Hello, I wrote a full new and simple cosmological theory, I'm curious what is your opinion... Only for experts! Abstract: "Based on the Planck units, we can describe the entire universe as a black hole expanding and rotating with speed of light. In this model, there is no need for dark energy or inflation, and the nature of dark matter is solved as well. We can deduce the Planck-temperature and the average temperature of the universe from the energy density of thermal radiation, and we can determine the Hubble constant from the age of the universe, as well as those basic parameters of the universe which coincide with current measurements. According to the Planck power, all masses of the universe radiate gravitational energy, which will then propagate through space with speed of light. It can be proven that the interaction of gravitational waves with matter is the reason for the attractive force (exerted by) of gravity, that is the boson that mediates gravitational interactions is the graviton." The full paper can be downloaded from: files.com/shared/531126a5779a9/universe.pdf or found at: planckcosmology.weebly.com
You mean the arse end of a BH...or a White Hole? I like the speculative assumption, but that's all it remains...speculative.
I googled the suggested link, and found a sight about cosmology, but I didn't see Planckcosmology anywhere. Any more clues as to how to find the paper?
My pdf file was large to upload here, so I made a simple web page, and embed this. Sorry... But I uploaded here as well: files.com/shared/531126a5779a9/universe.pdf
I tried that and there was nothing there. It may be there, but it didn't show up for me. I think that you will be able to link us directly to it after some minumum number of posts, 15 or 20 I think. Maybe you can give me a sequence of four or five words in the first paragraph that I can Google?
gabana, why not just Post the Link : http://www.files.com/download/531126a5779a9/universe.pdf Though I have yet to go over all of the Math - on my quick once over - my first question is : How does anything "rotate at the speed of light" ? Are you proposing that "Black Hole" rotates on its axis 299,792,458 times per second? If so, at what radius from that Axis that would the motion of all matter exceed the velocity of light? If not, then at what radius from that axis of rotation are you measuring the motion as "rotating at the speed of light"? Also, how does the magnetic part of the electromagnetic spectrum fit into your theory of rotation? Like I said - just from giving it a quick once over.
Okay, gave your paper glance. I've a few questions. Where is the physical justification of these "new metrics" you've created? The thing at first glance seems to be short on the required "internal consistency". Are the metrics you "presented" natural or forced? If they were forced, you'll probably find any number of non-self-consistent paradoxes popping out of it when you try to apply it. Is it compatible with classical and quantum thermodynamics? Is it compatible with Special AND General Relativity? Is it compatible with Newtonian mechanics? And is it compatible with Quantum Field Theory? Is it really an improvement of the FLRW metrics used to model in the Lambda CDM model? What does it answer? What answers that we now hold with great confidence do we have to abandon and seek new answers? Does it answer more questions than it begs? (Solving one problem with a solution that creates 50 problems where there wasn't one is not very practical.) Have you ACTUALLY found a solution to your equations? A solution that matches observations? ALL observations? Are they local only? Global only? Cosmological scales only? Are your solutions scalable across any order of magnitude? Where are the constrains? You posited some maths in equation form, but you didn't show any solutions for them. You really didn't specifically say just what each one was for. What are the metrics you chose founded on. It's appears at first glance as if it was created AFTER the conclusion, rather the conclusion falling out of it.
Why would we need to use Planck units to make a bunch of irrelevant predictions? We can do that using any set of units. There's empirical evidence for inflation, dark matter, the cosmological constant. Once you start making predictions that eliminate natural phenomena you might question the validity of the predictions.
