Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 262

Thread: Another Black hole proposal

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,533

    Question Another Black hole proposal

    In regards to black holes evaporating. Let's propose that the universe is made of spheres. In some cases these spheres are packed perfectly, in some cases there is an extra sphere (matter), in some cases a sphere is missing(anti-matter).
    In the case of perfect packing next to a black hole, at some point the perfect packing a discontinuity is created by some disturbance. A missing sphere is created close to an extra sphere.
    The black hole is filled with an area of extra spheres. The missing sphere area moves into the black hole. This would be a combination of matter-antimatter. The black hole evaporates a little bit.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Anzakistan
    Posts
    10,710
    This thread created from a hijack of another.

    Copernicus, please report this post if you do not wish to defend your idea as per the BAUT rules on ATM threads. (So we can close this thread).

    (Please note signature links below...)
    Measure once, cut twice. Practice makes perfect.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,533

    In defense of spheres

    I don't mind defending a universe being filled with spheres and these spheres being the origin of gravity and anti gravity. I would appreciate if others could help in the form of critique and finding evidence for this theory.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Anzakistan
    Posts
    10,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    ...and finding evidence for this theory.
    Sorry, but that's not the way it works here. Nothing personal, it's just the way the rules have evolved over time, and it seems to work pretty well.

    Other people are not required to find the evidence for you, as the (potential) creator of an ATM thread you need to do that yourself. An ATM thread does not exist for the purpose of building or developing an ATM idea - it's for presenting one that's already been thought through.

    Please note these links:

    http://www.bautforum.com/against-mai...upporters.html
    http://www.bautforum.com/against-mai...m-section.html

    As noted, you may chose to have this thread closed.
    Last edited by pzkpfw; 2010-Jan-18 at 04:58 AM. Reason: Add links
    Measure once, cut twice. Practice makes perfect.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,533
    Again, I don't mind defending my theory. If someone could start, I will answer their questions.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    OK Copernicus,

    Regardless of your posting I think you chose an excellent ATM moniker. Copernicus was the Pollock that stood up for ATM when you could get executed for the idea of it, a man above all men of the time!

    I really, however, cannot get a handle on your ATM idea of spheres, concerning black holes. It appears you are implying there could be spheres of some kind such as: one is matter and the other anti-matter with equivalent features. To me, that could be a remote possibility on the very large scale of things (they are investigating the possibility)-- but my opinion is probably not. Around black holes, however, I don't see how it could come to play at all concerning either theory or observation concerning black holes. What sayeth thou?

    Try to give what you consider to be logical answers. Realize that in this section you are trying to promote something other than the standard model, i.e. your idea. As for me you have to follow discernible logic. You do not have to be consistent with your original proposal as far as I'm concerned, i.e. you can change your mind.

    Each of your answers should be based upon observational reality, mixed with logic. Although "snarkism" is part of the ATM section -- I don't think anyone wants it to prevail in the long run. What sayeth thou? You don't have to worry about deviating from the standard model of cosmology here, if you weren't contrary -- you'ld be back in the Question and Answer Section.

    OK, here's your start -- answer my questions if you would?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,623
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    OK Copernicus,

    Regardless of your posting I think you chose an excellent ATM moniker. Copernicus was the Pollock that stood up for ATM when you could get executed for the idea of it, a man above all men of the time!
    "Pollock" is a misspelling of a term that is generally a pejorative reference to one of Polish descent. I hope that you did not intend the offense.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,326
    Copernicus, how would you explain the observed characteristics of the electron and the positron in terms of your sphere-based theory of matter and antimatter?

    When mainstream scientists refer to the positron as "antimatter", they mean that it has specific observable characteristics that can be compared to and contrasted with the observable characteristics of the electron. Do you know what these observable characteristics are? Are these the kinds of observable characteristics you have in mind when you say "in some cases there is an extra sphere (matter), in some cases a sphere is missing(anti-matter)"?

    If so, does your sphere-based theory of matter and antimatter predict these observable characteristics or describe these observable differences between electrons and positrons? If not, what do you mean by the terms "matter" and "anti-matter", and have you considered using (and defining) other terms for what you mean by "extra sphere" and "missing sphere", rather than using terms that already have a well-defined (and totally different) mainstream meaning?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    13,886
    forrest noble wrote:

    Copernicus was the (Pole) that stood up for ATM when you could get executed for the idea of it, a man above all men of the time!
    While Copernicus' ideas strongly influenced those who came after him, his work couldn't have influenced contemporaries because it wasn't published until he was dead. He held off publishing it for decades, only getting it to the printer as he was dying. People who had heard about the work (including a couple of bishops) were urging him to get his manuscript out and he kept refusing.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    13,886
    Further note: Copernicus didn't get it to the printer, Rheticus pried it out of him and did.

    De Revolutionibus was published in 1543, but was not placed on the church Index until 1616. Some troublemaker named Galileo got their backs up, it seems.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    OK Copernicus,

    Regardless of your posting I think you chose an excellent ATM moniker. Copernicus was the Pollock that stood up for ATM when you could get executed for the idea of it, a man above all men of the time!

    I really, however, cannot get a handle on your ATM idea of spheres, concerning black holes. It appears you are implying there could be spheres of some kind such as: one is matter and the other anti-matter with equivalent features. To me, that could be a remote possibility on the very large scale of things (they are investigating the possibility)-- but my opinion is probably not. Around black holes, however, I don't see how it could come to play at all concerning either theory or observation concerning black holes. What sayeth thou?

    Try to give what you consider to be logical answers. Realize that in this section you are trying to promote something other than the standard model, i.e. your idea. As for me you have to follow discernible logic. You do not have to be consistent with your original proposal as far as I'm concerned, i.e. you can change your mind.

    Each of your answers should be based upon observational reality, mixed with logic. Although "snarkism" is part of the ATM section -- I don't think anyone wants it to prevail in the long run. What sayeth thou? You don't have to worry about deviating from the standard model of cosmology here, if you weren't contrary -- you'ld be back in the Question and Answer Section.

    OK, here's your start -- answer my questions if you would?
    First, thanks for the complement on the moniker of Copernicus. I got it a long time ago in grade school. My third grade teacher gave it to me because she said I was taking up space.
    Yeah, Pollock, not so nice. I always did like a good Polish joke, but its not accepted anymore.
    I have to work in 30 minutes so I don't have a lot of time. But first, I will propose a question. Keep in mind that physics is a whole, not something we can alway use reductionism on. Regarding the black hole. If we can show once that a black hole, does not have to be a point can we start to poke holes at the mainstream of physics, the standard model.

    My simple example is this. I will show the calculations later. If we take the size of the universe to be 13.72 billion light years of radius, and input this as the Schwarschild radius, we arrive at a mass of approximately 1* 10^53Kg. This is very close to the estimated mass of the universe. This begs the question. Is the Universe a black hole? If it is a black hole, and we are not points, then a black hole does not and possibly in every situation is not a point. A black hole can be shown to be very large like our universe.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    13,886
    Amateur question: If a black hole is big enough, isn't there room inside the event horizon but far enough away from the central singularity for the gravitational gradient to be small enough for matter to exist in normal form?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,207
    Quote Originally Posted by mike alexander View Post
    Amateur question: If a black hole is big enough, isn't there room inside the event horizon but far enough away from the central singularity for the gravitational gradient to be small enough for matter to exist in normal form?
    Yes.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    My simple example is this. I will show the calculations later.
    Will those calculations include world lines for particles?

    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    If we take the size of the universe to be 13.72 billion light years of radius, and input this as the Schwarschild radius, we arrive at a mass of approximately 1* 10^53Kg. This is very close to the estimated mass of the universe.
    This has been known for almost a half a century. So what?

    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    This begs the question. Is the Universe a black hole? If it is a black hole, and we are not points, then a black hole does not and possibly in every situation is not a point. A black hole can be shown to be very large like our universe.
    No, the universe cannot be. Which is why I asked about your calculations for world lines. World lines end at all singularities inside black holes. The one non-black hole singularity in the universe is the Big Bang singularity. That particular singularity is where all world lines begin. So, the singularity in the universe does not have world lines that end at it. So, the universe cannot be a black hole.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by mike alexander View Post
    Amateur question: If a black hole is big enough, isn't there room inside the event horizon but far enough away from the central singularity for the gravitational gradient to be small enough for matter to exist in normal form?
    Okay, well where is our singularity? You need the mass of the universe to form the singularity, and all that mass has to be contained in the singularity. Not so simple as imagined.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Copernicus,

    If we take the size of the universe to be 13.72 billion light years of radius
    I know of no theory that proposes the radius of the universe to be 13.72 billion light years. Did you mean the maximum radius of the observable universe according to the BB model if the universe is 13.72 billion years old?

    Okay, well where is our singularity? You need the mass of the universe to form the singularity, and all that mass has to be contained in the singularity.
    Black holes come in different sizes (mass equivalence). Singularity theories of black holes also propose that stellar black holes form singularities. Alternative mainstream theories propose that black holes are not singularities but instead are a very compact form of matter (compact mass). The same variation of theory involves the proposed BB entity. Some propose a singularity, others propose a small finite size to it.

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

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    OK Copernicus,

    Regardless of your posting I think you chose an excellent ATM moniker. Copernicus was the Pollock that stood up for ATM when you could get executed for the idea of it, a man above all men of the time!

    I really, however, cannot get a handle on your ATM idea of spheres, concerning black holes. It appears you are implying there could be spheres of some kind such as: one is matter and the other anti-matter with equivalent features. To me, that could be a remote possibility on the very large scale of things (they are investigating the possibility)-- but my opinion is probably not. Around black holes, however, I don't see how it could come to play at all concerning either theory or observation concerning black holes. What sayeth thou?

    Try to give what you consider to be logical answers. Realize that in this section you are trying to promote something other than the standard model, i.e. your idea. As for me you have to follow discernible logic. You do not have to be consistent with your original proposal as far as I'm concerned, i.e. you can change your mind.

    Each of your answers should be based upon observational reality, mixed with logic. Although "snarkism" is part of the ATM section -- I don't think anyone wants it to prevail in the long run. What sayeth thou? You don't have to worry about deviating from the standard model of cosmology here, if you weren't contrary -- you'ld be back in the Question and Answer Section.

    OK, here's your start -- answer my questions if you would?
    Hi Forrest Noble,

    I assume that we all agree that E=mc^2 and E=0.5*mv^2.

    Should not E=0.5mc^2?

    I propose that the reason that E=mc^2 has to do with matter is made of spheres spinning on 3 axes. Please do not assume the realm of the proton, neutron, electron to be like our world. We could not have a sphere spinning on 3 perpendicular axes. It would wobble. But anyways. Consider the following.

    It is known that E=mc^2. If we postulate that there is a hollow sphere, spinning on 3 perpendicular axes at the same rate, we can calculate energy of matter in a different way. If we further postulate that this sphere is sphere of Compton wavelength. We can calculate an energy. We will show that this energy is equal to E=mc^2. Perhaps matter is kinetic energy of E=(1/2)mv^2. We must postulate, that at some point E=mc^2=hw. Then the frequency for this particle, of Compton wavelength, is w=〖mc〗^2/h and the radius of this particle is r=c/2w. The average radius, of a sphere spinning on one axis, is the root mean radius. This value is r*(2/3)^0.5. The frequency is multiplied by 2 as explained for equation 2.8 and 3.7. The energy of a sphere system, spinning on 3 axes, is
    E=3*m*(1/2) r*(2/3)^(0.5) * r*(2/3)^(0.5)*2w*2w
    Substituting for r and w
    E=mc^2

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by stutefish View Post
    Copernicus, how would you explain the observed characteristics of the electron and the positron in terms of your sphere-based theory of matter and antimatter?

    When mainstream scientists refer to the positron as "antimatter", they mean that it has specific observable characteristics that can be compared to and contrasted with the observable characteristics of the electron. Do you know what these observable characteristics are? Are these the kinds of observable characteristics you have in mind when you say "in some cases there is an extra sphere (matter), in some cases a sphere is missing(anti-matter)"?

    If so, does your sphere-based theory of matter and antimatter predict these observable characteristics or describe these observable differences between electrons and positrons? If not, what do you mean by the terms "matter" and "anti-matter", and have you considered using (and defining) other terms for what you mean by "extra sphere" and "missing sphere", rather than using terms that already have a well-defined (and totally different) mainstream meaning?
    My theory has not been developed enough to explain the observable characteristic of the electron and positron, except to explain charge. I will say that all charged particles contain the structure of the electron, within in them and no charged particle may weigh less than the electron.
    I am not necessarily comfortable discussing my calculations here or revealing them.

    Reason being is that this forum is so sloppy in its presentation that much information is lost. Another reason is that I would prefer a forum where people can come up with not only constructive critism, but ideas. I don't understand this philosphy of mutually assured destruction in physics. It has lead no where.

    Has any research come out of this forum, that has changed physics?

    As far as extra spheres and missing spheres. Imagine a cuboctahedron structure. The unit cuboctahedron structure is made of 13 spheres. One surrounded by the 12. If you add one to the center then there are 14. If you remove the center one then there are 12. If the universe is a continuous packing of spheres, just like matter is you could imagine the universe to have Schottky and Frenkel defects just as there is in material science.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,623
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Reason being is that this forum is so sloppy in its presentation that much information is lost. Another reason is that I would prefer a forum where people can come up with not only constructive critism, but ideas. I don't understand this philosphy of mutually assured destruction in physics. It has lead no where.
    I'm sure that you'd like to set the rules of the forum to suit your tastes, but alas, the forum has its own set of rules. You may wish to read them. You are obligated to answer direct questions put to you, whether you want to or not, and whether or not you believe that such an exchange will lead to the production of new ideas.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Copernicus,

    ...... matter is made of spheres spinning on 3 axes. Please do not assume the realm of the proton, neutron, electron to be like our world. We could not have a sphere spinning on 3 perpendicular axes. It would wobble.
    We are on the same page concerning the above since I myself have made a similar proposal which was that fermions spin on two different alternating axis (but not spherical in form, spherical appearing because of their spin) with a third dimensional component to it based upon the resultant wobble, my primary purpose being to explain the production of De Broglie waves of particles and atoms in an aether-field background. So you have my ear on 3D particle spin in general. I don't, however, see how that relates to your OP or even the mass equivalency formula E=mc^2. Nor do I understand how your math supports your original proposal concerning spheres or missing spheres surrounding black holes?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    My theory has not been developed enough to explain the observable characteristic of the electron and positron,
    And yet the observable characteristics of the electron and the positron are the basis for the former being called "matter" and the latter being called "anti-matter", in mainstream physics.

    If your sphere-based theory of matter and antimatter has not been developed enough to explain the specific, observed characteristics of matter and antimatter, then on what basis do you make claims like adding a sphere will produce matter and removing a sphere will produce anti-matter?

    except to explain charge. I will say that all charged particles contain the structure of the electron, within in them and no charged particle may weigh less than the electron.
    I am not necessarily comfortable discussing my calculations here or revealing them.
    Since it's the calculations that actually explain things in physics, omitting them in this discussion means your theory does not actually explain charge at all.

    Reason being is that this forum is so sloppy in its presentation that much information is lost. Another reason is that I would prefer a forum where people can come up with not only constructive critism, but ideas. I don't understand this philosphy of mutually assured destruction in physics. It has lead no where.
    On the contrary, physics has been dramatically changed and improved by excellent theories that survived aggressive, relentless, and ongoing attacks by other physicists. In fact, their ability to survive these attacks is the primary method by which we prove their excellence.

    As to ideas, here are two ideas I hope you will consider very seriously:

    1. Theories of matter and antimatter should, at a minimum, accurately predict and describe the observable characteristics of matter and antimatter. Saying you have a theory that explains the positron makes no sense unless your theory knows what a positron is and predicts the characteristics a positron is observed to have.

    2. In physics, the calculations are the theory. If you don't have calculations, you don't have a theory.

    Has any research come out of this forum, that has changed physics?
    Sadly, much of the research ever presented to this subforum has proved unable to survive even the simplest and most superficial attacks, for even a brief period of time (30 days, compared to the 30 years--and in some cases 300 years or more--of attacks against some of the most excellent theories in physics). Some of the research presented in this subforum has not even produced enough of a theory to even be attackable. Research lacking in calculations, for example.

    What kind of research do you propose do present here? Research that will change physics by surviving years of attacks from physicists everywhere? Or research that will change nothing?

    As far as extra spheres and missing spheres. Imagine a cuboctahedron structure. The unit cuboctahedron structure is made of 13 spheres. One surrounded by the 12. If you add one to the center then there are 14. If you remove the center one then there are 12. If the universe is a continuous packing of spheres, just like matter is you could imagine the universe to have Schottky and Frenkel defects just as there is in material science.
    I can imagine the universe to have a lot of things. For example--and I say this in absolute seriousness, not out of any intent to ridicule you--I can imagine the universe to be composed of countless tiny magical golden monkeys, and that all observable phenomena in the universe proceeds from the action of these tiny magical golden monkeys.

    And if I had calculations describing the tiny-ness of the monkeys, the amount of magical power in their tiny golden prehensile tails, and the purity of the gold which makes up their tiny magical bodies, it might be an interesting theory. If I had calculations describing how their magical power converts into observable phenomena like Mass and Energy, it might be a useful theory.

    And if I had calculations that predicted where and how a tiny magical golden monkey might be observed, and the prediction was tested and proven to be correct, and the tiny-ness, magical-ness, and golden-ness of the observed monkey matched my calculations of these attributes, I would have a world-changing theory.

    So here we are: You imagine spheres. You imagine Schottky and Frenkel defects. Can you show us the calculations that go along with what you imagine?

    Because, to be honest, I love my idea of tiny magical golden monkeys. But I don't have a single calculation to support it. Do you have calculations to support your idea?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Anzakistan
    Posts
    10,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    The frequency is multiplied by 2 as explained for equation 2.8 and 3.7.
    What are equations 2.8 and 3.7?
    Measure once, cut twice. Practice makes perfect.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    14,029
    I am not necessarily comfortable discussing my calculations here or revealing them.
    Is there any point in continuing the thread? Under the rules odf the forum you are supposed to answer direct and pertinent questions in a timely manner. If you have calculations but won't reveal or discuss them because you think the forum is 'sloppy' in presentation' that could be seen as refusing to answer questions.
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Copernicus,







    Black holes come in different sizes (mass equivalence). Singularity theories of black holes also propose that stellar black holes form singularities. Alternative mainstream theories propose that black holes are not singularities but instead are a very compact form of matter (compact mass). The same variation of theory involves the proposed BB entity. Some propose a singularity, others propose a small finite size to it.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
    I know of no theory that proposes the radius of the universe to be 13.72 billion light years. Did you mean the maximum radius of the observable universe according to the BB model if the universe is 13.72 billion years old?

    From the CMB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wmap it is believed the age of the universe is 13.73 plus or minus 0.12 billion years. If one uses the hubble constant of 70.8 and the maximum expansion speed of the universe to be the speed of light, one can back calculate and show the universe to also be 13.73 billion light years in radius. I realize this is against the mainstream. I believe that no one wants to believe the universe to be 13.73 billion light years in radius because it violates the Copernican principle that humans have no special place in the universe. If the universe is 13.73 billion light years in radius it indicates that our galaxy is near the center of the universe.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Hi Forrest Noble,

    I assume that we all agree that E=mc^2 and E=0.5*mv^2.

    Should not E=0.5mc^2?
    Is that supposed to be a joke? You have taken an expression for rest energy, and one for kinetic energy, and equated them.

    Come on, you know that that makes no sense at all. You have noteven used the right term for relativistic kinetic energy, you've taken the classical approximation.

    If you get the basics so wrong, I doubt that you are yet ready to revolutionize the subject.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,623
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernBoy View Post
    Is that supposed to be a joke? You have taken an expression for rest energy, and one for kinetic energy, and equated them.

    Come on, you know that that makes no sense at all. You have noteven used the right term for relativistic kinetic energy, you've taken the classical approximation.

    If you get the basics so wrong, I doubt that you are yet ready to revolutionize the subject.
    He said he's uncomfortable showing us his math. Now it's clearer why that's so.

    But that's just me being sloppy, I guess.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Copernicus,



    We are on the same page concerning the above since I myself have made a similar proposal which was that fermions spin on two different alternating axis (but not spherical in form, spherical appearing because of their spin) with a third dimensional component to it based upon the resultant wobble, my primary purpose being to explain the production of De Broglie waves of particles and atoms in an aether-field background. So you have my ear on 3D particle spin in general. I don't, however, see how that relates to your OP or even the mass equivalency formula E=mc^2. Nor do I understand how your math supports your original proposal concerning spheres or missing spheres surrounding black holes?

    Regarding spheres and missing spheres. This final theory is not going to be discovered with one thought. It is a composite, and the picture needs to be put together. I will give a brief explanation or proposal. I appreciate you going along with this line of thinking for a few weeks without passing too much judgement. Mostly people believe the components of the nucleus to be on the order of 1*10^-15 meters. If we extend the universe to be packed with spheres of this size we come up with, on the order of 1*10^123 spheres. The question is, how does one pack these spheres? If they are all perfectly packed and flat we have nothing interesting. If instead we start with packing spheres on the outside of a larger sphere we find one layer has 4*pi*r^2 spheres, the next layer has 4*pi*(r+1)^2 spheres. Obviously this cannot be perfectly packed. I call this imperfect packing discontinuities. If one adds up these discontinuities that would be formed one finds the quantity to be on the order of the outer layer of the 1*10^123 spheres described above. It comes to, on the order of, about 1*10^80 spheres. If one multiplies this by the mass of the proton, it comes very close to the estimated mass of the universe.
    The reason I believe the universe to mostly matter is that we always need to find room for the extra spheres from this imperfect packing.
    I compare this spherical packing problem with Schottky and Frenkel defects in material science.

    With regards to fermions spinning on two axes. I agree this makes sense. But DeBroglie waves is not where I have concentrated. However I do believe all the spheres spin on 3 perpendicular axes, except for the wobbles created by the discontinuties and the expansion of the universe. I do however believe that one of the spins cound be non interacting, and, the wobbles could be on just one axis or two axes, and, only when there is a wobble can we have instruments that can perceive the perturbation in the spinning of the spheres.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by stutefish View Post
    And yet the observable characteristics of the electron and the positron are the basis for the former being called "matter" and the latter being called "anti-matter", in mainstream physics.

    If your sphere-based theory of matter and antimatter has not been developed enough to explain the specific, observed characteristics of matter and antimatter, then on what basis do you make claims like adding a sphere will produce matter and removing a sphere will produce anti-matter?


    Since it's the calculations that actually explain things in physics, omitting them in this discussion means your theory does not actually explain charge at all.


    On the contrary, physics has been dramatically changed and improved by excellent theories that survived aggressive, relentless, and ongoing attacks by other physicists. In fact, their ability to survive these attacks is the primary method by which we prove their excellence.

    As to ideas, here are two ideas I hope you will consider very seriously:

    1. Theories of matter and antimatter should, at a minimum, accurately predict and describe the observable characteristics of matter and antimatter. Saying you have a theory that explains the positron makes no sense unless your theory knows what a positron is and predicts the characteristics a positron is observed to have.

    2. In physics, the calculations are the theory. If you don't have calculations, you don't have a theory.


    Sadly, much of the research ever presented to this subforum has proved unable to survive even the simplest and most superficial attacks, for even a brief period of time (30 days, compared to the 30 years--and in some cases 300 years or more--of attacks against some of the most excellent theories in physics). Some of the research presented in this subforum has not even produced enough of a theory to even be attackable. Research lacking in calculations, for example.

    What kind of research do you propose do present here? Research that will change physics by surviving years of attacks from physicists everywhere? Or research that will change nothing?


    I can imagine the universe to have a lot of things. For example--and I say this in absolute seriousness, not out of any intent to ridicule you--I can imagine the universe to be composed of countless tiny magical golden monkeys, and that all observable phenomena in the universe proceeds from the action of these tiny magical golden monkeys.

    And if I had calculations describing the tiny-ness of the monkeys, the amount of magical power in their tiny golden prehensile tails, and the purity of the gold which makes up their tiny magical bodies, it might be an interesting theory. If I had calculations describing how their magical power converts into observable phenomena like Mass and Energy, it might be a useful theory.

    And if I had calculations that predicted where and how a tiny magical golden monkey might be observed, and the prediction was tested and proven to be correct, and the tiny-ness, magical-ness, and golden-ness of the observed monkey matched my calculations of these attributes, I would have a world-changing theory.

    So here we are: You imagine spheres. You imagine Schottky and Frenkel defects. Can you show us the calculations that go along with what you imagine?

    Because, to be honest, I love my idea of tiny magical golden monkeys. But I don't have a single calculation to support it. Do you have calculations to support your idea?
    With regards to the golden monkeys, I don't think golden monkeys are a good analogy to proposing spheres.

    With regards to calculations. Does this forum allow one to post in PDF form? If my work is my work, it is already copy righted. The forum states that we cannot post copy righted work.

    With regards to answering questions about the construction of the universe and the properties of matter and antimatter. There are millions of people trying to work on the final theory, professional and novices. How can you expect a new theory to explain everything all at once. I think that it would be best to take one step at a time.

    Most people agree that the components of the atoms nucleus are on the order of 1*10^-15 meters, call it a Planck sphere. If propose the outside of this sphere to be formed by spheres with the order of Planck surface area we arrive with on the order of 1*10^40 spheres, call them Kaluza spheres. If mass of a particle comes from the surface of these spheres then we have each of these Kaluza spheres to have a virtual mass on the order of 1*10^-68 kg. If these Kaluza spheres also form the interior of the Planck sphere and we calculate a virtual mass we come up with the Planck Mass.

    Now steutfish. If I can show this calculation, to the accuracy of the Gravitational constant, can you at least believe there is something to the theory? As far as I can tell no one has actually proposed a structure for the aether. Not every question can be answered at once, nor is one person likely to have the technical ability or time to explain the universe with a theory. Just look at how many physicists are working at Cern just to discover the Higgs particle. I don't have the 10 billion euros just to try to discover the Higgs particle.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Copernicus,

    Thanks for your in-depth explanation, posting # 27.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,692
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    I know of no theory that proposes the radius of the universe to be 13.72 billion light years. Did you mean the maximum radius of the observable universe according to the BB model if the universe is 13.72 billion years old?

    From the CMB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wmap it is believed the age of the universe is 13.73 plus or minus 0.12 billion years. If one uses the hubble constant of 70.8 and the maximum expansion speed of the universe to be the speed of light, one can back calculate and show the universe to also be 13.73 billion light years in radius. I realize this is against the mainstream. I believe that no one wants to believe the universe to be 13.73 billion light years in radius because it violates the Copernican principle that humans have no special place in the universe. If the universe is 13.73 billion light years in radius it indicates that our galaxy is near the center of the universe.
    Wow, you've got a big misunderstanding of what they mean. The universe's size is thought to be much larger then 13.73 ly in diameter. You need to read up on at least what the Hubble volume is and we can go from there.

Similar Threads

  1. worm hole - black hole theory
    By htfdtw in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 2012-Jan-17, 04:04 AM
  2. another black hole proposal
    By Copernicus in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 2011-May-27, 09:21 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2011-Feb-23, 05:00 PM
  4. Whats the difference between a Black Hole and a White Hole?
    By emmylou in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 2011-Feb-07, 02:51 PM
  5. Another Black hole proposal II
    By Cerveny in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 2010-Mar-10, 10:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •