Cosmological Model of The Universe

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by pywakit, Jan 12, 2010.

  1. pywakit Registered Senior Member

    Hello everyone. New guy. I think this forum's rules are wound a little less tightly than some, but I will apologize anyway ahead of time ... just in case. And of course if you wish to throw me off the site ....

    I need help. I am not all that bright even though I have been contemplating the universe for about 50 years.

    A fairly respected cosmologist/astrophysicist offered me 'serious consideration' and probable funding through his institute if I can devise an experiment supporting my model. ( not my first offer ) This in response to the letter I sent him that follows. Many scientists have looked at my model, and none have found ( or bothered to tell me ) a critical flaw.

    So if you are terribly bored, feel free to dismantle my model .... or better yet, don't find a flaw and suggest a direction I can take in exploring experiments.

    Thanks ...

    .................................................. .................................................. ..

    I am writing to you because the science community does not make allowances for innovation, or insights from a layperson. ( non-theist version ) It's not my desire to annoy you, or waste your time. But it is my hope that in the spirit of open-mindedness, you might take a few minutes to read the following.

    It seems impossible to separate ego ( I have a big one, too ) and beliefs from an objective view of the universe. Having read a great deal about black holes, I am struck not by the consensus of opinion, but the lack of one. It fascinates me that the less someone knows about these structures the more authoritative they sound.

    I realize that my theory on black holes flies in the face of mainstream science, and undoubtedly your 'beliefs' too. Perhaps you have already traveled this road and found it desolate. If so, my apologies.

    I first proposed this on 1/26/09. It is short, and self-explanatory.
    Pinkerton Theoretical Cosmological Model Of The Universe 1/26/09

    The Theory:

    1. The visible/local universe has a finite amount of mass.

    2. Black holes have a finite critical mass limit.

    3. That limit is exactly equal to the total mass ( matter + energy ) in the visible/local universe.

    The Process:

    1. Black holes convert all matter/energy into sub-elemental hydrogen for uniform 'stacking'.

    2. Black holes do not appear to be subject to normal laws of space ( rotational speed limits, inertia )

    3. Black holes ( to our knowledge ) currently merge at velocities 'tethered' by the rotational force and tidal forces of the satellite galaxy, or even just a single stellar companion.

    4. Over eons of time black holes will grow in mass/gravity.

    5. Although some escapes temporarily through x-ray/gamma ray bursts ( and possibly through Hawking Radiation ) they continue to grow in mass/gravity.

    6. Eventually unencumbered by the rotational/tidal force of orbiting galaxies, black holes could theoretically achieve near infinite velocities. Therefore significantly speeding up the merging process and 'chasing down' gravitational sources at velocities far out-pacing the expansion of space.

    7. As the mass/gravity grows so does it's rotational speed, and potential velocity as it seeks other sources of gravitons.

    8. The strain on space ( ripple effect ) increases with the growing mass.

    9. As our visible/local universe nears the end of it's life cycle, only one black hole remains, containing nearly all the mass in the visible/local universe ( still within upper mass limits predicted by physicists )

    10. At this trigger point, all remaining space containing matter/energy collapses into the black hole.

    11. When the last sub-atomic particle reaches the point of singularity, critical mass is achieved.

    12. The Big Bang.

    13. Space 'snaps' back to near-uniformity taking hydrogen/microwave/x-ray/gamma ray radiation with it.

    14. Space immediately begins to cool, and star/galaxy formation begins.

    The Logic:

    1. All things in the physical universe have a critical mass point. Except, so far, black holes.

    2. I believe theoretical physics currently allows for such a process, and observations are beginning to bear out this reality.

    3. At the time calculations were made regarding upper-mass limits, black holes were mere theoretical oddities, and even Einstein argued against the possibility of their actual existence in physical space.

    4. Though we have never seen a black hole reach critical mass, that in no way suggests they don't.

    5. The visible/local universe has yet to reach infancy compared to it's expected life span. It is premature to assume on such small evidence that the current expansion will go on forever.

    The Evidence/Proof:

    1. The laws of physics, quantum mechanics.

    2. The observations, predictions and experiments providing adequate proof/accuracy of those laws.

    3. The current chemical/radiological composition of the visible universe.

    4. The current ( and upwardly mobile ) estimated mass of the visible/local universe now approaching the numbers derived for black hole upper-mass limits.

    5. Recent observations of black holes merging or set to merge.

    6. The recent acceptance that all galaxies have black holes, or super-massive black holes at their core.

    7. The recent observations detecting more galaxies gravitationally bound to ours, and Andromeda.

    8. No evidence to support the recent hypothesis that black holes are limited to 50 billion sols.

    9. No evidence of black holes showing appreciable loss of mass over time.

    10. No evidence that black holes 'shunt' mass anywhere else.

    11. No evidence of branes, strings, 5th through 11 dimensions, etc.

    12. Closed-loop obeys all laws of thermo-dynamics/entropy.

    13. Not affected by hypothetical dark matter/energy.


    1. Black holes in excess of 50 billion sols will be discovered through the latest and soon to come optical/radio telescopes.

    2. Every new discovery will fit within the parameters of this model.

    3. This cycle will repeat endlessly.

    In Conclusion:

    1. This model answers the question of the observed chemical/radiological composition of the visible/local universe.

    2. This model provides for 100% recycling of all matter/energy in the visible/local universe.

    3. This model explains where the big bang got it's mass.

    4. This model appears to violate no known laws.

    5. This model requires no 'new' laws to function.

    6. This model is vastly superior to all flawed existing, and previous models.

    7. It still leaves the question "How did it begin?" to future theorists.

    It is also my theory, however, that per Einstein's Uniformity of Space math ( born out by observations ), the universe is indeed infinite. That black holes are simply 'borrowed' energy from the fabric of space. That dark energy is not a force that 'acts' upon space but rather a 'property' of space. This process/cycle is akin to the sub-atomic particles that 'materialize' and are instantly annihilated by anti-particles ... but on a much larger scale.

    And I also suggest that this process is going on throughout infinity, and has been eternally. The distance between black holes ... the local/finite universes ... would be equivalent to the distance between the 'materializing' particles.

    If the loop was not closed, then we would get photons from outside our universe leaking ( over eternity ) here into our universe. CMBR would show an extreme red shift, and it does not. And of course if the loop was not closed ... meaning if even a single photon were allowed to escape, the 'next' black hole would be one photon short of critical mass. I don't think space allows this to happen.

    Logic tells me that if this theory is incorrect, then the universe did in fact have a beginning. And therefore it can not be either infinite, or eternal. That there really is nothing beyond the bubble of our expanding visible universe. That there was some metaphysical reason ( ie: God ) since it truly would have had to spring into existence from 'nothing' ... because there was no space with it's inherent energy to 'borrow' from.

    I think there is sufficient evidence in Einstein's math to safely conclude this is not a possiblity. The 'lines' of space would not have an 'endpoint'.

    It is possible that my supposition of black hole inertia-less velocities will not be born out by future observations, however this would not stop the process. Instead, it would merely slow it down. No matter how far space 'expands' the last black hole standing would warp space sufficiently to pull back any remaining mass/energy.

    Reasonable logic tells me that if a 'big bang' could simply materialize from 'nothing' ( and sans God ) then that same process could happen at any time, at any location. Such as two seconds from now inside the Moon's orbit. That would appear ( so far, anyway ) not to be the case. There must be a process. A function that allows matter to exist, if only temporarily.

    Logically, it took all the energy from our universe to create our universe.

    I hope this didn't take too much of your time.

    Thank you for your attention.

    James Pinkerton

    Copyright 2009 James Pinkerton

    After Galileo's conviction for heresy ... and his subsequent sentencing ...

    As he was being led away, he was credited with uttering these words under his breath .....

    "But they move. They move!"

    As I am being led away I will quietly utter these words .....

    "But they merge. They merge!"
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Hello pywakit,

    I'll have a few quick comments and questions. I assume there must be much more detail and mathematics to your theory. Is it available anywhere (particularly the mathematics)?

    Black holes can't contain more mass than the universe contains, obviously.

    What's "sub-elemental hydrogen"?

    And what's "stacking"?

    As formulated by physicists they are certainly subject to normal laws. In fact, they fall straight out of Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

    By absorbing matter, or some other process?

    Faster than the speed of light?

    Why doesn't this contradict conservation of angular momentum?

    And how does a black hole "seek" sources of gravitons?

    What's the "ripple effect"?

    What's the critical point of my cat?

    Isn't this dependent on the net mass/energy density of the universe? Are you saying other factors come into play, too?

    How do these prove your theory?

    Does your theory predict this? Show me the maths, please.

    What has that got to do with black holes?

    Is this a claim of your theory, or a claim that black holes are not affected by dark matter/energy based on known physics? If the latter, please link me to a paper or something that supports that contention.

    That's an assertion so far, but I'm sure you'll post the maths. I look forward to it.



    So they aren't formed when stars collapse?

    How does this "borrowing" process work?

    Current accepted physics says the universe began at the big bang, and it is infinite.

    You are aware that the big bang happened everywhere, I hope.

    I look forward to your further elaboration of your theory.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. pywakit Registered Senior Member

    Most of your questions are reasonable. If you don't mind though ... please re-read the model. Then you might want to edit a few of the questions.

    I assume you are a physicist, or mathematician. It should not be necessary to provide you with math you are already quite familiar with. There is nothing 'new' mathematically here. The model is straightforward GR, and does not stray. If you think it over, as many before you have ... you will find that none of the current measurements conflict with the model.

    This is a modified BB model. If the measurements in question do not conflict with the standard model, they will not conflict with mine.

    I like cats, too.
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2010
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    You've posted no details of the model - just a bunch of claims. I have asked you specific questions. If you don't want to answer them, then I'll be on my way.

    So why is your model an advance on the standard model?
  8. pywakit Registered Senior Member

    I did not say I would not answer them. If you wish to be 'on your way' I can not stop you.

    Lol. Ok.

    You are used to looking for a very complex solution. This is a very SIMPLE solution. It uses GR. Newton. You know the math far better than me. The model does not conflict with GR. I base this assertion on several thousand scientists, and science-minded people ( such as Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and Dr. Michael Ibison ) who examined my model before you. Dr. Ibison offered funding if I can devise experiments.

    I must assume GR math is readily available.

    I use the term for lack of a better one. Since we can't see inside a BH, we can't say for sure what form the matter/energy has taken. Upon release, however, the process clearly creates hydrogen and helium in copious amounts.

    Stacking just means the BH is uniformly compact.

    Forgive my impertinence, but you have no way to know that as GR breaks down at the singularity. If it did not, we could accurately describe the inner workings of the BH. And by extension, the properties of space under total collapse.

    Whether the BH does or does not 'follow' normal laws of space does not in any way hinder my model's function.

    Will this work?

    You will find a more comprehensive article about this at

    If not tethered to a gravitional source ( orbiting galaxy, stellar companion etc ), and space is 'broken' at the singularity, yes. We not not know for certain a BH would have to follow the laws of normal space. But it is irrelevant, anyway. It just means the process takes longer if they ARE limited to < C.

    Einstein argued that collapsing rotating stars would speed up as they collapsed. He said black holes could not form because their extreme spin would cause them to fly apart. Clearly he was wrong. And by the way, the 'theoretical' limit above is not cast in stone.

    Scientists have assumed a non-feeding BH is also non-rotating. The Scharwzschild BH, I believe. It would appear that we are finding black holes with spin all over, and have found none that can be verified to be non-rotational.

    You incorrectly assume black holes are 'fixed' in space.

    Space is bent/curved by mass/gravity. The lines of space are straight unless disturbed by mass/gravity. Gravity waves from the spinning BH would cause this 'ripple' effect.

    I don't know. If you spin it fast enough it will fly apart, I assume. Of course you realise that I am referring to the different stages of stars. Nova. Supernova. A BH is nothing more than an extremely dense star

    No, and yes. Black holes are mobile. Capable of 'chasing' matter/energy.

    I think you are not grasping that the model follows accepted physics.

    It conforms to it. The standard model ( BB ) predicts these things for me. What I have done is provide a mechanism within the existing laws of physics, and GR.

    That merging black holes are not anomalous events.
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2010
  9. pywakit Registered Senior Member

    In continuation:

    No. You are not understanding. It does not matter whether or not DE, or DM exist. Whatever remains within the visible/local universe will be consumed by the last BH.

    Again, you are not getting it. It recycles every last atom. Because that is what it takes to reach CMP. We know from GR that space collapses in a BH. That means any and all energy contained within the collapsed space will fall onto the BH. And I said ONTO. Not into.

    It got it's mass from the previous universe. As I have stated, logically, it takes ALL the energy from the universe to MAKE the universe.

    Please note that the standard model does not attempt to explain anything beyond our visible/local universe. Nor does my model, essentially. My addendum takes the model a step further, but does not require that step to be valid.

    Yes, of course they are formed by collapsing stars, and perhaps other processes too.

    It is also my theory that DE is actually the energy contained within space itself. Quantum fluctuations gradually build up a 'static charge'. This could have provided for the initial formation of matter, although this processs happened long. long ago.

    Correct me if I am wrong. Infinite with 'boundries'.

    That is not an accurate statement. 'Everywhere' covers a lot of ground. As soon as there is a complete consensus on that assertion, you will let me know?

    And thank you for taking the time to read, and critique my model. I also look forward to answering any more questions you may have.
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2010
  10. pywakit Registered Senior Member

    I should point out that when I came out with my model early last year, merging black holes were yet to be verified. My model inherently predicts black holes merging. I think that was an accurate prediction.

    I sent the model to over 1,000 scientists around the world in late January-early February. Of course, many are ST/SST/M-theorists. They were not very happy with me, for the most part. But although they made an effort to falsify the model ( and it clearly CAN be falsified ) they were unable to do so. Some were gracious enough to tell me the model was not unreasonable. But they did say I needed to come up with experiments.

    This model has sat on the main forum page of for the last 3 weeks. Not one person ( physicists, mathematicians, etc ) has been able to falsify it. Not that they did not try. If they HAD done so, it woild have been removed IMMEDIATELY to 'speculations/pseudoscience'. It has been viewed over 1,200 times in that 3 weeks.

    I feel relatively confident it is a good model, and superior to the standard model ... and FAR superior to any models requiring multiple dimensions, metaphysics, time-reversal, or any form of magic.
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2010
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Ok. Correct me if I'm wrong. In essence you're claiming that black holes run around and eventually consume all the matter in the universe. Then, when the last bit of matter is gone, that matter is "recycled" in new big bang. Is that right?

    What evidence do you have for your model, specifically?

    And note that merging black holes doesn't do the trick, since they are expected in the normal course of events.
  12. pywakit Registered Senior Member


    Let's take your last statement first. I always want to be courteous, but statements like this are not well-thought out. My understanding is that Newton suggested such events would occur. I don't think he used the term 'black hole' though. Lol. Einstein said such events were NOT possible as black holes 'could not exist'. It was almost a decade after his death before that attitude started to change.

    It only became 'expected in the normal course of events' in the last few years, and then only for 'local' galaxies. The scientific community just wasn't grasping that black holes could freely move around. It is just now beginning to sink in.

    It was just a few years ago that Hawking conceded his bet. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. When he first hypothesized 'leaking' black holes in the 70's, we had yet to actually discover one, leaking or not. Hawking was on board with the one-way universe, and we needed to figure out a way to get rid of those nasty 'theorized' black holes.

    Obviously, for a number of reasons, black holes were not losing any mass by shunting it to another dimension. And even if black holes were found to leak, 'evaporating' a black hole of 50M sols would take 1 followed by 140 zeros years to go away. Several quadrillions of times the expected life-span of our visible universe. ( This info directly from Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson ... who in fact supports Hawking in this.. ) And this assumes they don't eat anything else. Ever. Instead, we continue to discover more and more massive black holes.

    I might also add that Hawking was/is unable to come up with an 'endpoint' to his evaporating black holes. Vanish? Or remnant?

    The following are self-explanatory:

    It is interesting to note that although the math/physics does not limit a black hole's mass, researchers continue to attempt to place arbitrary limits on it's size. So what is it? 10B sols? 18B? 50B?

    I am certain we will discover ( very soon ) black holes much more massive than those listed above. And much more massive than the arbitrary limits set by these researchers.

    **By the way, can't wait to see what measurements they come up with for the combined masses of all those merging pairs ... **

    Newton said that gravitational bodies will attract. You just don't have your time ( or space ) scale hat on. Black holes will move toward the strongest gravitational field ... the more massive they get, the more gravity they get. They will continue to move toward ever weaker sources. There is no 'anchor' attached to a black hole. And they can take all the time they need to do their work.

    So my DIRECT evidence is the fact that we are discovering ever larger black holes merging. My indirect evidence is the BB itself. ( I might add I am not speaking of an actual 'explosion'. I am assuming it 'flies apart' due to angular momentum.)

    Additionally, although we have assumed this too, black holes are not required to physically occupy zero dimensions. That is the 'theoretical' math. It breaks down at infinite answers. And it breaks down at the 'singularity'. We have no evidence that black holes do not have 'volume'. We could stare directly at one that has an actual diameter ( not the Schwarzschild radius ) of a million kilometers, and we would not see it.

    As I have already stated, I have not been made aware that my model violates any known, accepted laws of physics. This is more indirect evidence.

    And lastly, I do not claim 100% certainty. I could be very wrong. But it appears so far that my model is a substantial improvement over the current 'working model'. It provides a valid and reasoned mechanism for 'reversing' the expansion of space. ( Which, by the way, we do not know is actually expanding. All we know for certain is that distant galaxies are receding from us at velocities proportional to time/distance, and have little relative motion compared to CMBR.) The 'expansion of space' is one possible mechanism for this.

    I hope I have not offended you. And please forgive my lack of eloquence.

    Just in case you missed this from the "33 merging pairs".

    "These results are significant because we now know that these 'waltzing' black holes are much more common than previously known," said Dr. Julia Comerford of the University of California, Berkeley."

    So as of 8 days ago 'we' ( the astrophysical community ) would not have expected merging black holes to be this common. Hmmm.

    Anyway, I have predicted we will soon discover black holes in excess of 50B sols. I think you will agree they are NOT 'expected in the normal course of events' either. Seems like only yesterday when astrophysicists were quite certain a black hole maxxed out at around 50 MILLION sols.
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2010
  13. pywakit Registered Senior Member

    More BH updates ...

    As expected, this new information fits nicely within the parameters of my model ... and only increases the likelihood of discovering black holes in excess of 50B sols, as my model predicts.
  14. pywakit Registered Senior Member

    Some info on black hole spin ...

    Note that the spin is measured at the event horizon. Not at the near-zero ( presumed ) surface of the singularity itself. If the event horizon is spinning at 950 times a second, do you think the singularity is spinning slower?
  15. pywakit Registered Senior Member

    I have had many arguments ( polite, of course ) about the characteristics and behaviors of black holes. Black hole 'evaporation' is confidently spoken of as a near 'given' and fully in line with the 'ever-expanding' universe.

    Here is another characteristic that was spoken of as a 'given' for decades ...

    .................................................. .......................................

    Hawking is not infallible.
  16. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    You have no model. All you have is a bunch of hand-waving.

    Mod hat:

    Thread moved to pseudoscience.
  17. pywakit Registered Senior Member


    I must publicly protest this action by DH. Respected scientists such as Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and Dr. Michael Ibison consider it a 'model'. It strictly follows known physics, and known observations.

    Although I have not devised 'experiments' as of yet, Hawking Radiation was UN-experimental for 3 decades.

    My model makes predictions. Such as the commonality of black holes merging. This prediction has already proven to be accurate.

    It would seem that James R did not see fit to continue a debate after I reasonably, and logically ... and with independant evidence ... dismantled his arguments against my model.

    It would appear that string theorists carry a lot of weight here ... even though strings are still a 'myth'. Perhaps I am assuming too much, but I think I simply caused James R embarrassment, and this removal of my model is nothing more than childish retribution.

    I will not be surprised if this post is removed, too. But who knows? Maybe ethics will win out and the model will be rightfully returned to main science where it belongs.
  18. pywakit Registered Senior Member

    I would also like to add ...

    When Hawking first proposed his 'hypothetical' leaking black holes in the mid 70's, he relied on known physics. Period.

    My model relies on known physics AND observations.

    Would DH have kicked Hawking to 'pseudo', too?
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    You don't have a model, as far as I can tell.
  20. pywakit Registered Senior Member


    Then I would respectfully request ( edit ) you re-consider. Other scientists have said it is a very plausible model. Good. Very promising. And they have acknowledged the reality that the model uses accepted math and physics, so there is no need for a ( new ) mathematical expression.

    Look James, I understand your reaction. But you really are not giving this the full attention of your undoubtably brilliant mind.

    It's a 'new' idea. It flies in the face of current expansion theories, and I think you may just need more time ...

    I am not here to 'wave a flag'. I am here proposing a serious, and well thought-out model. As I wait for further debate, it does not seem inappropriate to post 3rd party evidence from respected sources to lend support to my model.

    I apologize for offending you. It was not unexpected, though.

    Regards, py
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2010
  21. pywakit Registered Senior Member

    Further rational argument for re-instatement:

    All theories begin as a hypothesis. The first thing we do is test that hypothesis against accepted math, and physics. If it passes those tests, we then see how this hypothesis compares to observational reality.

    If the hypothesis passes all these requirements, it becomes a 'working' theory.

    My model is a THEORETICAL model, because it passes all the above mentioned tests. It is not necessary to witness a black hole suddenly releasing it's energy, to reasonably conclude that they can, and do based on many other pieces of observational data.

    James, both you and DH are fully aware that some things can't be 'experimentally' tested. We accept the working theory that super-novae occur, based on known physics, and our observations. But I don't think we are quite capable of creating one experimentally just yet. Still waiting on results from the collider, of course, but it is clear that any conclusions about the macro universe will be extrapolations from the planck universe.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Alright pywakit, I’ll address your theory with a much too long set of questions. I have my own personal view of cosmology and I don’t call it theory or a model, just a set of ideas, some necessary new physics, and speculation upon speculation as D H puts it.

    1) What makes your cosmology a theory, and what exactly do you mean by “model”? Some people disagree with me about what cosmology means. A complete cosmology simply describes an alternative view of what the universe is like. Science does not have a complete view of cosmology and so anyone’s complete view is an alternative to the standard Cosmology of Big Bang Theory with Inflation (BBT). BBT in my simple view is General Relativity, Inflationary Theory and the cosmological principle. Anyone’s view that they call a complete picture cannot be proved, quantified or compatible with all aspects of current theory, but as you clearly acknowledge, one aspect that all compete cosmologies must share is consistency with known science. Obviously that means that reliance on the “tentativeness” of science cannot be used as an argument for your theory or model.

    2) Science says that there is no known physics that will make an accumulation of all of the matter and energy in the universe become a new Big Bang while you require it. If there was any such physics the standard cosmology would include it and wouldn’t have to start at t=10^-30, we could go right to t=0 and describe the circumstances at that point in time. I don’t see where you address the new physics to make that happen and in fact you say that it doesn’t require new physics. You will need to explain what makes the crunch become a Big Bang when the entirety of the universe gets back into it besides naming it critical mass limit. I would accept that there is a maximum energy density that is short of infinite, i.e. there cannot be a point with zero volume that contains the total mass of the universe but even professionals that I have asked don’t firmly adhere to the infinite density implied by GR. But there has to be a cause for even a finite maximum density to Bang.

    3) You set the critical mass limit of such an event to be equal to the last photon and particle in the universe, meaning that all of the EM has to be recalled to the accumulating mass before the next big bang. This makes your theory a cyclical model and one that is so fine tuned that it depends on space snapping back at the opportune time. I appreciate your effort to conserve energy but as I point out below, you have not explained how that last drop of existing energy gets recalled. What do you find in known physics that says space can snap back? Isn’t that too new physics?

    4) You don’t address the current consensus that the expansion is accelerating. Do you disagree that the separation between galaxies and galaxy groups is increasing at an accelerating rate?

    5) Do you consider the relative motion of the galaxies and galaxy groups to be momentum or is it new space being added? If it is new space does that space come from nowhere and just appear when needed to accommodate or make room for the emission of EM, and if so how does the new space get distributed proportionately across the expanding universe and among the galaxies and galaxy groups.

    6) If the galaxy groups have momentum that is displayed by the observations of expansion and accelerating expansion, then wouldn’t the resulting central black holes have separation momentum even after they have gobbled up all of the mass and EM that constitute their visible stars? Since we observe accelerating expansion what force would be able to overcome the acceleration and halt the momentum so that gravity could call all the black holes back “home”? Isn’t the inverse square rule working against you?

    Answer these questions to my satisfaction and I will go on.
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2010
  23. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Merging black holes have been part of GR for as long as black holes have been known about. The problem was that simulating such a collision is extremely computer intensive due to the highly non-linear nature of the Einstein Field Equations. It was only recently that new numerical methods were developed which allowed for detailed simulations of black hole collisions and the resulting space-time distortions.

    Saying "Black holes will merge" is not an insightful prediction. Any two gravitationally interacting objects will be drawn towards one another. If you have a viable model of gravity then you should be able to accurately model the trajectories the black holes move along as they spiral into one another. You can't.

    If your work weren't nonsense you'd need to send it only to a journal and they'd review it and then publish it. Your spamming of physicists inboxes does not put your work in a good light.

    I delete all unsolicited email I get from people trying to push their work via email rather than a journal.

    You have no model. A model should model something. You can't provide any working model of any phenomenon.

    It makes no quantified testable predictions, how can it be falsified if you aren't making any predictions.

    So? The Bible is read millions (or billions) of times a day, doesn't make it right.

    Then you can derive the following things :

    1. The precession of Mercury's orbit about the Sun.
    2. The time differences experienced by GPS navigation systems due to the motion and position of the satellite.

    Both are little more than homework questions for anyone studying general relativity.

    String theory reproduces the results of general relativity with only the assumptions of special relativity. It is therefore superior to your work.

Share This Page