your side?

Quantitatively, of course.

[astrocat]

were you not taught about very basic GR at school or at least aware of it and that it overtook Newton??

Not that I understood it, and certainly not, of it's importance. No, it was a complete eye-opener, for me.

I know what your trying to say about the Blackhole at the centre of the universe and that we are falling into it but it doesnt have a centre does it???!!!

Everything have center. Rock have center... Must have center...

It's expanding. Locally. And among other things.

Not everythong has a centre I sould think. Where is the centre of my skin?? not my body but my skin?? can you tell me? No you can't as it s=doesnt have a centre.

Your skin is actually a spiral. It ends in the point, or center, of a spiral at the top of your head. Spirals are the most common shape, in space. They are Fractals (repeating copies of themselves) Some are thin, with long tails. Others, like the Cosmos, are flat. All, of course, have Centers.

Have you heard of the balloon analogy?? like the universe is the surface of a ballons skin exanding? Forger the air inside as that wouldnt be there. The surface of a balloon has no centre either.

It's gotta have a Center of Mass. I hate to bust your bubble. Look, do you really want to know?
Sure, Cosmos is Expanding. It's also Speeding Up, or didn't you Know? It's Cooling Down and giving Up Kinetic Energy (Background Radiation) as it loses Pressure. Agree? Yes, or no? I'm trying to help you.

[astrocat]

In other posts, here in BAUT, I've used the expression 'maths, numbers, equations, and stuff' and an alternative to 'quantitative'.

It's your idea, so how you go about showing quantitative consistency is, to a large extent, up to you.

I won't let you down, Nereid

Here's a suggestion: show the consistency between your idea and the Einstein field equations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations).

Yes, I went there, too. I admit, I just skimmed them, but I can't say I really understood them.

Here's another suggestion: show - using math, numbers, equations and stuff - how your idea can be used to predict the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, and that such predictions match those from GR.

Yes, I could make that an objective. Perhaps, in the future...

Whichever way you choose, do be sure to show the quantitative consistency. I will. I will

- - - - - -
New question: in what way(s) is COBE on your side?

Quantitatively, of course.

I'm gonna enjoy this one. This is a real can of worms!

[astrocat]

You see, as we work our way down thru' the Cosmic Vortex, we are encountering greater and greater Gravitational Forces;

Here it is, Nereid, just like I promised. Using purely Newtonian Science, I reached this conclusion (mostly from newspaper articles about shocking new Discoveries of new hyper-masive bodies, etc.) That Post was 56, made on 20 May 2007, one day, actually, before I learned about GR.

Let's say this was proved, this increasing Gravity, by the Pioneers, in a later post, the number and date I will have to come up with later, proved using GR.

Unless someone else can explain the behaviour of these Pioneers?

[astrocat]

Working down thru' the Cosmic Vortex, we cannot help but notice the growing gravitational forces acting on us, that is to say, the increasing Curvature of the Space Time Continuum. According to GR, this will cause Time to Slow Down, something very hard to detect, except from our observations of certain outward bound satellites launched decades ago, in a different Time, as it were.

These satellites are bound to show a slower than expected progress, as it now takes them longer (in our Time) to cover a certain distance, and observations of the Pioneer space crafts seem to confirm this.

In this way, GR actually helps the Mable Theory to explain 'how the Cosmos seems to 'work.'

This is Post 72, where I show the satellites prove our Time is Slowing, and offer it as proof that Gravity is Increasing.

Not too shabby, huh?

[astrocat]

This is Post 72, where I show the satellites prove our Time is Slowing, and offer it as proof that Gravity is Increasing.

Where I propose, to you, Nereid, that we are encountering growing gravitational forces - from my Newtonian Thought, in Post # 56, up to where I'm able to Prove it, in Post# 72, with my new GR, is exactly (72 - 56 = ?)

Well now, that's exactly and quantitatively, 16 Posts apart.

The number of days between where I wrote that I thought Gravity was Increasing, to where I could actually prove it, using GR, was exactly (Post#56, May 20, 2007) to Post # 72 (last edited May 23, 2007) was exactly and quantitatively, 3 Days.

16 Posts, and 3 Days showed me how much better GR was than Newtonian.

16 Posts, 3 Days, show how admirably the Mable Theory hold up to this new GR Proof. That Gravity is Increasing.

[Thanatos]

So what are you saying . . . the universe is what, 6000 years old? Hilarious.

[astrocat]

So what are you saying . . . the universe is what, 6000 years old? Hilarious.

Actually, more like 6 trillion years old. These gravitational monsters that we are meeting now, in the third and final zone of the Cosmos' Evolution, are so massive, each of them, and have been evolving for so long, that they are by now ancient 'beyond numbers'.

Am I still all alone, in this thread? Can't anybody help out - about these Pioneers, for example. Noboby has any thoughts on the matter, at all?

[Nereid]

So what are you saying . . . the universe is what, 6000 years old? Hilarious.Actually, more like 6 trillion years old. [snip]Yet the oldest stars are only ~13 billion years old ... where are all the 15 billion, 50 billion, 100 billion, 300 billion, 1 trillion, 3 trillion year old stars?Am I still all alone, in this thread? Can't anybody help out - about these Pioneers, for example. Noboby has any thoughts on the matter, at all?I think you may have misunderstood the intention of this ATM section of BAUT ...

[czeslaw]

Actually, more like 6 trillion years old. These gravitational monsters that we are meeting now, in the third and final zone of the Cosmos' Evolution, are so massive, each of them, and have been evolving for so long, that they are by now ancient 'beyond numbers'.

Am I still all alone, in this thread? Can't anybody help out - about these Pioneers, for example. Noboby has any thoughts on the matter, at all?

There are many ideas about Pioneers anomalous acceleration.
I have my idea among them. You may read WEIGHT OF THE SPACE'S ENERGY (VACUUM) http://www.blackholes.int.pl/

You may read also works of Milgrom, Chapline, Laughlin and others which I don't know.

[jamini]

Actually, [the age of the universe is] more like 6 trillion years old.
What is your basis of facts for this hypothesis?

Am I still all alone, in this thread? Can't anybody help out - about these Pioneers, for example. Noboby has any thoughts on the matter, at all?
The Pioneer anomalies have already been thoroughly explained (http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Anomalous/Acceleration.html) using standard physics, due to the presence of dust in the Kuiper belt.

.

[czeslaw]

The Pioneer anomalies have already been thoroughly explained (http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Anomalous/Acceleration.html) using standard physics, due to the presence of dust in the Kuiper belt.

.

Yours link is from 2003 year. But in 2007 is it not clear still what is the cause of the Pioneer anomalous acceleration.
When all known forces acting on the spacecraft are taken into consideration, a very small but unexplained force remains. It causes a constant sunward acceleration of (8.74 ± 1.33) × 10−10 m/s2 for both spacecraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly

[jamini]

Yours link is from 2003 year. But in 2007 is it not clear still what is the cause of the Pioneer anomalous acceleration.
When all known forces acting on the spacecraft are taken into consideration, a very small but unexplained force remains. It causes a constant sunward acceleration of (8.74 ± 1.33) × 10−10 m/s2 for both spacecraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
From your source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly):
Possible explanations
Explanations for the discrepancy that have been considered include:
observational errors, including measurement and computational errors, in deriving the acceleration.
Approximation/statistical errors
Significant errors in computation are not likely since (at current count) 5 independent analyses have shown the effect.
a real deceleration not accounted for in the current model, such as:
gravitational forces from unidentified sources such as the Kuiper belt or dark matter.[emphasis added]

Specifically, what explanations, mathematics, conclusions, etc. from the 2003 article (http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Anomalous/Acceleration.html) do you disagree with?

.

[czeslaw]

From your source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly):


Specifically, what explanations, mathematics, conclusions, etc. from the 2003 article (http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Anomalous/Acceleration.html) do you disagree with?

.

Every possibilities remain still.
The dust in Kuiper belt is pushed by a solar wind the grains could decelerate Pioneer but the grains strike like gun and there isn't any demage?
This solution has to be veryfied more exactly.

[jamini]

This solution has to be veryfied more exactly.
I have no problem with that. But considering the most likely explanations, we certainly do not need to start by re-writing physics, as the OP seems to imply. ;)

[astrocat]

where are all the 15 billion, 50 billion, 100 billion, 300 billion, 1 trillion, 3 trillion year old stars? I never said they were Stars, Nereid. I said they were 'structures', I think.

'Where' they are is at the as yet undiscovered center. What about this extra Gravity we're encountering? Any thoughts on the matter?

I think you may have misunderstood the intention of this ATM section of BAUT ...

I'm only 'ATM' because the mainstream hasn't visited this thread. If they did, Nereid, they'd see clearly what I was trying to say, and the predictions I've been making - that are actually coming true as we speak.

I told you Gravity was Increasing. Then I proved it. This is GR, People.

I need help. This is a huge undertaking - to convince the World, all by myself. It's too great a responsibility. You can help! Straighten out these critics for me, so that I don't have to waste my Time on them. Get to them before I do, and send them packing..

COBE proved conclusively and 'quantitatively' (in other words, in a way relating to 'quantity' - Encarta) in this case, to the ultimate degree, that the Early Universe started out in a manner that was perfectly smooth, warm and evenly distributed, with no sign of any Clumps or Big Bang, anywhere.

[czeslaw]

I have no problem with that. But considering the most likely explanations, we certainly do not need to start by re-writing physics, as the OP seems to imply. ;)

I agree.
In my idea of Dark Matter (as possible explanation) there is an existing Vacuum Energy with its relativistic mass. Vacuum Energy is mainstream and relativistic mass is mainstream. No new physics.

[astrocat]

There are many ideas about Pioneers anomalous acceleration. De-celleration, actually, czeslaw. That's De-celleration. Let's be clear.

I have my idea among them. You may read WEIGHT OF THE SPACE'S ENERGY (VACUUM) http://www.blackholes.int.pl/

Went there, Yes, yes, in the void, there is some Energy. This will slow objects.

But the Increasing Gravity, Czeslaw; the Increasing Gravity..?

You may read also works of Milgrom, Chapline, Laughlin and others which I don't know.

They're probably Big Bangers. Seems that's all there is... Now, about this Increasing Gravity...

[jamini]

I never said they were Stars, Nereid. I said they were 'structures', I think.
Then what are these “structures” comprised of?


'Where' they are is at the as yet undiscovered centery. What about this extra Gravity we're encountering? Any thoughts on the matter?
Where are they? Beyond our universal horizon? In other dimensions? Where is this “center”? How do you account for this mathematically?

I'm only 'ATM' because the mainstream hasn't visited this thread. If they did, Nereid, they'd see clearly what I was trying to say, and the predictions I've been making - that are actually coming true as we speak.
Such as?

I told you Gravity was Increasing. Then I proved it. This is GR, People.
Please be much more specific. Where and by how much is gravity increasing? How does your perception of this coincide with GR and the equivalence principal? What predictions have you made and specifically what observations confirmed those predictions?

I need help. This is a huge undertaking - to convince the World, all by myself. It's too great a responsibility. You can help! Straighten out these critics for me, so that I don't have to waste my Time on them. Get to them before I do, and send them packing..
If you want to convince a single person – let alone the whole world, you are going to have to produce a theory that explains our reality at least as well as GR. Answering Nereid’s questions about Mercury and producing your own solutions to the field equations would be a good start.

COBE proved conclusively and 'quantitatively' (in other words, in a way relating to 'quantity' - Encarta) in this case, to the ultimate degree, that the Early Universe started out in a manner that was perfectly smooth, warm and evenly distributed, with no sign of any Clumps or Big Bang, anywhere.
On large spatial scales, the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic; that is our basic cosmological principal. However, WMAP clearly depicts clumpy areas that later formed our galaxies.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_ig/060917/CMB_ILC_PolMap36.jpg

What exactly are you trying to suggest?

[jamini]

De-celleration, actually, czeslaw. That's De-celleration. Let's be clear.
The Pioneer anomaly is most commonly attributed to a slight ACELLERATION towards the sun.

[astrocat]

The Pioneer anomalies have already been thoroughly explained (http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Anomalous/Acceleration.html) using standard physics, due to the presence of dust in the Kuiper belt.

And this 'dust' wasn't expected or allowed for in Pioneers planned trajectory? How negligent of Pioneers' handlers!

Your Theory seems complicated.

Our Time is slower. Means Gravity Increasing. Tenet of GR.

[jamini]

And this 'dust' wasn't expected or allowed for in Pioneers planned trajectory? How negligent of Pioneers' handlers!

Your Theory seems complicated.
No, it was not expected. But is an oversight more complicated than re-writing all of physics?

What is less complicated: Including Kuiper belt dust or DM in existing equations or re-writing the whole of physics? And what possible rational have you produced to warrant the latter? Your belief that there exists a massive undetected black hole in an undefined "center" of some part of the universe that we are unable to observe, that has somehow remained unaccounted for throughout the history of astronomy? Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?

Our Time is slower. Means Gravity Increasing. Tenet of GR.
What exactly are you trying to say here? Models, math, predictions, observations, etc. please!

[astrocat]

Every possibilities remain still.
The dust in Kuiper belt is pushed by a solar wind the grains could decelerate Pioneer but the grains strike like gun and there isn't any demage?
This solution has to be veryfied more exactly.

Right on, Czeslaw. I realised right away, when they started talking about the 'Kuiper Belt, or possible Dark Matter.'

Cold Dark Matter (CDM)is my specialty! Any Time I hear it mentioned, especially by Big Bangers, it sets off alarm bells inside me. The Big Bang, and CDM are opposites, one forbids the other. CDM, tho' is real.

[jamini]

Right on, Czeslaw. I realised right away, when they started talking about the 'Kuiper Belt, or possible Dark Matter.'

Cold Dark Matter (CDM)is my specialty! Any Time I hear it mentioned, especially by Big Bangers, it sets off alarm bells inside me. The Big Bang, and CDM are opposites, one forbids the other. CDM, tho' is real.[emphasis added]

I take it you are not familiar with the Lambda-CDM_model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model)

[Tensor]

'Where' they are is at the as yet undiscovered center. What about this extra Gravity we're encountering? Any thoughts on the matter?

You haven't showed that there is a center. In fact, you haven't even defined what manifold or metric you are using, what type of topology the manifold has, or how the manifold isn't isotropic.

I'm only 'ATM' because the mainstream hasn't visited this thread. If they did, Nereid, they'd see clearly what I was trying to say, and the predictions I've been making - that are actually coming true as we speak.

Actually, this mainstreamer, has no idea what you are talking about and has not seen any kind of calculation using GR from you. So far, your idea is nothing more than claims, without any kind of justification. Basically, you are creating a word salad.

I told you Gravity was Increasing. Then I proved it. This is GR, People.

No it's not GR. GR is made up of the equations that Nereid linked to and to quote you:

Yes, I went there, too. I admit, I just skimmed them, but I can't say I really understood them.

If you don't understand them, then you really don't know GR, you really haven't proved anything in GR, and most importantly, you haven't even used GR. BTW, to answer you question from my previous post, that link is GR.

I need help. This is a huge undertaking - to convince the World, all by myself. It's too great a responsibility. You can help! Straighten out these critics for me, so that I don't have to waste my Time on them. Get to them before I do, and send them packing.

Well, as soon as you start providing some actual support for your ideas, the critics might go away.

COBE proved conclusively and 'quantitatively' (in other words, in a way relating to 'quantity' - Encarta) in this case, to the ultimate degree, that the Early Universe started out in a manner that was perfectly smooth, warm and evenly distributed, with no sign of any Clumps or Big Bang, anywhere.

False. The COBE (http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/) site specifically says (In the section labeled DRE) that there are tiny variations in the intensity of the MBR. It is not perfectly smooth. It seems your entire idea is based on false assumptions, without any kind of theoretical support from GR.

[bigsplit]

Actually, whether or not a Universal Attractor exists has no impact on GR equations, and it does not require the rewriting of the whole of physics either. Such statements are totally over the top. As for Occum.....a Universal Attrator is not so complicated.....all observed galaxies have BHs as do Galaxy Clusters. So absent the cosmological principle, occum's razor would require such a deduction unless shown otherwise. Also, a universal attractor and a funnel shaped universe actually predict the acceleration of expansion...no other model does so without the post-hoc hypothesis of dark energy. That leads back to the question of whether the cosmological principle is dogmaticly based on backlash towards the dogma and atrocities of the Church of the Dark Ages.

As for astrocat, he is hung up on the Pioneer anamolies for some reason. Admittedly, I have not looked into it with any form of depth, but my instincts tell me that any effects from a SMBH would be consistant across our galaxy much less our solar system, so this would not be good evidence at first glance. Astro, needs to be much more specific as to why this is not the case.

But the idea of a Universal attractor and a funnel shaped universe cannot be so easily dismissed. Although it is certainly against the mainstream, it has certainly not been falsified.

[astrocat]

So what are you saying . . . the universe is what, 6000 years old? Hilarious.

And you, Thanatos... a senior member.

[astrocat]

Every possibilities remain still.

This is true. You can't dismiss the 'relativatey' solution yet.

The ... the grains could decelerate Pioneer but the grains strike like gun and there isn't any demage?

Good point. These grains would have caused significant damage, had they struck Pioneer.

This solution has to be veryfied more exactly.

Amen to that, Bro'.

[jamini]

[snip]As for Occum [sic] .....a Universal Attrator[sic] is not so complicated.....all observed galaxies have BHs as do Galaxy Clusters. So absent the cosmological principle, occum's[sic] razor would require such a deduction unless shown otherwise. Also, a universal attractor and a funnel shaped universe actually predict the acceleration of expansion...no other model does so without the post-hoc hypothesis of dark energy. That leads back to the question of whether the cosmological principle is dogmaticly[sic] based on backlash towards the dogma and atrocities of the Church of the Dark Ages.

As for astrocat, [sic] he is hung up on the Pioneer anamolies[sic] for some reason. Admittedly, I have not looked into it with any form of depth, but my instincts tell me that any effects from a SMBH would be consistant [sic] across our galaxy much less our solar system, so this would not be good evidence at first glance. Astro, needs to be much more specific as to why this is not the case.

But the idea of a Universal attractor and a funnel shaped universe cannot be so easily dismissed. Although it is certainly against the mainstream, it has certainly not been falsified.

Well, the flying spaghetti monster theory hasn't been falsified yet either. Really, I do not understand the point of your post. Are you here to help defend the OP's ATM idea or to advocate your own?

If you have a model for a SMBH-centric funnel universe please post it or start your own ATM topic. If it's really "not so complicated" as you say, it should be a relatively easy task.

I will look forward to seeing your formulae, predictions, observations and experimental data to support your claims.

I would also be interested in knowing what constitute your own personal non-dogmatic cosmological principal(s).

.

[jamini]

astrocat – I notice that you are responding to posts after mine. I would appreciate replies to the direct pertinent questions I asked here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=994392&postcount=105), here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=994532&postcount=113) and here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=994549&postcount=116).

.

[astrocat]

Then what are these “structures” comprised of?

CDM (Cold Dark Matter).

Where are they? Beyond our universal horizon?

Near the Axis.

In other dimensions?

We know there's a limit to our visual horizon. Very distant Stars are 'winking out'. Yeah, out there.

Where is this “center”? [\QUOTE]

Half way along the Axis, of course. If the Axis stretches from Sextans to Aquila, I estimate a half way point would be somewhere - perhaps right in the center of... the Corona Borealis. Nobody ever asked me this, before.

[QUOTE]How do you account for this mathematically?

How else (without using Gravity) can we describe the Speeding Up Expansion we see, except by installing 'in the Space between objects', some 'Repulsive Force' to push everything apart?

But since there really is 'nothing ' - 'in the Spacebetween objects, my math tells me that no matter how much Space you look in, nothing times any amount will still leave you nothing. Like this, 0 x (symbol for infinity) = 0

There really is nothing 'in the Space between objects', and you can never claim to have found anything there.

Such as?

Such as, Big Bangs, Dark Energy to name only two.

Please be much more specific. Where and by how much is gravity increasing?

In this Time (2007) and in this particular progression, or zone, of Cosmic Evolution.

Gravity is Increasing at a rate that has Slowed our Time enough to spot a discrepancy in the paths of the Pioneer satellites.

or How does your perception of this coincide with GR and the equivalence principal?

Rather than SR (Special Relativity) and the Equivalence Equation E=mc squared, if that's what you mean, I use GR (General Relativity) to explain my perception of this.

What predictions have you made

...That we are encountering ever greater Gravitational Waves. (See Post 56) This has Slowed our Time.

and specifically what observations confirmed those predictions?

This prediction was confirmed by observations of the, as yet unexplained, De-celleration of the two Pioneer craft.

If you want to convince a single person – let alone the whole world, you are going to have to produce a theory that explains our reality at least as well as GR. Answering Nereid’s questions about Mercury and producing your own solutions to the field equations would be a good start.

I know about the 'precession of Mercury's perigees' as it obits the Sun.

On large spatial scales, the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic;

What you call Smooth, I call Lumpy. One of us is wrong.

that is our basic cosmological principal. However, WMAP clearly depicts clumpy areas that later formed our galaxies.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_ig/060917/CMB_ILC_PolMap36.jpg

So glad you can see the Cosmos has Clumped Up.

What exactly are you trying to suggest?

1. That the Cosmos is falling.
2. In the form of a Whirlpool
3. Into a Black Hole, just like I say in my first Post.

[astrocat]

No, it was not expected. But is an oversight more complicated than re-writing all of physics?

That's your forte, isn't it. To get your universe going you need to 'add' a Big Bang, then to Speed it Up, you need to 'add' Dark Energy. Here, you're 'adding' Space Dust, just to help your argument. That's unscientific.

What is less complicated: Including Kuiper belt dust or DM in existing equations See, you're admitting it. That's stupid.

or re-writing the whole of physics? There will have to be some rewriting, when Science takes its rightful place in Astronomy.

And what possible rational have you produced to warrant the latter? History is bigger than you or me.

Your belief that there exists a massive undetected black hole in an undefined "center" ...clearly defined "center" - the Corona Borelis.

of some part of the universe that we are unable to observe, that has somehow remained unaccounted for throughout the history of astronomy? You're beginning to get it.

Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? It's a warning not to go 'adding' things. You should listen to it. Or me.


What exactly are you trying to say here? Models, math, predictions, observations, etc. please! A model? A Central Vac placed in the middle of a floor, will draw the dust inwards. This dust Speeds Up, Cools Down, Etc., all the things the Cosmos is doing.

Yes, there's a motor. I'm not 'adding' it. It's already there, it's called Gravity. That's one model. I got plenty.

One thing I have over you - I don't have to 'add'. As we progress thru' the Evolutionary Phases of Cosmic Development, Clumps happen. That's more Gravity. Black Holes, too. More towards the center.

As we near center, near Black Holes. Gravity Increase. Slow Time. Make satellite look late. Nothing 'added'.

But satellite not late - just look late. Pioneer where it should be and right on Time!

[Michael Noonan]

I like Mabel she has a nice name.

It is her shape that is most intriguing.

Do we have to assume that she is simply round or is she allowed to take on an incredibly challenging shape with the universe wrapped around her like a shawl.

Fun I know but I think you are very close to the truth. There most likely is just one black hole as the power house of our universe if you allow Mabel to have her shape as absolutely dynamic and flowing.

I hope that helps cheers Mike :)

[astrocat]

I like Mabel she has a nice name.

It is her shape that is most intriguing.

Do we have to assume that she is simply round or is she allowed to take on an incredibly challenging shape with the universe wrapped around her like a shawl.

Fun I know but I think you are very close to the truth. There most likely is just one black hole as the power house of our universe if you allow Mabel to have her shape as absolutely dynamic and flowing.

I hope that helps cheers Mike :)

You, Michael Noonan, Sir, are an artist. In every sense of the word.

[astrocat]

Yours link is from 2003 year. But in 2007 is it not clear still what is the cause of the Pioneer anomalous acceleration.
When all known forces acting on the spacecraft are taken into consideration, a very small but unexplained force remains. It causes a constant sunward acceleration of (8.74 ± 1.33) × 10−10 m/s2 for both spacecraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly

This is most valuable information. Czeslaw, you are a True Scientist.

[rebel]

astrocat,

[One thing I have over you - I don't have to 'add'.

I also have a theory of the creation of the universe and my model doesn't need to "add" more theories to make it work.

[How else (without using Gravity) can we describe the Speeding Up Expansion we see, except by installing 'in the Space between objects', some 'Repulsive Force' to push everything apart?

But since there really is 'nothing ' - 'in the Spacebetween objects, my math tells me that no matter how much Space you look in, nothing times any amount will still leave you nothing. Like this, 0 x (symbol for infinity) = 0

There really is nothing 'in the Space between objects', and you can never claim to have found anything there.

My model also explains the expansions we see between masses as well as the universe. There are equations for my model that prove there is "something" between mass (or atoms). If you would like to read my theory its the post called "My theory of the creation of the universe". Unfortunately it was closed before I could further explain my position.

There will have to be some rewriting, when Science takes its rightful place in Astronomy.

I just thought that I would drop in and agree with some of your strong points, because if science had been right for at least 50 years then the answers would all be known by now. Text books will definitely need to be rewritten!

As I read more and more "ideas" from different peoples standpoints and review the facts, it is more than obvious that science has instituted to many "theories" into creation, gravity, light, and mass. Unfortunately science's "fame" hunters really aren't looking for the truth, they are looking for the all mighty dollar, witch only distracts us from the truth. Some of the "scientific facts" have been misdiagnosed and mislabeled, leading to most of the different "ideas" and "theories". This problem will not be solved by the first person to prove that there theory is right, but by proving that the other theories are wrong. Good luck astrocat!

[bigsplit]

Well, the flying spaghetti monster theory hasn't been falsified yet either. Really, I do not understand the point of your post. Are you here to help defend the OP's ATM idea or to advocate your own?

If you have a model for a SMBH-centric funnel universe please post it or start your own ATM topic. If it's really "not so complicated" as you say, it should be a relatively easy task.

I will look forward to seeing your formulae, predictions, observations and experimental data to support your claims.

I would also be interested in knowing what constitute your own personal non-dogmatic cosmological principal(s).

.

Been there done that. My idea is well beyond what Astrocat is proposing, as mine starts at t=0. I make some rather wild accusations about there being no singularity within a BH and no gradient either. My idea has been delayed (at the time coined rji by nereid), and I am not posting it now because I was asked to describe the nucleosynthesis of my beginnings which for your info avoids the greater than c expansion used by the standard BB to avoid recollapse problem. I described a brane decay and subsequent synthesis....in not a very quantitative manner. Worked has been done on this front since my idea has been active by others who are professionals (not affiliated with me in any way).

http://www.physorg.com/news63041667.html

And you must be aware of the ideas of brane collisions.

Feel free to look back at my early postings and read them.... I know this board well and am not prepared to force Nereid to continue to repeat herself over and over.

As for Astrocat's idea, I agree with his concept and have argued the same for nearly 10 years now.

Maybe I should post my idea again from beginning to end with all of the relevant research that may support it.

As for the cosmological principle - what is the point of it? Either there is or there isn't a special place, and there has been some evidence that says it may be wrong. So since there certainly is the possibility that it may be wrong, the incorporation of such a principle only generates tunnel vision in which data is analyzed and interpreted.....dogma.

As for formulae - I do not have any, you can look at the above link for some of the brane decay work done by others.

Predictions - I had a couple successful ones - Steiner comes to mind - and rji (or as I prefer the Big Split) also predicts acceleration of expansion without exotic energy (perhaps its greatest strength)

I make some predictions about SN data at the same z. SNAP should be able to show whether this is right or wrong. I predict a minority percentage of bodies at any given z are accelerating at a greater rate than the majority.

The claims of Astrocat concerning the existance of a Universal Attractor should not be so difficult to grasp, particularily for someone who uses a word like formulae. If you think it is wrong then say so and why....other that the CP dogma.

[astrocat]

I take it you are not familiar with the Lambda-CDM_model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model)

This is nothing but Einstein's Fudge, and you shouldn't be playing with it, otherwise you'll get it all over yourself. So put it down this instant. Yech!!!!

[astrocat]

astrocat,

[QUOTE] I also have a theory of the creation of the universe and my model doesn't need to "add" more theories to make it work.

That's great, Rebel

My model also explains the expansions we see between masses as well as the universe. There are equations for my model that prove there is "something" between mass (or atoms). If you would like to read my theory its the post called "My theory of the creation of the universe". Unfortunately it was closed before I could further explain my position.

I just thought that I would drop in and agree with some of your strong points, because if science had been right for at least 50 years then the answers would all be known by now. Text books will definitely need to be rewritten!

As I read more and more "ideas" from different peoples standpoints and review the facts, it is more than obvious that science has instituted to many "theories" into creation, gravity, light, and mass. Unfortunately science's "fame" hunters really aren't looking for the truth, they are looking for the all mighty dollar, witch only distracts us from the truth. Some of the "scientific facts" have been misdiagnosed and mislabeled, leading to most of the different "ideas" and "theories". This problem will not be solved by the first person to prove that there theory is right, but by proving that the other theories are wrong. Good luck astrocat!

Hey...Thanks, Rebel.

[astrocat]

Been there done that. My idea is well beyond what Astrocat is proposing, as mine starts at t=0. I make some rather wild accusations about there being no singularity within a BH and no gradient either. My idea has been delayed (at the time coined rji by nereid), and I am not posting it now because I was asked to describe the nucleosynthesis of my beginnings which for your info avoids the greater than c expansion used by the standard BB to avoid recollapse problem. I described a brane decay and subsequent synthesis....in not a very quantitative manner. Worked has been done on this front since my idea has been active by others who are professionals (not affiliated with me in any way).

http://www.physorg.com/news63041667.html

And you must be aware of the ideas of brane collisions.

Feel free to look back at my early postings and read them.... I know this board well and am not prepared to force Nereid to continue to repeat herself over and over.

As for Astrocat's idea, I agree with his concept and have argued the same for nearly 10 years now.

Maybe I should post my idea again from beginning to end with all of the relevant research that may support it.

As for the cosmological principle - what is the point of it? Either there is or there isn't a special place, and there has been some evidence that says it may be wrong. So since there certainly is the possibility that it may be wrong, the incorporation of such a principle only generates tunnel vision in which data is analyzed and interpreted.....dogma.

As for formulae - I do not have any, you can look at the above link for some of the brane decay work done by others.

Predictions - I had a couple successful ones - Steiner comes to mind - and rji (or as I prefer the Big Split) also predicts acceleration of expansion without exotic energy (perhaps its greatest strength)

I make some predictions about SN data at the same z. SNAP should be able to show whether this is right or wrong. I predict a minority percentage of bodies at any given z are accelerating at a greater rate than the majority.

The claims of Astrocat concerning the existance of a Universal Attractor should not be so difficult to grasp, particularily for someone who uses a word like formulae. If you think it is wrong then say so and why....other that the CP dogma.

Thanks, Bigsplit. I think.

[Palomar]

The Cosmos is falling into Black Hole.

The cosmos is expanding.

This shouldn't be any surprise as we're already falling into the Black hole at the center of our Galaxy.

Can you refer us to a scientific journal/article which advances this notion? I've yet to see one.

Our galaxy is moving towards a collision with the Andromeda Galaxy. Besides, Sag A* isn't large enough (no black hole is) to suck all galactic matter into itself. And unless my understanding is flawed, the area immediately preceding an event horizon is relatively calm.

Black holes "feed" for a while, then become dormant; a cycle.

Someone please check my cosmology.

[jamini]

Originally Posted by jamini
Then what are these “structures” comprised of?
CDM (Cold Dark Matter).
Well, we already believe that DM permeates the universe; nothing new here. What evidence or observational analysis can you produce to support your claim that these “structures” are “Actually, more like 6 trillion years old.”?


Originally Posted by jamini
Where are they? Beyond our universal horizon?
Near the Axis.
This is not an answer. First, you must demonstrate that there is an “axis”. Can you do this?

Originally Posted by jamini
In other dimensions?
We know there's a limit to our visual horizon. Very distant Stars are 'winking out'. Yeah, out there.
Do you not understand the difference between a universal horizon and other dimensions or are you saying they are one and the same?

Please elaborate on what you mean by “winking out”. I am not familiar with that term.

Originally Posted by jamini
Where is this “center”?
Half way along the Axis, of course. If the Axis stretches from Sextans to Aquila, I estimate a half way point would be somewhere - perhaps right in the center of... the Corona Borealis. Nobody ever asked me this, before.
Here you disprove your own belief by setting a mid point and placing boundaries within our visible universe. If your so-called “center” of the universe did in fact reside at Corona Borealis, our observations would demonstrate that; they do not. This statement alone falsifies your belief; or at best, reveals severe internal inconsistencies that render your premise meaningless.

Originally Posted by jamini
How do you account for this mathematically?
How else (without using Gravity) can we describe the Speeding Up Expansion we see, except by installing 'in the Space between objects', some 'Repulsive Force' to push everything apart? But since there really is 'nothing ' - 'in the Spacebetween objects, my math tells me that no matter how much Space you look in, nothing times any amount will still leave you nothing. Like this, 0 x (symbol for infinity) = 0 There really is nothing 'in the Space between objects', and you can never claim to have found anything there.
This is not an answer. If you are unable to provide any mathematics to support your beliefs, please say so. This whole discussion is strictly philosophical anyway; let’s start accepting it for what it really is.




Originally Posted by astrocat
I'm only 'ATM' because the mainstream hasn't visited this thread. If they did, Nereid, they'd see clearly what I was trying to say, and the predictions I've been making - that are actually coming true as we speak.[emphasis added]
Originally Posted by jamini
Such as?
Such as, Big Bangs, Dark Energy to name only two.
So you are taking credit for predicting the Big Bang and Dark Energy? I think it’s more likely you misunderstood my question. I am asking you specifically what predictions you have made that are “actually coming true as we speak”. What I am looking for is your published papers with mathematical models based on observational data that make specific predictions; then, demonstrating how those predictions have been tested and proven. I am asking you to demonstrate what you said you have done. Please either do so or retract your statement.

Originally Posted by jamini
Please be much more specific. Where and by how much is gravity increasing?
In this Time (2007) and in this particular progression, or zone, of Cosmic Evolution. Gravity is Increasing at a rate that has Slowed our Time enough to spot a discrepancy in the paths of the Pioneer satellites.
This is another non answer. If you do not understand the question, please say so. Otherwise please provide a direct quantitative answer with demonstrable observational analysis.

Originally Posted by jamini
or How does your perception of this coincide with GR and the equivalence principal?
Rather than SR (Special Relativity) and the Equivalence Equation E=mc squared, if that's what you mean, I use GR (General Relativity) to explain my perception of this.
That is not an answer but perhaps I phrased my question poorly. I’ll try again:

1. How does your perception of “Gravity is Increasing at a rate that has Slowed our Time enough to spot a discrepancy in the paths of the Pioneer” differ from the explanations already provided by using classical physics and DM or Kuiper belt dust?

2. How does your perception of same agree or disagree with the equivalence principal?

Please note that I am not soliciting your personal opinions. I am asking for the specific mathematical equations that demonstrate any deviations from those already provided by classical physics.

Originally Posted by jamini
What predictions have you made
...That we are encountering ever greater Gravitational Waves. (See Post 56) This has Slowed our Time.
Please describe your interpretation of “gravitational waves”. Have you directly observed these waves? I would also like to see the equations that quantify your claims. Specifically, by exactly how much and over what period of time have gravitational waves increased? Are you claiming the inverse square law needs revision? If so, by exactly how much and over what time parameters? Again, please refrain from further word salad. If you are unable to produce specific quantifiable mathematical data please say so.

Originally Posted by jamini
and specifically what observations confirmed those predictions?
This prediction was confirmed by observations of the, as yet unexplained, De-celleration of the two Pioneer craft.
So a “yet unexplained” observation has proven your yet quantifiable or observable belief? You are going to have to do much better than this. How does one necessarily deduce the other? Again, numbers, observations, predictions and observational analysis only. If all you have is more word salad, please spare us and state that you are unable to produce any models with mathematically supportive data.

Originally Posted by jamini
If you want to convince a single person – let alone the whole world, you are going to have to produce a theory that explains our reality at least as well as GR. Answering Nereid’s questions about Mercury and producing your own solutions to the field equations would be a good start.
I know about the 'precession of Mercury's perigees' as it obits the Sun.
That’s great but it does not answer my question. Actually it was Nereid’s question. If you are unable to answer it, please say so.

Originally Posted by jamini
On large spatial scales, the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic
What you call Smooth, I call Lumpy. One of us is wrong.
There is obviously further misunderstanding here. Please look up the scientific definitions for homogeneous and isotropic and then respond.

Originally Posted by jamini
That is our basic cosmological principal. However, WMAP clearly depicts clumpy areas that later formed our galaxies
So glad you can see the Cosmos has Clumped Up.
So what specifically about this in incongruent with your beliefs? Do you agree or disagree with our basic cosmological principal? If you disagree, I would like to know of your own cosmological principal(s).


Originally Posted by jamini
What exactly are you trying to suggest?

1. That the Cosmos is falling.
2. In the form of a Whirlpool
3. Into a Black Hole, just like I say in my first Post.
1. Falling from and to where? Again, only numbers and direct verifiable observational analysis.

2. Please produce your whirlpool model. Or is this just an image you are imagining in your own mind?

3. Yes, I know – the super-duper BH in the “center” of our universe. Do you have a model with observational data and measured predictions or is this just something else you have concocted in your own mind?

Do you understand the difference between philosophy and science?

.

[Jim]

astrocat, your last two responses to jamini included rude and insulting remarks. Temper them! This is a warning.

[jamini]

That's your forte, isn't it. To get your universe going you need to 'add' a Big Bang, then to Speed it Up, you need to 'add' Dark Energy. Here, you're 'adding' Space Dust, just to help your argument. That's unscientific.
Yet in over 100 posts you have yet to produce a single shred of scientific evidence. That you have not done so speaks volumes about your “scientific” methodology. If you have the models, numbers, observations, etc. to back your claims please produce them or say you are unable to do so. So far, all we have is your philosophical opinions that tend to contradict our observations.

See, you're admitting it. That's stupid.
This is nothing but an ad hom. Please answer the question.

There will have to be some rewriting, when Science takes its rightful place in Astronomy.
Please elaborate on exactly what it is that you are implying. What in your mind is the current state of Astronomy?

History is bigger than you or me.
This is not an answer. Please provide direct specific answers to direct pertinent questions. Note that “I don’t know” is an acceptable response.

...clearly defined "center" - the Corona Borelis.
Then why do our observations directly conflict with this belief? What data can you produce to lend even the slightest bit of credence to this claim?


You're beginning to get it.
Get what?

It's a warning not to go 'adding' things. You should listen to it. Or me.
This is another borderline ad hom and direct evasion of the question. If you are not able to answer the questions please say so. Note that “because I say so” is not an adequate substitute for scientific data.

A model? A Central Vac placed in the middle of a floor, will draw the dust inwards. This dust Speeds Up, Cools Down, Etc., all the things the Cosmos is doing.
That is a conception. Now demonstrate the model, complete with equations, predictions, observations and experimental data.

Yes, there's a motor. I'm not 'adding' it. It's already there, it's called Gravity. That's one model. I got plenty.
See above.

One thing I have over you - I don't have to 'add'. As we progress thru' the Evolutionary Phases of Cosmic Development, Clumps happen. That's more Gravity. Black Holes, too. More towards the center.
You have not presented anything to add to - or do anything with for that matter. That’s what we are waiting for.

As we near center, near Black Holes. Gravity Increase. Slow Time. Make satellite look late. Nothing 'added'.
Nothing presented either, besides a purely philosophical conjecture. If you have evidence to support this please present it.

But satellite not late - just look late. Pioneer where it should be and right on Time!
Please produce the specific equations that demonstrate the precise time parameters to define and quantify “late” and “right on time”.

[jamini]

Been there done that. My idea is well beyond what Astrocat is proposing, as mine starts at t=0. I make some rather wild accusations about there being no singularity within a BH and no gradient either…
I am extremely familiar with string/M theory and many other multi-dimensional theories. However I am not aware of any that require a “center” to our universe, much less with a black hole residing there. The problem is, most require as yet undetected massless particles, such as a Graviton. Perhaps the new LHC at CERN or Fermilab will lead to new discoveries and I for one am hopeful that they will. However, in the mean time, such discussions are purely philosophical and really offer little value to an astronomical community.

Now I understand why you posted in this obviously purely philosophical topic, which has hence far produced no actual scientific data from the OP.

[astrocat]

The cosmos is expanding.

Din't you read my first Post? That's Post # 1, where I show that this Expansion, is just one of the things the Cosmos is doing. It's also Cooling Down, Etc., essentially doing all the things falling bodies do.

Can you refer us to a scientific journal/article which advances this notion? I've yet to see one.

There is a book on E-Bay, right now, as we speak, called 'The Black Hole at The Center of The Universe, or, MEET MABLE.' It's $5.00, Palomar. I'm afraid, at this Time, that's all there is!

Our galaxy is moving towards a collision with the Andromeda Galaxy. Besides, Sag A* isn't large enough (no black hole is) to suck all galactic matter into itself. And unless my understanding is flawed, the area immediately preceding an event horizon is relatively calm.

Well, okay. Right up close to a Black Hole, where Newton Followers can't go, the immense Gravity slows Time so much (according to GR) that it seems to take forever to fall in.

Black holes "feed" for a while, then become dormant; a cycle.

Black Holes feed constantly, ordering their meals into long Galactic chains.

Then, towards the center, where it's a void, they are forced to eat their Accretion Discs (Galaxies) or else have them ripped away, in fierce, Hi-Speed battles w. other starving Black Holes.

Here, in this zone of Least Density, paradoxically, we find the most massive Black Holes. Stars can't survive - it's completely dark and cold. These Black Holes, of course, don't have Accretion Discs. Nearing the Center, we can expect to see more of these 'Discless' Black Holes. I believe one has been spotted already. Ominous.

Someone please check my cosmology.

You're okay, Palomar

[bigsplit]

I am extremely familiar with string/M theory and many other multi-dimensional theories. However I am not aware of any that require a “center” to our universe, much less with a black hole residing there. The problem is, most require as yet undetected massless particles, such as a Graviton. Perhaps the new LHC at CERN or Fermilab will lead to new discoveries and I for one am hopeful that they will. However, in the mean time, such discussions are purely philosophical and really offer little value to an astronomical community.

Now I understand why you posted in this obviously purely philosophical topic, which has hence far produced no actual scientific data from the OP.

Without a doubt you know much more about string/m theory than I do. And I could not agree with you more, that my ideas are purely philosophical, I am just here throwing apples hoping to hit a future newton in the head.

[czeslaw]

There are ideas that our Observable Universe is a Black Hole like Object in a centre of a greater Universe. The Observable Universe expands because a collapse of the greater Universe. There is energy supplied into our OU as a Dark Energy and it drives the expansion. The average density of the Black Hole decreases when the Radius increases so the expansion accelerates if there is a constant density outside of the OU.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravastar
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0503/0503200.pdf

We did discuss these ideas earlier on different threads.

[jamini]

Without a doubt you know much more about string/m theory than I do. And I could not agree with you more, that my ideas are purely philosophical, I am just here throwing apples hoping to hit a future newton in the head.

Thanks bigsplit but I’m probably just older than you. :)

Besides the discovery of a Graviton, the South Pole Neutrino Detector (http://physorg.com/news10295.html) may also lend strong support to S/M theory.

String/M theory has intrigued me for years. It was inadvertently discovered in the 60s by Leonard Susskind when he stumbled upon an equation by Gabriele Veneziano about hadron behavior. Mr. Susskind’s original paper was never published and it wasn’t until the mid 70s that John Schwarz and Joel Scherk found that the properties of the messenger-like patterns of string vibration exactly matched those of the graviton. That led to the development of bosonic string theory, and eventually about a dozen other similar theories. In the late 90s, Ed Witten combined the various theories into a single M-theory, which piqued even greater interest in superstring among emerging grad students. Brian Greene provides an excellent history and explanation of string theory in “The Elegant Universe”, one of my favorite books. He starts with a thorough explanation of GR and Quantum Mechanics and then goes on to explain how while most other GUTs fail to account for the relatively weak force of quantum gravity, string theory not only predicts it, it demands it. What was originally thought to be an annoying anomaly in the equations, Mr. Susskind discovered to be the force of gravity on an unimaginably small scale!

Leonard Susskind recently developed a new 4-D theory in “The Cosmic Landscape”, a phrase he coined to depict a vast cosmological landscape, of which our observable universe is a miniscule fraction, with the extraordinary precise properties required for life as we know it to exist. The book also contains a great deal of background information on GR and Quantum Mechanics and is another of my all time favorites.

One of the similarities among most of the leading ATM theorists1 is they all demonstrate a thorough theoretical and mathematical understanding of classical physics and quantum mechanics. No one believes more than I that there is much more to our universe than we have barely begun to understand. However, I do firmly believe that when significant new developments are realized, they will have originated from people who possess a profound understanding of mathematics, physics and the prevailing classic theories of our time.

I apologize for the brief thread hijack but I think even the OP will agree at this point that we are engaged in a purely philosophical discussion.

1. My opinion, of course:
Ed Witten, Brian Greene, Leonard Susskind, Lisa Randall, Roger Penrose, Michio Kaku.

[astrocat]

Yet in over 100 posts you have yet to produce a single shred of scientific evidence. That you have not done so speaks volumes about your “scientific” methodology.

Evidence for what? That we are falling? That we are rotating? That there is a Black Hole where I say it is? Obviously, I can back up everything I say.

Way more than you can do, Jamini.

If you have the models,

Another (3rd) model for the Cosmos, is the space in front of your face. When you inhale, this air enters you. Air further away Speeds Up, to take the place of the air you just inhaled. As it enters you, this air Cools Down, Expands and decompresses, all the things the Cosmos is doing.

This enters you as a Vortex, or Vortices, as we all have two nostrils.

Your lungs model Mable, where everything compresses, slows, warms etc. All the things that happen in a Black Hole. That's what models do, Jamini. They 'Model' stuff.

numbers, observations, etc. There were Zero Big Bangs, Zero Dark Energy, Zero science in either of them. Zero, is a number.

I see (observe) a Universe that appears to be falling. Your observations tell you something different. Only one of us is right. We observe the same things, yet we are 180 degrees different. It's in the interpretation of the data, that we differ.

...to back your claims please produce them or say you are unable to do so. So far, all we have is your philosophical opinions that tend to contradict our observations.

With the very same observations, we are so far apart. Why don't we analyse this conundrum?

You have 'added' to the data, with your Big Bang and Dark Energy, things for which there is no proof, things that fly in the face of Gravity, things which pollute my Science.

You add 'Dust' to the Pioneers, to strengthen your argument as to why they have Slowed. This 'additive' Science, in which you involve yourself, can never outshine a Science that 'adds' nothing to the Time and Gravity that are already there, in order to explain the workings of the Cosmos (and satellites).

You've been 'adding' things so long, you don't even know you're doing it. But I know, and I'm calling your Game, Jamini. 'Adding' things to bolster your arguments is Poor Science.

This is nothing but an ad hom. Please answer the question.

You're like a stuck record.

Please elaborate on exactly what it is that you are implying. What in your mind is the current state of Astronomy?

You cover yourself with Einstein's Fudge, You add stuff to your Science, you criticise me, it's terrible. Astronomy is in deep trouble, with people like you who haven't a clue what you're talking about. There was no Big Bang... Maybe it's useless.

This is not an answer. Please provide direct specific answers to direct pertinent questions. Note that “I don’t know” is an acceptable response.

Let me ask you something, Between the objects in Space ia a vacuum, tho' there may be some 'Vacuum Energy' or 'Virtual Particles' within it... What else is in this vacuum? 'I don't know', is not acceptable.

Then why do our observations directly conflict with this belief?

Again, it's in the 'Interpretations' and different 'Methodologies' we employ ('No Additives' Cosmology versus 'Added To' Cosmolgy.)

What data can you produce to lend even the slightest bit of credence to this claim?

I follow Scientific Law. All my Science fits within the Law. Yours doesn't. You fly in the face of Gravity! for crying out loud!

Get what? The Mable Theory. The 'Attractive' Theory. The Theory of Time, Light and Gravity. GR supports me.

This is another borderline ad hom and direct evasion of the question. If you are not able to answer the questions please say so. Note that “because I say so” is not an adequate substitute for scientific data.[QUOTE]

Forgive me, Jamini, but everyone (almost) shares your Theory. I'm unique.

You have the whole world backing you. You can afford to be demanding, arrogant, dismissive, but I can't.

I have to tip-toe, or do I? I would love to tell you what I think of your Big Bang etc. but I won't
[QUOTE] That is a conception. Now demonstrate the model, complete with equations, predictions, observations and experimental data.

Once, when I was passing out 'tracts' (Science tracts) downtown, one man came running back to me, waving the tract in my face, saying 'This is against Einstein.'

This so shocked me that I said, 'Read the third paragraph,' or something equally weak.

This stayed with me. When I got home, I thought and thought about it, really deeply, and as I struggled, I almost felt Him there. He said to me 'Write."

I said 'What?'

He said, 'Write that you alone agree with me, that my Cosmological Constant was a huge mistake. Write that you are 'Einstein's Disciple', that you alone can see the danger of this awful Cosmological Constant. Don't let them discourage you.'

Now, if someone tells me I'm against Einstein , I tell them, 'I'm Einstein's Disciple,' and it shuts them up and makes it easier.


See above.


You have not presented anything to add to - or do anything with for that matter. That’s what we are waiting for.


Nothing presented either, besides a purely philosophical conjecture. If you have evidence to support this please present it. [QUOTE] No matter what I say, you're a Big Banger and you're never going to see it my way.


[QUOTE] Please produce the specific equations Okay, Jamini, how about E=mc squared. Do you have any problem with that?


that demonstrate the precise time parameters to define and quantify “late” and “right on time”. Late 1960s Time, and our (2007) Time, are different, in that our Time is Slower. There is a tennet of GR that Time Slows when subjected to Increased Gravity.

That's not me, that's GR, if you want to argue it..

I predicted this Increased Gravity in Post#56. This can be checked.

Gravity is Increasing because we're Evolving to the Cosmic Center, a zone of Immense Matter.

Here, near the Center, there is more Gravity. It's this extra gravity that's slowing our Time.

Now this adds nothing. This 'extra gravity' was always there, we just didn't know about it, and we never had anyone who could explain it to us, before. Time and Light (it's Dark, at the Center) were already there, too...

[jamini]

Evidence for what? That we are falling? That we are rotating? That there is a Black Hole where I say it is? Obviously, I can back up everything I say. Way more than you can do, Jamini. [emphasis added]

1. Obviously? What single shred of evidence have you provided to back up your claims? I see no math, no predictions, no models, no consistent observational analysis – nothing, just your hand waving in the total absence of repeated requests for actual scientific evidence.

2. I think you still have not figured out how the ATM section works. You should read the rules.


Another (3rd) model for the Cosmos, is the space in front of your face. When you inhale, this air enters you. Air further away Speeds Up, to take the place of the air you just inhaled. As it enters you, this air Cools Down, Expands and decompresses, all the things the Cosmos is doing. This enters you as a Vortex, or Vortices, as we all have two nostrils. Your lungs model Mable, where everything compresses, slows, warms etc. All the things that happen in a Black Hole. That's what models do, Jamini. They 'Model' stuff.
Again, you are confusing conceptions and analogies with actual scientific models. Your biological analogy proves absolutely nothing without the math, predictions, observations and experimental data to substantiate it. Basically, you are putting the cart before the horse. In science, first you make the observations, then you create a mathematical model with predictions; then you test those predictions. Finally, to explain it in lay terms, you offer analogies. All you are providing is the analogies, which are utterly worthless without the corresponding physics.

There were Zero Big Bangs, Zero Dark Energy, Zero science in either of them. Zero, is a number. I see (observe) a Universe that appears to be falling. Your observations tell you something different. Only one of us is right. We observe the same things, yet we are 180 degrees different. It's in the interpretation of the data, that we differ.

This is just more hand waving. Repetition does not increase credibility. You need to demonstrate your claims with real evidence, math, physics, etc. So far, all I’ve seen is an internally flawed philosophical belief.



With the very same observations, we are so far apart. Why don't we analyse[sic] this conundrum?
I see no conundrum. You have simply not offered a single photon of scientific data to warrant any credibility. I could say there is a universe inside of every quark but it would not mean anything unless I had some evidence to substantiate it. So far, your argument is no different.

You have 'added' to the data, with your Big Bang and Dark Energy, things for which there is no proof, things that fly in the face of Gravity, things which pollute my Science. You add 'Dust' to the Pioneers, to strengthen your argument as to why they have Slowed. This 'additive' Science, in which you involve yourself, can never outshine a Science that 'adds' nothing to the Time and Gravity that are already there, in order to explain the workings of the Cosmos (and satellites).
This is called a false dichotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma). Even if we were to assume that your entire argument is correct, that would not provide any evidence whatsoever to support your own claims. Please try to understand how science works. Ideas stand or fall on their own merit; so far, you have produced nothing to lend any merit whatsoever to any of your rather far fetched ideas.

You've been 'adding' things so long, you don't even know you're doing it. But I know, and I'm calling your Game, Jamini. 'Adding' things to bolster your arguments is Poor Science.
No, poor science is making outlandish claims without providing any scientific evidence to support them.


You're like a stuck record.
This is nothing but another ad hom. If you are unable to answer the question, please just say so.


You cover yourself with Einstein's Fudge, You add stuff to your Science, you criticise me, it's terrible. Astronomy is in deep trouble, with people like you who haven't a clue what you're talking about. There was no Big Bang... Maybe it's useless.
This is another ad hom and more word salad. If you do not like “Einstein’s Fudge”, please produce your own formula that works at least equally well. Do you even know how to write a simple mathematical expression? That is not a rhetorical question; I would really like to know because I can not for the life of me rationalize how you can make all these wild assumptions without even a fundamental understanding of physics.


Let me ask you something, Between the objects in Space ia a vacuum, tho' there may be some 'Vacuum Energy' or 'Virtual Particles' within it... What else is in this vacuum? 'I don't know', is not acceptable.
It would have been prudent to have asked these kinds of questions in the Q&A forum before starting a topic and attempting to redefine the nature of the physics that describe our reality.


Again, it's in the 'Interpretations' and different 'Methodologies' we employ ('No Additives' Cosmology versus 'Added To' Cosmolgy.)
This is another non answer. Please either answer the questions with the requested corresponding math, physics, observations, etc. or acknowledge that you are unable to do so.


I follow Scientific Law. All my Science fits within the Law. Yours doesn't. You fly in the face of Gravity! for crying out loud! The Mable Theory. The 'Attractive' Theory. The Theory of Time, Light and Gravity. GR supports me. [emphasis added]
Specifically and mathematically, how does GR support you? I want to see your actual equations, not more word salad and hand waving.


Forgive me, Jamini, but everyone (almost) shares your Theory. I'm unique. You have the whole world backing you. You can afford to be demanding, arrogant, dismissive, but I can't. I have to tip-toe, or do I? I would love to tell you what I think of your Big Bang etc. but I won't
This is another borderline ad hom and direct evasion of the question. If you are not able to answer the questions please say so. Note that “because I say so” is not an adequate substitute for scientific data.

Once, when I was passing out 'tracts' (Science tracts) downtown, one man came running back to me, waving the tract in my face, saying 'This is against Einstein.' This so shocked me that I said, 'Read the third paragraph,' or something equally weak. This stayed with me. When I got home, I thought and thought about it, really deeply, and as I struggled, I almost felt Him there. He said to me 'Write."
I said 'What?' He said, 'Write that you alone agree with me, that my Cosmological Constant was a huge mistake. Write that you are 'Einstein's Disciple', that you alone can see the danger of this awful Cosmological Constant. Don't let them discourage you.' Now, if someone tells me I'm against Einstein , I tell them, 'I'm Einstein's Disciple,' and it shuts them up and makes it easier.
This is just more word salad and hand waving in lieu of responding to a direct question.

You have not presented anything to add to - or do anything with for that matter. That’s what we are waiting for.
I did not start an ATM topic and make a bunch of outlandish unsupported claims. You did. Please answer the questions or say you are unable to do so.

No matter what I say, you're a Big Banger and you're never going to see it my way.
I guess you missed my most recent post to BigSplit. I am very open to new ideas, just not wild unsupported claims. This is a scientific forum, don’t you have anything that even remotely resembles science to substantiate your claims? If not, that’s fine but at least acknowledge that fact and resume the discussion on a purely philosophical level.


Okay, Jamini, how about E=mc squared. Do you have any problem with that?
None at all. Now include it in your equations to mathematically represent the ideas you have put forth for review.

Late 1960s Time, and our (2007) Time, are different, in that our Time is Slower. There is a tennet of GR that Time Slows when subjected to Increased Gravity.
This is just another completely worthless statement without any cooberating evidence. If you are not able to produce your own physics, the next best thing would be to provide links to published papers that support your claims. You have not even done that. You provided absolutely nothing to lend any credibility whatsoever to your claims.

That's not me, that's GR, if you want to argue it..
Then show me the math; point to a paper that supports your ideas; anything!

I predicted this Increased Gravity in Post#56. This can be checked.
You need to look up the scientific meaning of predictions and then reply. So far, you have predicted nothing that I can see.

Gravity is Increasing because we're Evolving to the Cosmic Center, a zone of Immense Matter.
This is another non-answer; more word salad. Please answer the questions or say that you are not able to do so.

Here, near the Center, there is more Gravity. It's this extra gravity that's slowing our Time.
This is another non-answer; more word salad. Please answer the questions or say that you are not able to do so.

Now this adds nothing. This 'extra gravity' was always there, we just didn't know about it, and we never had anyone who could explain it to us, before. Time and Light (it's Dark, at the Center) were already there, too...
This is another non-answer; more word salad. Please answer the questions or say that you are not able to do so.


.

[jamini]

Astrocat – I would appreciate it if you would respond to all questions, even though I have yet to get a direct and proper response from you, ignoring questions outright is even worse.

For example, here I effectively falsified your entire belief based on your own argument:


Here you disprove your own belief by setting a mid point and placing boundaries within our visible universe. If your so-called “center” of the universe did in fact reside at Corona Borealis, our observations would demonstrate that; they do not. This statement alone falsifies your belief; or at best, reveals severe internal inconsistencies that render your premise meaningless.

Please either reconcile this with scientific evidence or retract your claims.

Here’s a few more:
So you are taking credit for predicting the Big Bang and Dark Energy? I think it’s more likely you misunderstood my question. I am asking you specifically what predictions you have made that are “actually coming true as we speak”. What I am looking for is your published papers with mathematical models based on observational data that make specific predictions; then, demonstrating how those predictions have been tested and proven. I am asking you to demonstrate what you said you have done. Please either do so or retract your statement.


That’s great but it does not answer my question [about Mercury]. Actually it was Nereid’s question. If you are unable to answer it, please say so.



So what specifically about this in incongruent with your beliefs? Do you agree or disagree with our basic cosmological principal? If you disagree, I would like to know of your own cosmological principal(s).


And the following questions remain unanswered:


1. Falling from and to where? Again, only numbers and direct verifiable observational analysis.

2. Please produce your whirlpool model. Or is this just an image you are imagining in your own mind?

3. Yes, I know – the super-duper BH in the “center” of our universe. Do you have a model with observational data and measured predictions or is this just something else you have concocted in your own mind?

And I would really like to know: Do you understand the difference between philosophy and science?

.

[astrocat]

Well, we already believe that DM permeates the universe; nothing new here. What evidence or observational analysis can you produce to support your claim that these “structures” are “Actually, more like 6 trillion years old.”?

Rational thought.

This is not an answer. First, you must demonstrate that there is an “axis”. Can you do this?

It was discovered in 1998.

Do you not understand the difference between a universal horizon and other dimensions or are you saying they are one and the same?
Please elaborate on what you mean by “winking out”. I am not familiar with that term.

Here I can help you, Jamini. As these stars leave our Observable Universe, we are simply no longer able to observe them, and they tend to 'wink out' or disappear from sight.

Here you disprove your own belief by setting a mid point and placing boundaries within our visible universe. If your so-called “center” of the universe did in fact reside at Corona Borealis,

Past the Corona Borealis, Jamini. Way past the Corona Borealis.

our observations would demonstrate that; they do not. This statement alone falsifies your belief; or at best, reveals severe internal inconsistencies that render your premise meaningless.

You totally misunderstood me.

This is not an answer. If you are unable to provide any mathematics to support your beliefs, please say so. This whole discussion is strictly philosophical anyway; let’s start accepting it for what it really is. The Mable Theory is destined to overtake and negate yours. I'm a True Scientist, amateur admittedly, not really a Philosopher.

Mable is Science, Jamini, a Science you should respect, Jamini, but you don't.

So you are taking credit for predicting the Big Bang and Dark Energy? I think it’s more likely you misunderstood my question. I am asking you specifically what predictions you have made that are “actually coming true as we speak”. What I am looking for is your published papers

My ideas have been published, in a magazine called Wegway, Fall 2003, in issue #6, (www.wegway.com)

with mathematical models based on observational data that make specific predictions; then, demonstrating how those predictions have been tested and proven. I am asking you to demonstrate what you said you have done. Please either do so or retract your statement.

I simply don't have the Time yet, or really, the inclination.

This is another non answer. If you do not understand the question, please say so. Otherwise please provide a direct quantitative answer with demonstrable observational analysis.UOTE] That is not an answer but perhaps I phrased my question poorly. I’ll try again:

1. How does your perception of “Gravity is Increasing at a rate that has Slowed our Time enough to spot a discrepancy in the paths of the Pioneer” differ from the explanations already provided by using classical physics and DM or Kuiper belt dust? [/QUOTE]

Using your 'classical physics' you have to add Space Dust to account for the 'apparent' discrepancy. You think, of course, that the satellite really is late.

Using Gr, we can easily see what's happened. There has been a mistake. Our slower Time has caused us to see that the satellites clock is slow. Of course, it isn't, and the satellite is where it should be. Only one of us is right, tho'.

Your Science puts the satellite in a 'late' position. Mine tells me everything is okay. You added Space Dust. I added nothing.

Your vision is 'polluted' by this Space Dust, which, like your Big Bang, doesn't really exist. You put it there to bollster your argument. That's not considered good Science.

Good Science sees a working system and analyses it. Poor Science adds things, and then analyses it.

My question, 'Why add things to something already working fine?'

Answer that, Jamini.

2. How does your perception of same agree or disagree with the equivalence principal?

I'm Einstein's Disciple. You should get on side with us, Jamini.

Please note that I am not soliciting your personal opinions. I am asking for the specific mathematical equations that demonstrate any deviations from those already provided by classical physics.

Please describe your interpretation of “gravitational waves”. Have you directly observed these waves? I would also like to see the equations that quantify your claims. Specifically, by exactly how much and over what period of time have gravitational waves increased?

Jamini - we're just beginning to notice them. Give them a chance.

Are you claiming the inverse square law needs revision? If so, by exactly how much and over what time parameters? Again, please refrain from further word salad. If you are unable to produce specific quantifiable mathematical data please say so.

E=mc squared Jamini, and that actually does revise your inverse square law.

So a “yet unexplained”

Yet unexplained means ' not well explained by Conventional Physics'

observation has proven your yet quantifiable or observable belief? You are going to have to do much better than this. How does one necessarily deduce the other?

Huh?

Again, numbers, observations, predictions and observational analysis only. If all you have is more word salad, please spare us and state that you are unable to produce any models with mathematically supportive data.

You see, Jamini, you can't duplicate your Big Bang. You can't say 'There's a fine working model of my Universe', like I can.

That's because it didn't happen. So you don't have any real models - but you can make them up mathematically.

Sure you have Models of your Cosmos - in Einstein's Fudge and higher math, things that really don't make sense either, but it's so complicated other people look at it in awe!

But you don't fool me. Your King, Jamini, has no clothes. Run and cover him, for Pete's Sake, because left like this he looks awful.

That’s great but it does not answer my question. Actually it was Nereid’s question. If you are unable to answer it, please say so.
There is obviously further misunderstanding here. Please look up the scientific definitions for homogeneous and isotropic and then respond.
So what specifically about this in incongruent with your beliefs? Do you agree or disagree with our basic cosmological principal? If you disagree, I would like to know of your own cosmological principal(s).

My Cosmological Principle states that Poor Science will always fall to Good Science. Somehow, Jamini, up against your Theories, mine will do just fine.

1. Falling from and to where?

From the outer edge of the Cosmos/ Galaxy, to the Black Hole at the center.

Again, only numbers and direct verifiable observational analysis.

2. Please produce your whirlpool model. Or is this just an image you are imagining in your own mind?

Pull plug on sink of water.

3. Yes, I know – the super-duper BH in the “center” of our universe. Do you have a model with observational data and measured predictions or is this just something else you have concocted in your own mind?
Do you understand the difference between philosophy and science?
.

Do you. You see, Jamini, it's all relative. no, I'm not trying to putthe philosophy back in Astronomy. But the Science, Jamini, and to get rid of you and your Poor Science.

[RussT]

Jamini;

Can you do the Maths? This is a simple yes or no answer, and has nothing to do with your arguements to astrocat.

Also, in your multi-verse theory, which way do your Event Horizons face? Towards our universe or away from it? If you do not understand this question, I would submit that you do not truely understand time reversals.

Also, in your theory, is there only one Black Hole that is responsible for the creation of our universe, OR is it multiple Black Holes?

[RussT]

Didn't you read my first Post? That's Post # 1, where I show that this Expansion, is just one of the things the Cosmos is doing. It's also Cooling Down, Etc., essentially doing all the things falling bodies do.

This shows your true inconsistency. Falling bodies means gravitational attraction, which definitely means 'Heating up'.

So, if everything in our universe is heading towards MABLE, that is not expansion and it is not cooling.

[astrocat]

This shows your true inconsistency. Falling bodies means gravitational attraction, which definitely means 'Heating up'.

RussT, Falling goes along with a loss of Kinetic Energy, in heat form, hence the cooling down.

So, if everything in our universe is heading towards MABLE, that is not expansion and it is not cooling.

Yes, RussT. On the way to Mable, those parts nearest Mable will leave those parts further away. There's your Expansion. Also on the way, they will tend to Speed Up. That's another 'part' of Falling.

Still another part of Falling is the Loss of Pressure involved.

Boyle's Law, VxP = constant, says that Increasing Volume (Expansion) is inversely related to Pressure. If you increase the Expansion, you have to Decrease the Pressure, and vice-versa.

Hope that's okay!

[Hornblower]

Two days and counting. This too shall pass.

[RussT]

Here's the thing.

Most people do NOT understand the difference between the current paradigms assessment of "Open", "Closed", or "Static" universes and 'Other" possible structures that our universe might take.

Einstein first predicted the Cosmological Constant based on the "Static Universe" concept. That is...an ad hoc "Repulsive Force" holding the WHOLE UNIVERSE up from collapsing in on itself.

When Hubble found the galaxies (actually we know now that it is the clusters of galaxies) receding from us in all directions, two guys (Friedmann/LeMaitre) had the bright idea that that must mean that at one time, everything MUST have been closer and closer together.

Ladies and Gentlemen...That has NEVER been the case!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Voids that are 1 billion light years away, have always been 1 billion light years away, and the ones that are 5 billion light years away, have always been 5 billion light years away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This expanding or contracting whole universe concept has WARPED everyones brains!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, what that really means is this.

That 'shrinking the universe down to a point' is an illegal lookback in GR! Why, because you do NOT come to a proper Event Horizon covering the singularity!!!!! 'Shrinking the universe down to a point' is a gravitational collapse lookback, AND you CANNOT go straight to the singularity....YOU MUST come to an event horizon, where the "Progenitor" of "Outflowing " stuff would have been.

SO, yes, the Big Bang is wrong, BUT you have to understand what is specifically wrong to determine what is right!!!

SO, if Naked singularities do not exist, what does that mean?

First of all, it means that the assumption that the universe started at T=0 and that it started with High Energy Gamma Radiation is Just That....AN ASSUMPTION (In fact that is the whole problem with QFT and "String/"M" theory!!! that the 'primordial soup' started as gamma radiation!!!)

NOW, there is a 'singularity' solution for the initial conditions for the universe that does work. (BUT, that does not include the whole universe as a MABLE or a MABLE at the 'center' of the universe!)

BUT, mainstream, in their dogmatic belief in the FLRW "Closed System" (different from the 'closed', 'open', 'static' universe possibilities, because ALL of those start from an expanding Naked singularity, which doesn't/can't even exist!), has defined everything so that any Multi-verse solutions (This does not include multi-demensional theories, which is the only place String/"M" theory has to go, even though this is NOT where the answer lies!!!) are absolutely TABOO, and career suicide!!!

Otherwise, Lisa Randall, would easily be showing that HER 'leaking Gravity', was just coming from that 'other universe' "through the SMBH's into our Voids", and we could get on with figuring out how our universe is really working!!! Which is wayyyyyyyyy different than everyone thinks! AND, yes, that does mean that some things have to change, in SR mostly.

[RussT]

RussT, Falling goes along with a loss of Kinetic Energy, in heat form, hence the cooling down

Sorry, you are confused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Note that the kinetic energy increases with the square of the speed. This means, for example, that if you are traveling twice as fast, you will have four times as much kinetic energy. As a result of this, a car traveling twice as fast requires four times as much distance to stop (See mechanical work).

[Tensor]

Well, we already believe that DM permeates the universe; nothing new here. What evidence or observational analysis can you produce to support your claim that these “structures” are “Actually, more like 6 trillion years old.”?
Rational thought.

So you have no actual evidence, other than what you think?


This is not an answer. First, you must demonstrate that there is an “axis”. Can you do this?
It was discovered in 1998.

Which axis is this? Are you talking about the axis in the COBE data? Can you point out a link or book that shows this?


Do you not understand the difference between a universal horizon and other dimensions or are you saying they are one and the same?
Please elaborate on what you mean by “winking out”. I am not familiar with that term.
Here I can help you, Jamini. As these stars leave our Observable Universe, we are simply no longer able to observe them, and they tend to 'wink out' or disappear from sight.

And exactly where does this happen? Please provide a distance where this would happen.



This is not an answer. If you are unable to provide any mathematics to support your beliefs, please say so. This whole discussion is strictly philosophical anyway; let’s start accepting it for what it really is.
The Mable Theory is destined to overtake and negate yours. I'm a True Scientist, amateur admittedly, not really a Philosopher.

As for your idea (since it is no where near a theory), to quote Pauli: This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang

Mable is Science, Jamini, a Science you should respect, Jamini, but you don't.

I don’t respect it either as it's not science. Science would provide equations to support what you have said. Since youhave not provided any kind of support for your idea, past something you believe, you are not doing science.


So you are taking credit for predicting the Big Bang and Dark Energy? I think it’s more likely you misunderstood my question. I am asking you specifically what predictions you have made that are “actually coming true as we speak”. What I am looking for is your published papers
My ideas have been published, in a magazine called Wegway, Fall 2003, in issue #6, (www.wegway.com)

What predictions are coming true? You haven’t presented anything past your claims. And putting your idea in an artistic magazine, hardly qualifies as a peer reviewed publication.


with mathematical models based on observational data that make specific predictions; then, demonstrating how those predictions have been tested and proven. I am asking you to demonstrate what you said you have done. Please either do so or retract your statement.
I simply don't have the Time yet, or really, the inclination.

Well then, you actually should have read the rules here. Here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=564845) is a link to the rules for this board. Note rule 13. Note where is says that direct questions must be answered in a timely manner. If you chose not to answer questions, then you are basically giving up on defending your idea.

Using your 'classical physics' you have to add Space Dust to account for the 'apparent' discrepancy. You think, of course, that the satellite really is late.

Using Gr, we can easily see what's happened. There has been a mistake. Our slower Time has caused us to see that the satellites clock is slow. Of course, it isn't, and the satellite is where it should be. Only one of us is right, tho'.

Actually, GR produces the same result as Newtonian gravity. Or weren’t you aware of that? And since you claim to use GR, maybe you can produce the GR equations that show this that is what GR claims. Oh, wait, you don't understand GR, do you?

Your Science puts the satellite in a 'late' position. Mine tells me everything is okay. You added Space Dust. I added nothing.

Wait a minute, if you are using GR like you claim (we haven’t seen any indication that you are though), then the position of the satellite is still in the wrong position. GR is off by the same amount as the Newtonian value. If you are using something other than GR to claim this, then by all means, produce the equations that show this.

Your vision is 'polluted' by this Space Dust, which, like your Big Bang, doesn't really exist. You put it there to bollster your argument. That's not considered good Science.

Actually, that is good science. Science takes an idea, then matches it against actual observations. If the idea doesn't match observations, you would add elements to the idea and check that against observations.

Good Science sees a working system and analyses it. Poor Science adds things, and then analyses it.

Actually, good science analyzes observations, and makes corrections to theories to match the observations. Poor science makes claims without providing any support for the claims. Much like you are doing here in this thread.

My question, 'Why add things to something already working fine?'

Answer that, Jamini.

Well, you haven’t produced anything that indicates that it is working fine. You said that GR shows this, but evidently aren’t aware that GR can’t reproduce the observations either. If you have something that can, then by all means, show us.


2. How does your perception of same agree or disagree with the equivalence principal?
I'm Einstein's Disciple. You should get on side with us, Jamini.

I would hardly call you Einstein’s disciple, as you are seemingly not aware of what Einstein’s theory actually can and can’t do and are obviously confused by the actual equations of Einstein's theory.


Please describe your interpretation of “gravitational waves”. Have you directly observed these waves? I would also like to see the equations that quantify your claims. Specifically, by exactly how much and over what period of time have gravitational waves increased?
Jamini - we're just beginning to notice them. Give them a chance.

Well then, if this is the case, then what proof do you have that they are increasing? And what equations are you using to show this as the GR equations don’t show this?


Are you claiming the inverse square law needs revision? If so, by exactly how much and over what time parameters? Again, please refrain from further word salad. If you are unable to produce specific quantifiable mathematical data please say so.
E=mc squared Jamini, and that actually does revise your inverse square law.

Actually, E=mc2 has nothing to do with the inverse square law. Care to try again to answer the question, and provide the equations showing how E=mc2 revises the inverse square law, or just say you can’t.

Quote:
Again, numbers, observations, predictions and observational analysis only. If all you have is more word salad, please spare us and state that you are unable to produce any models with mathematically supportive data.
You see, Jamini, you can't duplicate your Big Bang. You can't say 'There's a fine working model of my Universe', like I can.

Were not asking you to duplicate the big bang. We are asking you to provide a quantitave model of your idea. And, actually, you haven’t provided any quantifiable models, just a lot of words that incorporate totally different concepts that don't make any sense when put together.

That's because it didn't happen. So you don't have any real models - but you can make them up mathematically.

You are showing more ignorance of what the Big Bang theory actually says. The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, it has everything to do with how the universe has evolved into what we currently observe. And, we do have the mathematical models. Those models predict what should be seen when our cameras and monitors look through the telescopes (optical, infared and radio). Those observations happen to match pretty closely with what we actually see. So, it will be interesting to see the equations you have that show how you came to the conclusion that your idea is better and you show which equations are wrong in the mainstream models. Since, what those mainstream models predict, matches what we observe.

Sure you have Models of your Cosmos - in Einstein's Fudge and higher math, things that really don't make sense either, but it's so complicated other people look at it in awe!

You might look at it in awe. It’s not that complicated to someone who has actually studied it.

But you don't fool me. Your King, Jamini, has no clothes. Run and cover him, for Pete's Sake, because left like this he looks awful.

Well, if you don’t understand it (as you have amply demonstrated), then you really can’t be fooled by it, can you? You're just ignorant of the ideas.


Since you have seemingly decided not to answer my points from my last post, I will put them in direct question form for you.
If you are using GR, what metric are you using? What is the value for omega? What kind of space (De sitter, Anti-De sitter, or Minkowskian etc.) are you using. If you are not using any of the above, (or are not using GR) please provide the equations supporting your contentions.

[Jim]

Jamini;

Can you do the Maths? This is a simple yes or no answer, and has nothing to do with your arguements to astrocat.

Also, in your multi-verse theory...

Also, in your theory...

(emphasis added)

This is an attempted thread hijack.

Here's the thing.

<snip>

Ladies and Gentlemen...That has NEVER been the case!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Voids that are 1 billion light years away, have always been 1 billion light years away, and the ones that are 5 billion light years away, have always been 5 billion light years away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This expanding or contracting whole universe concept has WARPED everyones brains!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, what that really means is this.

<snip>

And this is another attempted thread hijack.

RussT, this thread is to discuss the OT as started by astrocat. We will not discuss jamini's math abilities unless they impact the OT, and we will not discuss his ATM concepts. We also will not discuss your ATM ideas. We will stay on topic.

Clear? Thank you.

[Jim]

astrocat, you've been pointed to Rule 13 and it's requirement that direct questions be answered in a timely fashion. You might also check out the list in the first post of this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=16242). Note especially numbers 5,7,8,20 and 21.

Several people have mentioned that your answers to their questions seem to be vague and lacking in specifics; please try to fix that.

Thank you.

[astrocat]

Two days and counting. This too shall pass. Two days 'till what, Hornblower ?

[astrocat]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]astrocat, you've been pointed to Rule 13 Where do I go, Jim, to see this rule explained?[/QUOTE]

[Tensor]

Where do I go, Jim, to see this rule explained?

As I pointed out in my post above:

Here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=564845) is a link to the rules for this board.

Just click on the blue word "here"

[astrocat]

Sorry, you are confused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Note that the kinetic energy increases with the square of the speed. This means, for example, that if you are traveling twice as fast, you will have four times as much kinetic energy. As a result of this, a car traveling twice as fast requires four times as much distance to stop (See mechanical work). You're right, perhaps it's not Loss of Kinetic Energy that causes falling bodies to cool, but try to see it this way...

...When it lands , this falling object, does it not slow to a stop? And does it not take on energy here, as it warms up and compresses against the floor, prior to rebounding?

If it warms up when it lands, ...aah, I see my error. I was mistaking Kinetic Energy for Potential Energy. Yes, a falling body loses heat because it gives up Potential Energy. Okay - I'll go with that, RussT.

Thanks for helping me out. Where would I be...?

[astrocat]

Here [/url] is a link to the rules for this board.

Thanks Tensor. Yes, I agree with almost everything there. I read the Posts that Jim directed me to. I had, actually, skimmed them before.

[astrocat]

astrocat, you've been pointed to Rule 13 and it's requirement that direct questions be answered in a timely fashion. Several people have mentioned that your answers to their questions seem to be vague and lacking in specifics; please try to fix that.

Thank you. Yes Jim. May I say...

Where I'm going is virgin territory. No one has been here before, and I don't see anybody ahead, and only a few behind - bless 'em.

Because there are no maps, no other books on the subject but my own, I make mistakes. Things jump out at me, and frankly - scare me. It's dark, I trip sometimes.

I think there are two extremes in Scientists, and Science needs them both. The first kind of Scientist is 'The Big Picture' kind of Scientist.

The other end of the spectrum is 'The Nit-Picker' or 'Numbers' kind of Scientist.

The nit-picker Scientists keep the big picture types honest and the big picture types try to extend scientific thought - that's if they, the big picture types, are worth their salt.

But you can't make a nit-picker out of a big picture type, or vice versa - put them together and there might be friction.

Neither is more valuable than the other. Each type probably wishes the other type were more like him (or her.) These two should be prepared to bend in their dealings with each other.

Of course, to set them against each other would be counter-productive. There will be problems. This is not a good idea. One will try to hush the other. Me, I'm not looking for trouble. That's the last thing I need.

[rebel]

Astrocat,

Falling goes along with a loss of Kinetic Energy, in heat form, hence the cooling down.

Since light has been measured to have a loss of energy in the form of heat when it bounces off of a brick wall, then why doesn't it slow down?

[astrocat]

So you have no actual evidence, other than what you think?

It conforms with my view of 'the Big Picture'.

[/QUOTE] Which axis is this? Are you talking about the axis in the COBE data? Can you point out a link or book that shows this? [/QUOTE]

This Axis was discovered by Borje Nodland (U. Rochester) and John P Ralston of Kansas U. in 1998. It was in all the papers. I have cuttings. In one of the cuttings there is mention of some other Axis, an 'Axis of Orientation', posessed by the Cosmos. An Axis is 'a line around which an object rotates' - Encarta.

There is a limit to our visual horizon. Past this limit we cannot see.

And exactly where does this happen? Please provide a distance where this would happen.

This would happen at the exact limit to our visual horizon.

As for your idea (since it is no where near a theory), to quote Pauli: This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang

That is the most neutral sentence I have ever read.

I don’t respect it either as it's not science. Science would provide equations to support what you have said.

These equations exist.

I have solid evidence to back everything I say.

Since youhave not provided any kind of support for your idea, past something you believe, you are not doing science.

How about my prediction, in Post # 56? Looks like it came true! I consider that one very strong point for me!

What predictions are coming true?

(see post #56)

You haven’t presented anything past your claims.

I object to that. That is simply not true.

And putting your idea in an artistic magazine, hardly qualifies as a peer reviewed publication.

They got hold of one of my tracts and asked me if they could publish it. Jury selected, of course.

Actually, GR produces the same result as Newtonian gravity.

No, it doesn't.

Or weren’t you aware of that? And since you claim to use GR, maybe you can produce the GR equations that show this that is what GR claims. Oh, wait, you don't understand GR, do you?

Try me.

Wait a minute, if you are using GR like you claim ... then the position of the satellite is still in the wrong position. GR is off by the same amount as the Newtonian value. If you are using something other than GR to claim this, then by all means, produce the equations that show this.

No, I'm not using something other than GR to claim this, so in no way do I have to produce the equations that show this.

You obviously don't understand this, do you, Tensor? Let me explain again...The satellites have slowed. How can we account for this? We could 'add' something - like Space Dust - to account for it.

Or we could look a little deeper for a reason - and let's see if we can do it without adding anything. Maybe what's there already is enough. Hmmm.

Well, look. I have had this gut feeling, that if we are nearing the center - then shouldn't gravity be increasing? I'm sure Einstein had some 'gut feelings' of his own. Not very scientific, but never-the-less, real.

Well, a tennet of GR says that if Gravity was Increasing, this would Slow our Time. i'm talking tennets here, Tensor. Important stuff. Stuff that's been proved and backed up 'to here'.

But you knew that Increasing Gravity leads to a Slowing Time? Didn't you? I would, actually, like an answer to this question. It's my only question to you.

Are you okay with this so far?

Onward. Next question, to myself. Is there any example I could use to show that maybe Time was slowing Down? Not likely. I thought.

Then came the satellites. Looking at Pioneers' clocks from here, they appear to be slow. The satellites don't appear to have gone as far as they should have.

This makes perfect sense, if Gravity is Slowing our Time. If Gravity is slowing our Time, it would take longer to do anything. It should be no surprise to see that the satellites are late.

But if our Time is Slower, then 1960s Time was faster. Is faster. In 1960s Time, the satellites are exactly on station.

That's the reality. Nothing has slowed the satellites, they are where they should be. We just can't see that. Not from Here. Not with our Slower Time.

Now, aren't you glad you didn't muddy the waters by using Space Dust when you didn't have to?

Simpler, non-additive Science will always win out against Additive Science.

Actually, that is good science. Science takes an idea, then matches it against actual observations. If the idea doesn't match observations, you would add elements to the idea and check that against observations.

Wrong! Tensor. If the idea doesn't match observations, look a little harder.

Maybe, without 'adding elements' a solution can be found that perhaps depends on something else happening.

Something you might even be expecting to happen. And then, when it does happen, well look! The idea now matches the observation.

And the thing that happenned? The thing you were actually waiting for turns out to be apart of the observation/idea investigation, so much the better.

Because the thing that happened was a part of the whole, it required no additives. Additives only muddy the water. Some scientists, notme, like the water muddy. Watch out for them.

Actually, good science analyzes observations, and makes corrections to theories to match the observations.

Corrections, additions, I know what you're talking about...

Poor science makes claims without providing any support for the claims. [\QUOTE]

Lucky for me, that I can support everything I say, like, for example - about the satellites.

[QUOTE]Much like you are doing here in this thread.

This from someone who says the satellites are still in the wrong position. Well, people, who's right on this one?

This Increasing Gravity - conforms, of course, to the rest of my Theory. My theory works fine. Of course, my Theory has no additives.

Well, you haven’t produced anything that indicates that it is working fine. You said that GR shows this, but evidently aren’t aware that GR can’t reproduce the observations either.

What? At least make sense!

If you have something that can, then by all means, show us.

I just did.

I would hardly call you Einstein’s disciple, as you are seemingly not aware of what Einstein’s theory actually can and can’t do and are obviously confused by the actual equations of Einstein's theory.

No, I call myself Einstein's Disciple. I stay away from all 'repulsive' forces and you should too.

Why not get onside with me and Einstein, Tensor?

I think Gravitational waves are Increasing.

Well then, if this is the case, then what proof do you have that they are increasing? And what equations are you using to show this as the GR equations don’t show this?

I use the satellites.

Actually, E=mc2 has nothing to do with the inverse square law. Care to try again to answer the question, and provide the equations showing how E=mc2 revises the inverse square law, or just say you can’t.

Were not asking you to duplicate the big bang.

Which never happened. It was added to account for the Expansion.

We are asking you to provide a quantitave model of your idea. And, actually, you haven’t provided any quantifiable models, just a lot of words that incorporate totally different concepts that don't make any sense when put together.

All my words are oriented to my original #1 Post.

You are showing more ignorance of what the Big Bang theory actually says. The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with the origin of the universe,

Nothing to do with it? What planet are you from?

it has everything to do with how the universe has evolved into what we currently observe. And, we do have the mathematical models. Those models predict what should be seen when our cameras and monitors look through the telescopes (optical, infared and radio). Those observations happen to match pretty closely with what we actually see. If you go adding things. Like Dark Energy, for example, added to account for the observed Speeding Up of the Cosmos that the Big Bang had no way to account for. Of Course, everyone knows falling objects Speed Up, without adding anything, but you can add stuff, so you can have your observations agree with anything you want!

So, it will be interesting to see the equations you have that show how you came to the conclusion that your idea is better and you show which equations are wrong in the mainstream models. Since, what those mainstream models predict, matches what we observe.

Your observations are flawed by your additive-Science.

You might look at it in awe. Except I don't.

It’s not that complicated to someone who has actually studied it.

..been juiced in it... perhaps? Am I allowed to ask that?

Well, if you don’t understand it (as you have amply demonstrated), then you really can’t be fooled by it, can you? You're just ignorant of the ideas.

Well, you sure told me!

If you are using GR, what metric are you using? What is the value for omega? What kind of space (De sitter, Anti-De sitter, or Minkowskian etc.) are you using. If you are not using any of the above, (or are not using GR) please provide the equations supporting your contentions.

I think, from your statement that the satellites are still, in reality, behind Time, even without adding Space Dust, that you, Tensor, are mistaken. I actually think, from this, that I have a better grasp of GR than you!

[Thanatos]

Why pursue that line of reasoning? It is false, rebel. So long as I'm on a roll, astrocat is also delusional.

[astrocat]

Why pursue that line of reasoning? It is false, rebel. So long as I'm on a roll, astrocat is also delusional.

Real scientific of you, Thanatros... Aren't you a Senior Member.

I don't think I'm deluded, but I do have a problem. Maybe there's a Scietist out there who knows what he's talking about, who could help me.

This is a simple question about Science. I'm either right or wrong about it, I happen to know there's an answer.

Here's the problem...

Imagine that it's late in the year, and you're walking along. Now, you have a 'gut-feeling' that it should be colder, but it's warm out.

Then it gets cold. You have to find a reason.

Now, maybe you are being followed by someone with a huge block of ice, you wonder. Or maybe Aliens are beaming Cold Beams on you. But you're a scientist, and you really want to know.

You take your problem to the nearest University, and generate a discussion. One person thinks you're just plain wrong though they don't propperly explain where or how.

Another insists on you producing equations to prove you'tre right. This leaves you scratching your head. 'Where's the Math?' he keeps asking.

You go away. These are supposed to be intelligent people, you realise. but their answers hardly helped.

It could, be Aliens you think. But you are a scientist, and are 'driven' to search for 'the truth.'

Finally, you figure, it's the weather that has changed. You go back and try to tell them... But they won't listen and pretty soon they say you're delusional. The weather doesn't work like that, they tell you.

Now, how did this get so out-of-hand, you ask? You happen to like your 'weather' solution to the problem. It's so simple, you tell yourself. It makes so much sense to you.

But you can't come up with the equations, or the math, or the Aliens either. They just don't like your 'weather' solution. You're the only one who knows it's the weather, but for some reason, you find out, they can't except this because someone once told them, ' There was an ice-age two weeks ago, and it's the remnant of this ice-age that is causing the weather to cool down.

Come up with the Math, or you're outta here, they tell you. You don't believe in the ice-age two weeks ago, you tell them.

'Whole books have been written about it, they tell you. Who are you, an amateur, to tell them they're wrong.

But my weather solution is so simple, you say. It requires no Ice-age to have just happened. But you can't get it across - except to a very few.

THey were brought up on this ice-age, you realise. They can't change!

Of course, you're right. But they're never going to see it. "What about my simple solution? you ask. 'It's just not as good as our 'proven' ice-age.' they tell you.

That's my problem exactly.



e
/
wqrythe

[astrocat]

Why pursue that line of reasoning? It is false, rebel. So long as I'm on a roll, astrocat is also delusional.

Real scientific of you, Thanatros... Aren't you a Senior Member.

I don't think I'm deluded, but I do have a problem. Maybe there's a Scietist out there who knows what he's talking about, who could help me.

This is a simple question about Science. I'm either right or wrong about it, I happen to know there's an answer.

Here's the problem...

Imagine that it's late in the year, and you're walking along. Now, you have a 'gut-feeling' that it should be colder, but it's warm out.

Then it gets cold. You have to find a reason.

Now, maybe you are being followed by someone with a huge block of ice, you wonder. Or maybe Aliens are beaming Cold Beams on you. But you're a scientist, and you really want to know.

You take your problem to the nearest University, and generate a discussion. One person thinks you're just plain wrong though they don't propperly explain where or how.

Another insists on you producing equations to prove you'tre right. This leaves you scratching your head. 'Where's the Math?' he keeps asking.

You go away. These are supposed to be intelligent people, you realise. but their answers hardly helped.

It could, be Aliens you think. But you are a scientist, and are 'driven' to search for 'the truth.'

Finally, you figure, it's the weather that has changed. You go back and try to tell them... But they won't listen and pretty soon they say you're delusional. The weather doesn't work like that, they tell you.

Now, how did this get so out-of-hand, you ask? You happen to like your 'weather' solution to the problem. It's so simple, you tell yourself. It makes so much sense to you.

But you can't come up with the equations, or the math, or the Aliens either. They just don't like your 'weather' solution. You're the only one who knows it's the weather, but for some reason, you find out, they can't except this because someone once told them, ' There was an ice-age two weeks ago, and it's the remnant of this ice-age that is causing the weather to cool down.

Come up with the Math, or you're outta here, they tell you. You don't believe in the ice-age two weeks ago, you tell them.

'Whole books have been written about it, they tell you. Who are you, an amateur, to tell them they're wrong.

But my weather solution is so simple, you say. It requires no Ice-age to have just happened. But you can't get it across - except to a very few.

THey were brought up on this ice-age, you realise. They can't change!

Of course, you're right. But they're never going to see it. "What about my simple solution? you ask. 'It's just not as good as our 'proven' ice-age.' they tell you.

But therewas no Ice-age you say. Now you've gone too far, and they throw you out.

That's my problem exactly.

[jamini]

Astrocat - I’m not going to quote you line by line again as that has proven futile on numerous attempts in yielding any quantitative data from you. If you do ever provide a direct specific answer to any of the many questions I have asked that you have ignored or avoided, I will respond accordingly.

The closest you’ve come to remotely supporting even part of your claims is your reference to the Nodland/Ralston axis theory, which was disproved almost immediately thereafter when it was found that they used obsolete data to form their conclusions. Subsequent tests by Perley, et. al. using newer higher resolution optical signals found no signs of an axis of anisotropy in the universe. In their words: "Any rotation of the plane of polarization over cosmological distances was immeasurably small and indistinguishable from zero”.

The Pioneer Anomaly is in no way supportive of any claim to a concentric universe, let alone one with some super-duper BH in the middle of it. Even if the Pioneer did drift off in the direction of Corona Borealis – where you place our universal center of gravity (and it most certainly did not); you would still need to produce all the mathematical data to support such a hypothesis, inclusive of all other observational data. You have done no such thing; your whole argument consists of: a is wrong, so b is correct, without producing a single photon of quantitative or observational data to connect the two.

The rest of your arguments consist entirely of false dichotomies, logic fallacies, misconceptions, disarticulated misrepresentations and flawed premises, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Your statements prove conclusively that you have an exceedingly limited knowledge of math, physics, GR and science; yet you would have us believe that you have stumbled upon a whole new universal reality. Somehow, the actuality that you concoct out of media headlines and analogies has managed to escape the greatest minds of the last century, all in direct conflict with our observational data. And yet you are not able to produce a single shred of verifiable evidence or mathematical theorem to lend any credence whatsoever to any of your outlandish claims.

Your so-called “theory” is easily falsified by observational data that demonstrates absolutely no gravitationally favored position at Corona Borealis, where you arbitrarily fixed the “center” of our universe. Your back-peddling attempt to reposition it farther away after I brought this to your attention only exacerbate the many internal inconsistencies of your logic.

Here’s a couple of equations that even you should be able to understand:

Astronomy – (math + physics) = Philosophy

Philosophy – (rational logic) || (flawed premise) = Nonsense

[dirty_g]

where is the center of mass on a balloons skin then?? Can you work that out? Astrocat my man you need to provide some numbers to these guys. Speaking as a layman much like yourself you need to really study some serious science and come up with some formulas much like Einstein did when he made his famous E=mc2 equation. If you go on about your ideas without any real substance then no body will take you seriously. I admire your spirit though.

[rebel]

Astrocat,

Simpler, non-additive Science will always win out against Additive Science

I might not completely agree with your model, but that is the most intelligent sentence that I have read since I started coming to this web site.

[rebel]

Thanatos,

Why pursue that line of reasoning? It is false, rebel. So long as I'm on a roll, astrocat is also delusional

Your opinion of Astrocat is just that, your opinion.

As far as the natural phenomena of sun light bouncing off of my arms and causing my skin to turn red, that is not a false phenomena. It really happens, go outside if you don't believe me.

[jamini]

Astrocat,

Simpler, non-additive Science will always win out against Additive Science

I might not completely agree with your model, but that is the most intelligent sentence that I have read since I started coming to this web site.[emphasis added]

Was Copernicus’ model less complicated than Ptolemy?


Was Newtonian’s model with the invention of calculus simpler than Copernicus?


Is GR less complex than Newton?


Were not all of them additions and modifications of their predecessors?

.

[rebel]

Dirty G,

Speaking as a layman much like yourself you need to really study some serious science and come up with some formulas much like Einstein did when he made his famous E=mc2 equation. If you go on about your ideas without any real substance then no body will take you seriously.

That is not entirely true, I've showed my equations to prove my model and my post was closed after 30 days. I didn't even get to finish answering all of the questions that were addressed to me, to further prove my model and to explain even more natural phenomena.

I even went to Ohio State University,years ago, to talk to the head of there physics department. He listened for about 5 minutes, but after that he got pretty fed up with the fact that I could answer questions he couldn't. He then asked me to leave, witch should have not surprised me because you can't tell anything to someone who know everything.

[rebel]

Jamini,

Was Copernicus’ model less complicated than Ptolemy?


Was Newtonian’s model with the invention of calculus simpler than Copernicus?


Is GR less complex than Newton?

witch one of these models doesn't add any other theories to its already existing model in order to explain its idea(s)?

[astrocat]

If you go on about your ideas without any real substance then no body will take you seriously.

Of course you're right, Dirty. Yes, I have plenty of 'substance' to offer. What I'm trying to do now is merely trying to show that the Cosmos is falling, but it's so easy to get sidetracked. I have so much to say, Dirty. I just hope they let me say it.

[rebel]

Astrocat,

How fast do you think the cosmos is falling in terms of light speed?

[jamini]

witch one of these models doesn't add any other theories to its already existing model in order to explain its idea(s)?
Exactly! ;)

.

[astrocat]

Astrocat - I’m not going to quote you line by line again That's quite okay, Jamini.

that has proven futile on numerous attempts in yielding any quantitative data from you. If you do ever provide a direct specific answer to any of the many questions I have asked that you have ignored or avoided, I will respond accordingly.

What's in empty Space, Jamini, except Vacuum Energy and Virtual Particles. What else is there, Jamini? I know you'll never answer any of my questions.

The closest you’ve come to remotely supporting even part of your claims is your reference to the Nodland/Ralston axis theory, which was disproved almost immediately thereafter when it was found that they used obsolete data to form their conclusions. Subsequent tests by Perley, et. al. using newer higher resolution optical signals found no signs of an axis of anisotropy in the universe. In their words: "Any rotation of the plane of polarization over cosmological distances was immeasurably small and indistinguishable from zero”.

Luckily for me, I have much stronger evidence than that to show the Cosmos is a Vortex. The Cosmos has been Clumping Up, you see - and Clumping Up is one of the main features of a Vortex. In fact, Clumping Up happens only exponentially towards the center of a Vortex. Anybody Agree?

The Pioneer Anomaly is in no way supportive of any claim to a concentric universe, let alone one with some super-duper BH in the middle of it.

'Super-Duper'? Jamini? And you tell me you're a scientist....

Even if the Pioneer did drift off in the direction of Corona Borealis – where you place our universal center of gravity (and it most certainly did not);

I never said any such thing.

you would still need to produce all the mathematical data to support such a hypothesis, inclusive of all other observational data. You have done no such thing; your whole argument consists of: a is wrong, so b is correct, without producing a single photon of quantitative or observational data to connect the two.

I already explained, Jamini, that I think there's a good chance Mable is beyond the Corona Borealis. You feel the need to continually misquote me. Obviously I'm not saying the Center of the Universe is within the Observable Universe - so please don't pretend I'm trying to.

The rest of your arguments consist entirely of false dichotomies, logic fallacies, misconceptions, disarticulated misrepresentations and flawed premises,

Such big words,Jamini. You must be very smart.

... as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Your statements prove conclusively that you have an exceedingly limited knowledge of math, physics, GR and science; yet you would have us believe that you have stumbled upon a whole new universal reality.

Exactly, Jamini. Well said. I think you have a better grasp on what I am trying to say than just about anybody. It's a paradox, you see.

Somehow, the actuality that you concoct out of media headlines and analogies has managed to escape the greatest minds of the last century, all in direct conflict with our observational data. And yet you are not able to produce a single shred of verifiable evidence or mathematical theorem to lend any credence whatsoever to any of your outlandish claims.

What's wrong with newspaper cuttings and Magazine articles. I'm not ashamed of them. I happen to like what they say.

Your so-called “theory” is easily falsified by observational data that demonstrates absolutely no gravitationally favored position at Corona Borealis, where you arbitrarily fixed the “center” of our universe. Your back-peddling attempt to reposition it farther away after I brought this to your attention only exacerbate the many internal inconsistencies of your logic. See, you can't stop misquoting me. A scientist, are you, Jamini?

Here’s a couple of equations that even you should be able to understand:

Astronomy – (math + physics) = Philosophy

Philosophy – (rational logic) || (flawed premise) = Nonsense

Yeah, yeah, now.

Jamini. There's a lot of mass out there. And nothing between it. And nothing holding it up.

Because I think it might (in the absence of other forces) move together?

And because I think it might fall? That makes me crazy?

You can't point to a close-at-hand object and say, 'There, that thing is doing everything the Cosmos is doing, like I can.

Your Cosmos flies in the face of Gravity. Mine conforms.

You have to invent stuff to get your Cosmos up, and more stuff to keep it going. I don't have to add anything.

Because your Cosmos can't be duplicated, or properly explained, you wrap it up in Math that is so complicated you can't even understand it yourself.. but that's the only way you can get a model.

What Laws governed the Big Bang?

What Laws cover the operation of Dark Energy? You don't know the first thing about Dark Energy - I know because nobody does. Modern Scientists freely admit that. Why don't you? Because you're afraid to.

Your Theory is so corrupt I have to object. It's a dirty Job, but someone....

The things I say are things that need to be said.

My avowed purpose here, is to restore Science to its rightful place in Astronomy. If that means I have to de-bunk a few 'myths' to do it, so be it.

I don't mean to hurt you. It's not my fault. Save yourself, Jamini. Come on board with me and Einstein.

[astrocat]

Astrocat, I might not completely agree with your model, but that is the most intelligent sentence that I have read since I started coming to this web site.

Well said, Rebel. There must be others out there, who agree? C'mon people...

[jamini]

I never said any such thing. I already explained, Jamini, that I think there's a good chance Mable is beyond the Corona Borealis. You feel the need to continually misquote me. Obviously I'm not saying the Center of the Universe is within the Observable Universe - so please don't pretend I'm trying to.

Yes, that's exactly what you said:


Originally Posted by Jamini
Where is this “center”?




Half way along the Axis, of course. If the Axis stretches from Sextans to Aquila, I estimate a half way point would be somewhere - perhaps right in the center of... the Corona Borealis. Nobody ever asked me this, before.

Don't accuse me of misquoting you. I would hardly need to do that to discredit your statements. You are doing a find job of that all by yourself.

.

[astrocat]

Astrocat,

How fast do you think the cosmos is falling in terms of light speed?
So glad you asked.

Dr Allan Dressler, then of Mount Wilson I believe, and his Seven Samurai, noted a "Pronounced Streaming Effect" at work within the Cosmos...

They noted that Our Local Group of Galaxies, the Virgo Cluster. was being dragged off towards the Hydra-Centaurus Super Cluster, but in such a way that we could never reach it, for the Hydra-Centaurus Super Cluster, itself, was leaving us faster than we are approaching it, headed, in it's turn, towards another group they named 'The Great Attractor' .

This ever-lengthening, stream, one of many, discovered by these scientists, was compared by some, to a train, and some wondered where the engine was.

This comes from an article in the New York Times of December2, 1986, by James Gleik, entitled 'Galaxies reported moving at high speeds.'

You see, Rebel, these 'ever-lengthening' streams are what the Cosmos is made of.

And because they're ever-lengthening, different parts of the stream are travelling at different speeds, and there can be no doubt, one end of the stream is leaving the other end way faster, apparently than the Speed Of Light.

We see the same thing at the outer limits of our Observable Universe. Some stars are leaving us, close to the Speed of Light.

What happens then, apparently, is that once the stars reach the speed of light, they 'wink out'. That is to say, they disappear from our visual horizon.

The article appealed to me because of the analogy of the train and its engine. You see, that's all Mable is, the engine that powers our Cosmic Evolution.

'Course, that's not all they found, these Seven Samurai. But what do you think of that?

[Tensor]

There is a limit to our visual horizon. Past this limit we cannot see.



And exactly where does this happen? Please provide a distance where this would happen.

This would happen at the exact limit to our visual horizon

This is not an answer. Your post here is simply a repeat of your claim. At what distance in light years or megapasecs does this happen with the visual horizon.

I don’t respect it either as it's not science. Science would provide equations to support what you have said.

These equations exist.

Claiming they exsist is not answering the question. Please provide the equations you say support your science.

In regard to the Pioneer anamoly, I said:

Actually, GR produces the same result as Newtonian gravity.


No, it doesn't.

Please provide the equations that show GR and Newtonian gravity give different positions.

You also stated:

No, I'm not using something other than GR to claim this, so in no way do I have to produce the equations that show this.


Yes you do. I'll remind you of Rule 13 in the rules.

But if our Time is Slower, then 1960s Time was faster. Is faster. In 1960s Time, the satellites are exactly on station.

Which is interesting as they were not launched until the 1970s'

By how much is our current time slower than the 1960s time. Please provided those equations that show the amount of slowing is consistent with your claim.

You are showing more ignorance of what the Big Bang theory actually says. The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with the origin of the universe,

Nothing to do with it? What planet are you from?

This is what I would have expected from someone who gets their science from newpaper clippings. The origin of our universe is cannot be modeled by our science. The big bang theory covers the evolution of the universe starting sometime after the initial creation of the universe. Please provide any actual scientific paper that claims the Big Bang theory is concerned with the origin of the universe.

You didn't answer this one either:

Actually, E=mc2 has nothing to do with the inverse square law. Care to try again to answer the question, and provide the equations showing how E=mc2 revises the inverse square law, or just say you can’t.


Oh, wait, you don't understand GR, do you?

Try me.


….that I have a better grasp of GR than you!

OK, what does the value T00 represent in GR?

What does the manifold represent in GR?

What is the importance of the metric in GR?

[astrocat]

This is not an answer. Your post here is simply a repeat of your claim. At what distance in light years or megapasecs does this happen with the visual horizon.

Lookit Tensor, from our discoussions, all I've had from you is 'Where are the numbers, Wher's the equations, the fancy math?

Claiming they exsist is not answering the question. Please provide the equations you say support your science. I've noticed things about you, compared to me, that are different.

In regard to the Pioneer anamoly, I said:
Please provide the equations that show GR and Newtonian gravity give different positions.

You also stated:

Yes you do. I'll remind you of Rule 13 in the rules.

The differences between us actually amount to different understandings of Science, if we don't actually share different Sciences.

Which is interesting as they were not launched until the 1970s'

By how much is our current time slower than the 1960s time. Please provided those equations that show the amount of slowing is consistent with your claim.

What's become painfully clear to me, is that 1) You don't have as good a grip on GR, as I do. And 2) You espouse 'additive' Science, the Science of 'adding things' when your results don't match the data. You have no idea about how I feel about your Additive Science.

This is what I would have expected from someone who gets their science from newpaper clippings. The origin of our universe is cannot be modeled by our science.

Just like I've been saying...

The big bang theory covers the evolution of the universe starting sometime after the initial creation of the universe.

Imagine...

Please provide any actual scientific paper that claims the Big Bang theory is concerned with the origin of the universe.

I have zero interest in your Big Bang, Tensor... Zero is a number, Tensor.

You didn't answer this one either:
OK, what does the value T00 represent in GR?

What does the manifold represent in GR?

What is the importance of the metric in GR?

Back to 1) You state (after you 'added' Space Dust) that the Pioneer satellites are out of position. You say GR showed you that.

I don't 'add' anything and I say the satellites are where they should be and right on Time! GR proves it.

We can

Wow! But on to point number 2) Your 'additive Science, where you get a result and 'add' data to confirm (?) it, is Poor Science.

To account for the Expansion, you 'add' a Big Bang. When that doesn't work, because it seems to be an 'inward' expansion, the kind that Speeds Up you dig up Einsteins Fudge (Yech!) and rename it Dark Energy.

But it's still Einstein's Fudge, and any Scientist worth his salt will tell you to stop playing with it. It ain't healthy. With the satellites you 'add' Space Dust. You don't even know you're doing it. You think, as you have stated, That this is how Science works.

I don't. I don't have to add anything, ever, in my theory. I would love to tell you what I think of your 'additive' Science, but I would get kicked out of this Forum... And I certainly don't want that!

You're a 'Numbers' guy. I'm 'Big Picture'. You do your Science at a desk, taking info from reams of stuff I couldn't begin to understand. You 'Numbers' guys are absolutely indespensable to Science. Science wouldn't work without you.

Us 'Big Picture' types, we do it on the back of a napkin. We have to worry if Science needs us. But it do. Thank the Stars!

.

[Tensor]

This is not an answer. Your post here is simply a repeat of your claim. At what distance in light years or megapasecs does this happen with the visual horizon.

Lookit Tensor, from our discoussions, all I've had from you is 'Where are the numbers, Wher's the equations, the fancy math?

Another non answer. Please answer the question.

Claiming they exsist is not answering the question. Please provide the equations you say support your science.
I've noticed things about you, compared to me, that are different.

Another non answer. Please answer the question.

In regard to the Pioneer anamoly, I said:
Please provide the equations that show GR and Newtonian gravity give different positions.

The differences between us actually amount to different understandings of Science, if we don't actually share different Sciences.

I am quite certain that we share different sciences. However, your answer is another non answer. Please answer the question.


What's become painfully clear to me, is that 1) You don't have as good a grip on GR, as I do.

And yet, you didn't answer the GR specific questions I asked you

OK, what does the value T00 represent in GR?

What does the manifold represent in GR?

What is the importance of the metric in GR?

Please answer the questions.



By how much is our current time slower than the 1960s time. Please provided those equations that show the amount of slowing is consistent with your claim.

And 2) You espouse 'additive' Science, the Science of 'adding things' when your results don't match the data. You have no idea about how I feel about your Additive Science.

How you feel about science is of no consequence. This forum allows you to propose alternatives to current science, but it also requires you to answer specfic questions. Please answer the questions I have asked you.


Please provide any actual scientific paper that claims the Big Bang theory is concerned with the origin of the universe.

I have zero interest in your Big Bang, Tensor... Zero is a number, Tensor.

Whether or not you are interested in the big bang is of no importance. You objected to my saying the Big Bang was not concerned with the origin of the universe, only with the evolution of the universe. I'm simply asking you to provide some support for that objection by presenting any scientific paper that claims the big bang is concerned with the origin.

As for your comment about zero, I am well aware that it is a number. I'm also familiar with Differential Geometry, something that, it is becoming obvious, you have no familiarity with.



Back to 1) You state (after you 'added' Space Dust) that the Pioneer satellites are out of position. You say GR showed you that.

I don't 'add' anything and I say the satellites are where they should be and right on Time! GR proves it.

I suggest you go back and reread what I wrote. I didn't mention dust as a reason. What I said was your are mistaken if you think that GR proves the satellites are where they should be. GR calculations, without the dust, match Newtonian Gravity in regard to the accelerations of the Pioneers. Thus, GR itself shows the satellites are not in the proper place. I asked you to provide the equations that show that GR doesn't match Newtonian gravity in this regard. To which you replied with another non answer.

I would love to tell you what I think of your 'additive' Science, but I would get kicked out of this Forum... And I certainly don't want that!

Then I would suggest you reread the rules, with regard to answering questions.

[rebel]

Astrocat,

Astrocat,

How fast do you think the cosmos is falling in terms of light speed?

If there is nothing between mass then how does light travel?

How would the planets orbit anything?

How would the gravity of the sun effect anything?

Why would light bend toward mass? I could keep going and going. I do understand the idea of falling objects, but there has to be something in between them besides smaller particles of mass.

[astrocat]

Astrocat, If there is nothing between mass then how does light travel?
How would the planets orbit anything?
How would the gravity of the sun effect anything?
Why would light bend toward mass? I could keep going and going. I do understand the idea of falling objects, but there has to be something in between them besides smaller particles of mass.

Boy, these are important questions. AFIK, light does better in a vacuum than if it has to pass thru' things.

Gravity keeps the planets orbiting. Because the Earth/Sun (Sol) combo doesn't change much, we, on Earth, orbit Sol in what we call a 'stable' orbit.

A 'stable' orbit doesn't change much over Time. Now, Rebel, if Sol were to lose mass - I can't see how, but if it did, we would find ourselves moving away from Sol and into Space, for as long as Sol continued to lose mass.

Naturally, if Sol disappeared, we would find ourselves fying off into Space.

If, however, Sol's mass began to increase, if Sol began to grow, our orbit would begin to 'bend inwards' towards this Increasing Mass. Our orbit, no longer 'stable', would continue to bend inwards towards Sol, for as long as Sol continued to gain weight.

It's the growing mass of a Black Hole that causes the Galaxies to adopt their inward bending, spiral form. This inward bending of the Galaxies' orbits is what enables Black Holes to eat. (It seems to work so well,for the Black Hole, that I almost find myself wondering if these Black Holes are intelligent).

the effect of light 'bending ' towards mass is known as 'Gravitational Lensing' and is part of GR. This G type Lensing makes bodies appear to be temporarily 'off station'.

Reb, what happened to you was indeed sad, but I think I can help. You were very close, with your matter 'condensing out' of the original hydrogen cloud - this is indeed what happened!!!

But you had it going the wrong way - outwards, when you should have said 'inwards'. That, in my opinion, was your error.

Hope this helps. You're okay, Reb.

[astrocat]

How you feel about science is of no consequence. As one Senior Member to another, Tensor, how I feel about Science is the very thing you should be concerned about.

How I feel about Science is going to make one (another number, Tensor,) very big difference to the World.

[dirty_g]

astrocat why are you giving little digs to Tensor about numbers as he wants equations to prove your theory. It's perfectly reasonable! Getting shirty with him as you cannot answer his questions is a bit out of line really. Sort it out chap.

[dgruss23]

As one Senior Member to another, Tensor, how I feel about Science is the very thing you should be concerned about.

How I feel about Science is going to make one (another number, Tensor,) very big difference to the World.

What - 100 posts into your career on BAUT and you're already convinced you'll be a world famous revolutionary scientist? That's highly unlikely when you so casually joke about providing mathematical predictions.

astrocat - from the looks of the last few posts you've reached a critical point in this discussion. Your best option is to just provide the math Tensor has asked for. If you don't provide the math that Tensor is asking (BTW math is more than just counting numbers), then your next best option is to admit that you haven't yet done the math and/or that you don't know how to do the math he's asked for.

And there is nothing wrong with admitting you can't do the math. People will respect that, but it will likely mean that that you will have a much more limited opportunity to convince others that your idea is plausible.

Your worst option is to continue as you have and refuse to answer the questions while "hinting" ever more forcefully that you're idea is going to earn you fame as a scientist. That course will destroy any hope you might have of gaining support for your idea on this forum.

[Jim]

astrocat, you have continued to poke, belittle and be rude to those who do not accept your ideas. You were warned about that. You have also continued to avoid asking very direct, specifically worded, and politely asked questions.

Please take the next three days off and reconsider your behaviour. I will close this thread until you PM me or another Mod and tell us you have read the Rules for posting to BAUT and ATM and are ready to follow them.