The Instigator
Pywakit
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
Kirraz
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

I Propose A More Logical Theoretical Cosmological Model Of The Macro Universe

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Pywakit
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,604 times Debate No: 67333
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (32)
Votes (3)

 

Pywakit

Pro

The search for viable, reasonable, and logical solutions to the problems inherent in the Standard Cosmological Model (Big Bang, Lamda Cold Dark Matter with Inflation) has spawned a menagerie of theories over the last half a century. While mathematically supported, they are all fantastically implausible theories.

And as of a year ago, in serious trouble as the strong ones all relied on SUSY.

In just the last several years, a number of astronomical observations have confounded the astrophysical community ... observations clearly at odds with accepted theories and popular models, such as galactic superclusters and supermassive black holes ranging up to ten billions of solar masses found to exist much too soon.

The following model which I first proposed in 2008 remains rational and sensible. It follows all known laws of physics. There is no magic. No time reversals, or expanding bubbles of space, no 'empty packets', no extra dimensions and colliding membranes, and no instantaneous, voluminous expansions of matter created uniquely or repeatedly from 'nothing'.

It offers a simple solution ... not only for our Hubble volume ... but to the universe beyond. The model is supported extremely well by the accumulated observational evidence, physics, and existing mathematics, and does not appear to be fatally contradicted in any way. It is eminently, and currently falsifiable.


The genesis of our 'local' universe was quite probably the result of a near-instantaneous release of matter/energy from a 'giga-sized' black hole containing all the matter and energy of the Hubble volume.

The accumulated evidence strongly suggests the Big Bang was actually the 'Big Spin'.

With my respects to Occam ...

The Theory:

1. The Hubble volume has a presumed finite amount of mass.

2. Black holes have a finite mass limit.

3. That limit is exactly equal to the total mass (matter + energy) contained in the Hubble volume.

The Process:

1. Assuming the validity of quantum mechanics, black holes are physical, 3-dimensional objects. There is no logical or rational reason to believe they are zero-point, zero-dimensional singularities.

2. Newton's gravity and Einstein's relativity dictate that black holes accrete matter/energy indefinitely. There is no longer any credible evidence to believe they are limited in any way. Galaxies will merge. Orbits will eventually decay. Although there will be galactic escapees, these phenomena are but a temporary respite. Hawking Radiation, if confirmed, will not affect this is any material way, as accretion rates, even if not visibly feeding, will invariably out-pace evaporation. Space has inherent energy, and black holes collapse and 'eat' space continually. The same eventual fate awaits any and all m/e temporarily escaping black holes through gamma rays or other radiant outflows.

3. Black holes are not anchored in place, other than being temporarily tidally locked at the center of galaxies, and therefore, once all nearby available m/e has been consumed, including all material in orbit, the black holes will seek out new sources of gravity, subject to and only initially delayed by inertial momentum.

4. All matter that was released from the Big Bang remains in gravitational communication regardless as to how tenuous, therefore Newtonian law requires that black holes will eventually chase down all matter irrespective of the accelerating recession. As black holes consume and consolidate matter, they become less and less gravitationally 'confused'. They are essentially pulled in fewer and fewer concurrent directions even as their individual angular gravitational attractions increase.

5. Current research indicates that black hole rotational spin generally increases with mass. Schwarzschild black holes are still a purely mathematical construct and have yet to be confirmed to exist, and while the rotation rate may or may not eventually exceed c, it is not unreasonable to presume the surface matter of rotating supermassive black holes, irrespective of the physical state of the matter, must be rotating past a fixed point in space at many multiples of c.

6. As black holes eventually gain mass far in excess of trillions and quadrillions of solar masses the strain on space increases (gravitationally induced ripple effect), collapsing and drawing in ever increasing volumes of space and all m/e contained within.

7. Eventually, as our visible/local universe nears the end of it's life cycle, only a few black holes remain, containing nearly all the mass of the Hubble volume, including the remnant left over from the Big Bang.

8. Regardless of the immense distance separating the last black holes, they will eventually find each other, and this final merging triggers a major contraction of surrounding space, dragging all remaining m/e released from the Big Bang back to the single merged black hole ... down to the last escaping photon and (theorized) graviton.

9. This sudden collapse of space, in addition to the accumulated spin is sufficient to increase the rotational velocity of the black hole to the point where centrifugal force at the equator finally exceeds the gravitational attraction, briefly releasing a portion of it's mass before conservation of angular momentum slows the rotation below the threshold.

10. The Big Bang (Spin)

11. The hyper-velocity release of m/e, orders of magnitude of c, offers a physical explanation for the initial inflation, and also allows for ionization and instantaneous formation of H and H3. Space, no longer trapped by the immense gravity well, 'snaps back' to near-uniformity dragging along H and H3 with it ... and also dragging along pre existing (from the last black hole merger) microwave/x-ray/gamma ray radiation. Heavier molecular elements formed during the event should be rare.

12. The hyper-velocity release also offers a simple, straight-forward physical cause for an initial high temperature (on the order of T>10^13K) of matter consistent with the formation of the QGP phase of QCD.

13. The release of mass is not perfectly uniform, and countless smaller black holes are instantly spawned ranging from a few solar masses to perhaps trillions or quadrillions of solar masses. Mutual gravitational attraction and the remnant 'giga-massive' black hole impede their outward velocity.

14. Space begins to cool, and the newly created smaller black holes immediately begin to feed and the resulting jets ionize the atoms in space near the event, assisting in rapidly forming stars, galaxies, and superclusters, while star and galaxy formation lags behind in the outer regions being more generally dependent upon the coalescing clouds of H and H3.

15. This closed-loop process repeats eternally.


It is also my hypothesis that the actual universe ... or omniverse ... is indeed infinite, boundless and eternal. Space, with it's inherent energy has always existed. That all observed/unobserved m/e, is simply 'borrowed' energy from vast volumes of the fabric of space. Dark energy is not a force that 'acts' upon space but rather a property of space, and is responsible for the observed accelerating recession, as recently theorized by 2006 Nobel Laureate George Smoot et al.


I hypothesize that the laws of space are universal, and therefore dictate that each finite universe created will function in exactly the same manner as ours, with exactly the same physics, and that they must be identical in mass, distinguishable only by their age, relative evolution, and distribution of matter and energy. Every black hole will have the exact same critical mass point, and this identical process is going on throughout infinity, and has been eternally. As our universe is a closed loop, so too are all others.

If there are any other universes beyond the Hubble volume, then logically, there should be an infinite number of them. Over eternity, with respect to Thomas Digges, if they are not all closed-loops, and not identical, photons or other exotic material from outside our universe should have leaked into ours.

I hypothesize that space, with it's inherent energy, is in an eternal battle with gravity, constantly striving to 'smooth out the wrinkles' seeking 100% isotropy while gravity, manifesting from matter, is constantly seeking 100% entropy. Having had eternity to accomplish this, space keeps all finite universes generally equidistant, using the same physical processes currently at work that manifest in the accelerating recession. Therefore any contact between universes should be limited to the shock waves associated with Big Bangs rippling through space, as suggested by Einstein, but on a far greater scale of time and distance than he imagined.

Per the first law of thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore, in this regard, it is not unreasonable to assume that the energy contained within space itself must be eternal, universal, generally isotropic and homogeneous ... and capable of performing the necessary work.

The Logic:

1. Matter in the physical universe has a gravitational 'critical mass point'. Except, so far, black holes.

2. To my limited knowledge, relativity and quantum mechanics allow for such a process.

3. While it is conceivable that the universe could continue to expand forever, the ever-increasing rate of acceleration of the recession can not go on indefinitely, as this would logically result in the expansion of space accelerating toward infinite velocity.

4. All systems in the universe appear to conform with known laws.

Kirraz

Con

2. Black holes have a finite mass limit.

Black holes do not have a mass limit if this was the case then they would just disappear from this plane of reality and that may just be what happened with the big bang but I doubt it because that would be matter out of nowhere! Black Holes don't have a mass limit (ie they have a singularity with general relativity), however implying they have a mass limit means that they wouldn't dissipate if we gave it enough fuel to power it through all the hawking radiation but as I said it would just leave out reality. Regular space as I like to put it is just information traveling at the speed of light. If it really was a spin then where is the area that the information of the spin has not yet reached yet. You should be able to tell me exactly where the point is where the information of the universe is chopped off and is left with nothing. Either way you still get empty packets of nothing. Also with a spin, where is the center the place where we started off at. The milky way has a central area where we are spinning around and light has traveled from there to here. So if it was a spin then where is the light. If your theory is correct that means that we are redshifting quicker than light can travel which is breaking physics. Also where is the residual energy from that, the Big Bang has left http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov.... NASA sent a probe to map the tempature of our infant universe and gave us that nice picture. I do not see signs of an accretion disk, which if what I am reading correctly your theory relies on us orbiting a gigamassive black hole. So where is the accretion disk and the ultra massive quasar that we should be able to see?
Debate Round No. 1
Pywakit

Pro

Thank you for accepting the challenge Kirraz. As I am still unfamiliar with the niceties of formal debate, I won't burden you with rules, however I will request that you provide at least a few sources to support your arguments, if you would be so kind.

Theoretically, black holes have no limit. That hasn't stopped researchers from trying to set them. Mainstream science continues to lean toward a heat death and to that end, having a black hole hanging around for eternity wasn't going to work. The first limits were in the millions. Then we would discover one that exceeded that limit sending the researchers back to their computers.

"Instead, they appear to curb their own growth - once they accumulate about 10 billion times the mass of the Sun." [1]


"Just how big can a black hole grow? Two astronomers reckon they have worked out the answer: colossal black holes with a mass of up to 50 billion suns could be lurking out there - but that's the limit." [2]


Interestingly, the 50 billion limit came out a week before the 10 billion limit.


"Physicist Jeff Steinhauer from the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa — via his laboratory-manufactured artificial black hole — may have caught a glimpse of radiation, which physicist Stephen Hawking theorized four decades ago." [3]

A black hole of 1011 kg, the evaporation time is 2.667 billion years. This is why some astronomers are searching for signs of exploding primordial black holes.


However, since the universe contains the cosmic microwave background radiation, in order for the black hole to dissipate, it must have a temperature greater than that of the present-day black-body radiation of the universe of 2.7 K = 2.3 × 10−4 eV. This implies that s://upload.wikimedia.org...; alt="M" /> must be less than 0.8% of the mass of the Earth[22] - approximately the mass of the Moon.

For a black hole of one solar mass (s://upload.wikimedia.org...; alt="M_{\odot}" /> = 1.98892 × 1030 kg), we get an evaporation time of 2.098 × 1067 years—much longer than the current age of the universe at 13.798 ± 0.037 x 109 years. [4]

And as I recall, according to Neil Tyson, a million sol black hole would take 10^100 years to evaporate. The bigger the mass, the slower they evaporate. I believe the most massive confirmed is 17 billion sols. And I don't doubt we will find much bigger ones as our technology improves.

All that said, my assertion that they have a limit is a 'theory' ... not a fact. However, I do have some support for this, which will become apparent ... hopefully.

Just an observation ... Hawking Radiation has not been confirmed. I hope for Hawking's sake, it is. Either way it would not have any effect on my model

We would not be able to 'see' the gigamassive remnant, as it would be hidden behind the opaque 'curtain' prior to re ionization. Still, my hope is the James Webb space telescope due to go up in a couple years may give us a better view, earlier in time. And there are other potential ways of detection. There is still a mountain of data we haven't analyzed from previous missions. I am hopeful in that regard, too.

The remnant may have played a role in the early ionization. That remains to be seen.

And I should point out that Hawking came out about a year ago with this ...

"Now Hawking is suggesting a resolution to the paradox: Black holes do not possess event horizons after all, so they do not destroy information." [5]


"Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?" [6]

The lead researcher on this from 2013 is with the Perimeter Institute in Canada, the director is Neil Turok, who has been working on a couple different models, notably the ekpyrotic model, which requires extra dimensions. And the black hole referred to here originates in a higher dimension, much like the colliding 'branes' Turok has been trying to prove exist. The branes are dependent on the existence of SUSY, unfortunately, as are many alternate models, which had a setback a year ago with the experiments at the LHC.

My black hole is not the same as this one.

The spin scenario has really only been seriously considered in the last few years.

"Was the universe born spinning?" [7]

"Tensor Model of the Rotating Universe"

Exercise in Special Relativity

Abstract

We consider a hypothetical metric of space-time, which is shown to be a model
of the universe in expansion. This is an exercise in Special Relativity with transfor-
mation from an inertial frame to a rotating frame with constant rotation.

November 4, 2014 [8]


Supporting Evidence:

1. The laws clearly apply across the observable universe.

2. Quantum mechanics dictates that all matter has physical dimensions and occupies physical space.

3. There is no evidence that matter decays to zero. In any case, the estimated time for a black hole to evaporate far exceeds the time needed for the merging process to occur. We have already observed a black hole believed to be 18 billion suns. There is a high probability that black holes in excess of one trillion suns already exist. If the time it took for a trillion sun black hole to fully evaporate was reduced to the age of the Hubble volume, then it is a safe comparison that the time it would take for the entire H/v to merge into one black hole should be far less than a billionth of a second.

4. The apparent homogeneity evidenced in the COBE data, depicting the universe at 300,000 years after the Big Bang, is only evident on the large scale. It is clear that on the smaller scale it is anything but homogeneous. There might very well be in excess of trillions of supermassive black holes hidden within that picture.

5. The current isotropic chemical/radiological composition of the visible universe is consistent with the model.

6. The high numbers of black holes merging or set to merge were not generally predicted by the Standard Model or theorized isotropic death of the universe, but are inherently predicted by the model.

7. Virtually all galaxies appear to have massive, or supermassive black holes at their cores and this phenomena is also inherently predicted by the model.

8. The recent discovery of a dwarf galaxy containing a supermassive black hole is in contradiction to established theory regarding the relationship between the mass of galaxies and the mass of their central black holes, and calls into question basic assumptions regarding galaxy formation. Both hierarchical (majority) and non-hierarchical formations are predicted by the model

9. The recent observations detecting far more galaxies and their attendant black holes gravitationally bound to ours and M31 than expected.

10. The recent discoveries of high numbers of early protoclusters clusters, including quasars with masses ranging up to 10 billion suns inconsistent with generally accepted theories.

11. The just-announced (unconfirmed) discovery of a protogalaxy , 480m years after the Big Bang. ( Rychard Bouwens, Nature 1/27/11 )

12. The recent discovery of a supercluster in the distant past containing the mass of 800 trillion suns, the existence of which is not supported by current theories of galaxy formation.

13. The recent discovery of a black hole spinning at upwards of 1,000 rps.

14. The recent observations suggestive of black hole spin's upward velocity being related to increased mass.

15. The recent ergosphere/frame-dragging studies.

16. The recent discovery of a supermassive black hole exiting a galaxy at several thousand kps.

17. The recent Penrose et al. study indicative of violent events prior to the Big Bang.

18. No compelling evidence that black holes are limited to any specific mass.

19. No evidence of black holes showing any loss of mass.

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

21. No evidence of any black holes exploding.

22. No evidence of white holes.

23. No evidence of branes, strings, 11 through 26 dimensions, although strings per se would not conflict with the model.

24. Closed-loop supported by 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

25. Violation of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (entropy build-up) is avoided.

26. The process is not constrained by the existence of dark matter or anti-matter.

27. Appears to be entirely compatible with current particle research and generally accepted Standard Model particle theories.


1. http://www.sciencedaily.com...

2. http://www.newscientist.com...

3 http://www.salon.com...

4. https://en.wikipedia.org...

5. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

6. http://www.nature.com...

7. http://physicsworld.com...

8. http://www.elemenat.com...


Kirraz

Con

Kirraz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Pywakit

Pro

I am not affiliated with any institution of higher learning, nor am I employed as an astrophysicist, astronomer, or cosmologist. Still, I have studied and observed the universe for well over half a century, and over the years I found myself growing increasingly frustrated with the academicians of astrophysics and cosmology as they moved farther and farther away from rational, reasonable ... simple theories, seeking instead ever more complex, exotic (and dare I say it) magical solutions, and abandoned basic science in the process.

Unable to present my model in a serious scientific periodical, I decided to send the model to individual scientists. Tedious, to be sure, but reasonably effective, as eventually over 7,000 worldwide were exposed, and many responded. An early version was sent to the Hayden Planetarium, and I was pleasantly surprised to receive an email the following day from Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

Over a period of months Neil was very gracious, helpfully pointing out weaknesses in my hypotheses and theories and what theories must have to be taken seriously. They must :

1. Not conflict with established laws.

2. Include a mathematical description.

3. Be falsifiable.

4. Be able to be tested by experiment and/or observation.

5. Make predictions of previously unobserved phenomena not already inherently predicted by the Standard Model.

He did concede that math was not necessary as long as no new (non-existent) physics were being invoked. He was not amused when I pointed out that String Theory was on shaky ground mathematically, had made no predictions (at that time) and was not falsifiable, yet was considered a serious theory. He was even less amused when I mentioned Hawking Radiation, while on firmer ground mathematically, could not be tested. I still like him. :)


Predictions:

Hypothesis A:

Space has always existed, and hosted 'local' violent events prior to the Big Bang.

Background:

Pre existing space should still retain faint ripples from any phenomena immediately prior to our Big Bang that were violent enough to cause massive shock waves in the fabric or medium of space, and these ripples should manifest as subtle patterns in the CMBR.

Similar to the Penrose et al. study, but we take it a step farther and look for echoes of collisions with greater amplitude resulting from far more massive collisions (and with perhaps far more subtle effects) than the comparatively 'minor' collisions Penrose has suggested occurred.

Prediction:

Patterns in the CMBR should show very faint overlapping ripples correlating to collisions of black holes containing variable masses in excess of trillions of solar masses prior to the Big Bang, but should not show patterns in the CMBR indicative of identical, comparatively minor violent events.

Ancillary Prediction:

The CMBR should not show subtle patterns indicative of prior identical Big Bangs as those specific waves/ripples should have propagated beyond our field of view long before our BB occurred.

Hypothesis B:

An infinite number of non-overlapping finite universes exist throughout infinite space, separated by vast and relatively consistent distances, and each universe contains exactly the same mass, and shares the same physics, as our Hubble volume. They are distinguishable only by relative age/evolution and their distribution of matter/energy.

Prediction:

The apparent faint patterns, characterized as 'bruising', believed to be detected (Feeney et al.) in the CMBR should not be the result of, or indicative of collisions with:

1. hyper-expanding universes, each with their own uniquely different physical laws, matter/energy composition and structure,
2. hyper-expanding universes with the same physical structure and laws as our universe,
3. 'glancing' blows from either type of universe (conforming or non-conforming),
4. residual shock waves from our own prior Big Bangs,
5. or residual shock waves from other massive collisions, internal or external to the Hubble volume.

These should instead be indicative of shock waves proceeding in advance of, and emanating from, distant identical but staggered Big Bangs occurring at the appropriate times and distances to create the varied patterns observed in the CMBR.

Ancillary Prediction:

Furthermore, we should find that a closer examination of the CMBR with greater sensitivity (creating better computer algorithms, employing the variety of different instruments currently deployed with their differing capabilities of detection, doing experiments specific to the model's predicted parameters) may reveal additional faint patterns beyond those discovered by Feeney, et al. caused by the shock waves of other identical 'bangs' external to the Hubble volume, differing only by frequency, and strength, relative to time and point of origin.

Hypothesis C:

All black holes are physical 3-dimensional structures, rather than infinitely small/infinitely dense zero-dimensional structures, and will rotate surface matter in excess of c. The top angular velocity (spin) is only constrained by achieving sufficient rotational angular momentum to overcome it's own gravity and only under specific minimum conditions of mass, volume and surface area.

Background:

Einstein's mathematical work on collapsing bodies, current ergosphere and frame-dragging studies, and many other experiments show a black hole's gravitational force is sufficient to collapse normal space and exempt itself from space's normal limit to acceleration.

This hypothesis also requires a radical departure from the questionable and problematic mathematical presumption of the infinitely small/infinitely dense 'singularity' and instead presumes a universal 'max' point where matter/energy can no longer be further compressed. This logical presumption stems from the reality that black holes are 'here'. If they could actually infinitely compress a finite or infinite volume of matter/energy then they should cease to exist in our universe, gravitationally or otherwise, at the instant they form.

Prediction:

Mathematical calculations/computer modelling should show that an extremely massive physical black body that achieves rotational hyper-velocity of the surface area in excess of c, under specific minimum conditions of volume, mass, and surface area, should achieve sufficient centrifugal force to temporarily overcome it's own gravitational attraction, and should shed a portion of it's mass before conservation of angular momentum reduces spin below the threshold.

Ancillary Prediction:

Computer modelling of the release of matter/energy at hyper-velocity rotation should correspond with the initial inflation of the Hubble volume.

Hypothesis D:

Black holes accrete matter and merge until all the m/e of the Hubble volume is contained in a single black hole.

Background:

It is not an unreasonable assumption that all mass released from the Big Bang has remained in gravitational communication regardless as to how tenuous. Furthermore, in light of the evidence of black hole mobility, we can assume they will always be free to seek the next strongest gravitational mass, subject only to inertial angular momentum. While inertial momentum will temporarily defeat the much weaker gravitational attraction, the gravitational bond will never be actually broken.

As black holes continue to merge, slowly consolidating the mass of the Hubble volume, there will be fewer and fewer sources of gravity to 'confuse' them. As the merged black holes gravitational attractions increase, and there are fewer and fewer nebulous sources of gravity (gas and dust clouds, galaxies), they will, over trillions, perhaps even quadrillions of years, alter their inertial angular momentum away from each other, eventually reverse their courses, and seek each other out.

Prediction:

Computer simulations should show that the observed mobility of black holes will allow them to merge continually, irrespective of the accelerating recession until 100% of the m/e released from the Big Bang is recovered, and this 100% state of entropy will occur in a small fraction of the time theorized for an isotropic end.

Hypothesis E:

As with Hypothesis B, all universes beyond the Hubble volume share the same mass and physics. They are distinguishable only by their age and distribution of matter/energy, and are all closed loop universes.

Prediction:

The most recent and future data from instruments should not indicate any severe red-shift photons originating from outside our Hubble volume. This finding would only be relevant if other experiments and/or observations strongly indicate the existence of space prior to the Big Bang.

Hypothesis F:

The Big Bang was not a perfectly homogeneous release of matter and energy.

Background:

Heavier elements formed instantly upon release from the gravitational well would not have the hyper-velocity of lighter elements due to gravitational restraints and therefore the density of m/e should be far greater in close proximity to the Big Bang event.

Smaller black holes should have been immediately created from the BB's release of m/e, and thrown into the nearby maelstrom of other denser matter also formed instantly upon release from the BB. This gravitational chaos should have quickly created black holes with masses ranging to the trillions of suns and beyond.

Prediction:

Extensive examination of the very early universe (within 200 million years) should find black holes with masses well in excess of 50 billion suns contradicting current Standard Model theories of a generally isotropic/homogeneous early universe.

It appears unlikely that a different process other than spin could be responsible for a black hole to overcome it's gravitational attraction and release it's mass. Therefore ...

Ancillary Prediction:

Assuming sufficient instrument sensitivity, the creation of proper algorithms, and adequate computational power ... mined data from all currently available instruments should indicate, if not confirm ...

The presence of a remnant 'giga-massive' black hole at the Big Bang.

Kirraz

Con

Kirraz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Pywakit

Pro

In Conclusion:

1. This model offers a physical solution to the accelerating recession problem.
2. This model offers a physical solution for the source of the mass released in the Big Bang.
3. This model offers a physical solution to the decaying matter problem.
4. This model offers a physical solution to the black hole problem.
5. This model offers a physical solution for the initial hyper-inflation.
6. This model appears consistent with current particle research specific to the evolution of matter.
7. This model offers a physical solution for the observed chemical/radiological composition of the visible/local universe.
8. This model offers a possible physical solution for the WMAP cold spot.
9. This model offers a possible physical solution for the Sloan, Pisces-Cetus, and CfA2 Great walls.
10. This model provides for 100% recycling of all matter/energy in the visible/local universe.
11. This model appears to violate no known laws of physics, or thermodynamics, including entropy build-up.
12. This model requires no new laws to function.
13. This model is well-supported by the accumulated observational evidence.
14. This model appears to be superior to the current Standard Cosmological Model, and other popular models.
15. It still leaves the question "What created space?" along with the solution to the 'Theory of Everything' to future theorists.

Reasonable logic tells me that if a 'big bang' could, as theorized, simply materialize from 'nothing' ... or even 'something' ... with no reasonably explained origin (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, or at any other time in the history of the Hubble volume. That would appear, so far anyway, not to be the case.

I fully understand my hypotheses regarding space and the universes beyond the Hubble volume fly in the face of popular beliefs, and I certainly do not deny that quantum physics allows for the possibility of alternate physics. However, I don't think space allows the 'macro' universe to function in a plethora, if not infinite number of ways, and it seems apparent that if there are indeed finite universes beyond ours, there must be an infinite number of them ... and they are remarkably quiescent.

In any case, assuming the existence of space prior to the Big Bang, my model of the Hubble volume can stand alone.

The following consists of excerpts of a small fraction of research subsequent to the creation of this model. Research that has confounded theorists relating to the evolution of our universe, in conflict with seemingly established theories emanating from the Standard Model, yet is entirely consistent with this model.


On early star/galaxy formation inconsistent with accepted theories ...

http://adsabs.harvard.edu...

January 11, 2011 ... Abstract: We report evidence of a fully established galaxy cluster at z = 2.07, consisting of a ~20σ overdensity of red, compact spheroidal galaxies spatially coinciding with extended X-ray emission detected with XMM-Newton. These properties imply that this structure could be the most distant, mature cluster known to date and that X-ray luminous, elliptical-dominated clusters are already forming at substantially earlier epochs than previously known.

Early clusters and 'astonishing luck' ...

http://newswise.com...

1/11/2011 5:05 PM EST ... AzTEC 3 was one of the very first objects discovered by the team using the AzTEC camera and one of the first few AzTEC galaxies to be followed up with detailed scrutiny by other telescopes.
What are the chances of detecting something as important and rare as one of the earliest-known protoclusters in the universe on the first try? As Wilson sees it, “We either got extremely lucky, or the universe biased our search and provided a signpost, like the tip of an iceberg sticking up out of the sea, that attracted our attention. Because they are monstrously huge and unusual, I think it may not be so crazy to think that galaxies like AzTEC 3 tend to exist in special places in the universe and we just don’t understand the signpost yet. That’s one thing we’ll definitely be looking to explain in the future.”

"Most astronomers believe that such a massive cluster should not be mature until 2 to 3 billion years later."

Ancient supermassive black holes inconsistent with accepted theories ...

http://www.subarutelescope.org...;

Japanese Researcher Finds Massive Black Hole 12.7 Billion Light-years Away
Astronomer Tomotsugu Goto from the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has used the Subaru telescope to identify a distant quasar powered by a massive black hole. The quasar is almost 12.7 billion light-years away from Earth in the direction of the constellation Cancer the Crab. It is the most distant one ever found by a Japanese researcher and the eleventh most distant quasar currently known.

The black hole is probably 2 billion times more massive than the Sun. So far, researchers have not yet proposed a theory of how such a massive black hole can form only 1 billion years after the birth of the universe.

object Name: SDSSJ084119.52+290504.4

http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

A team of astronomers have found a colossal black hole so ancient, they're not sure how it had enough time to grow to its current size, about 10 billion times the mass of the sun.

"The universe was awfully young at the time this was formed," said astronomer Roger Romani, a Stanford University associate professor whose team found the object. "It's a bit of a challenge to understand how this black hole got enough mass to reach its size."

The research appeared June 10 on the online version of Astrophysical Journal Letters .

object Name: Q0906+6930

Surprising find ...

http://news.discovery.com...

Wed Jan 12, 2011 05:30 PM ET ... The black hole inside a neighboring galaxy, known as M87, is obese and filled with the equivalent of 6.6 billion of our suns, according to new measurements. These supermassive black holes are relatively rare, scientists suspect, so it is surprising that such a behemoth lives relatively close by -- just 50 million light-years away.

More on galaxy formation ...

http://science.gaeatimes.com...

Monday, January 10, 2011 ... "For more than two decades, the prevailing wisdom among astronomers has been that galaxies evolved hierarchically. Amazingly, this is contrary to hierarchical structure formation,” he said.

http://science.gaeatimes.com...

Monday, January 10, 2011 ... “Now, we have found a dwarf galaxy with no bulge at all, yet it has a supermassive black hole. This greatly strengthens the case for the black holes developing first, before the galaxy’s bulge is formed,” said Reines.

Unexpected superclusters ...

http://news.discovery.com...

Oct 15, 2010 11:53 AM ET ... Astronomers on the hunt for the biggest, most distant gangs of galaxies have landed a prize catch, a behemoth of a cluster 800 trillion times more massive than the sun ferreted out by a new cosmic fishing net from when the universe was half its present age.

Lack of 'smaller scale' homogeneity in the COBE early universe ...

http://p-i-a.com...

http://www.kqed.org...

On Spin ...

http://www.universetoday.com...

“We think these monster black holes are spinning close to the limit set by Einstein’s theory of relatively, which means that they can drag material around them at close to the speed of light,” said Rodrigo Nemmen, a visiting graduate student at Penn State University.

http://www.newscientist.com...

"They found the innermost stable orbit around GRS 1915 is so close that the black hole must be spinning at nearly 1000 times per second - the fastest ever recorded."

Note: If earth, using the approximate equatorial circumference of 40,000 kilometers, was rotating at even half that velocity, 500 rps, assuming sufficient gravity, the surface matter would be moving past a fixed point in space at 20 million kps, or 66 times c.
.
So if this massive black hole spinning at 1,000 rps has volume, and a physical circumference no bigger than earth's, the surface matter is moving past a fixed point at 132 times the speed of light and it is not flying apart.

On UHECR ...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The source of such high energy particles has been a mystery for many years. AGN have been proposed as likely sources of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, and results from the Pierre Auger Observatory suggest that these objects may be their source. Black hole spin is a potentially effective agent to drive UHECR production, provided ions are suitably launched to circumvent limiting factors deep within the nucleus, notably curvature radiation and inelastic scattering with radiation from the inner disk.

On the fabric of space ...

http://arxiv.org...

October 24, 2010 ... "We propose an alternative interpretation which takes into account the entropy and temperature intrinsic to the horizon of the universe due to the information holographically stored there. Dark energy is thereby obviated and the acceleration is due to an entropic force naturally arising from the information storage on the horizon surface screen. We consider an additional quantitative approach inspired by surface terms in general relativity and show that this leads to the entropic accelerating universe."

"Thus, the acceleration of the universe simply arises as a natural consequence of the entropy on the horizon of the universe." - Paul H. Frampton, George Smoots


Kirraz

Con

Kirraz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Pywakit

Pro

More research on the 'fabric' of space ...

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

“The Birth of Time: Quantum Loops Describe the Evolution of the Universe” (ScienceDaily, Dec. 17, 2010)

What was the Big Bang and what happened before it? Scientists from the Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw have attempted to answer the question. Within the framework of loop quantum gravity they have put forward a new theoretical model, which might prove useful for validating hypotheses about events prior to the Big Bang. This achievement is one of the few models describing the full Einstein's theory and not merely its greatly simplified version.

Traditional cosmological models describe the evolution of the Universe within the framework of the general theory of relativity itself.

In order to gain at least some knowledge of quantum gravity, scientists construct simplified quantum models, known as quantum cosmological models, in which space-time and matter are expressed in a single value or a few values alone. For example, the model developed by Ashtekar, Bojowald, Lewandowski, Pawłowski and Singh predicts that quantum gravity prevents the increase of matter energy density from exceeding a certain critical value (of the order of the Planck density). Consequently, there must have been a contracting universe prior to the Big Bang. When matter density had reached the critical value, there followed a rapid expansion -- the Big Bang, known as the Big Bounce. However, the model is a highly simplified toy model.

Note: Scientists at the U of W are supporting two of my hypotheses ... that singularities are a physical impossibility and matter/energy can only be compressed so far ... and space must have existed before the Big Bang.

The real answer to the mystery of the Big Bang lies in a unified quantum theory of matter and gravity. One attempt at developing such a theory is loop quantum gravity (LQG). The theory holds that space is weaved from one-dimensional threads. "It is just like in the case of a fabric -- although it is seemingly smooth from a distance, it becomes evident at close quarters that it consists of a network of fibres," describes Wojciech Kaminski, MSc from FUW. Such space would constitute a fine fabric - an area of a square centimetre would consists of 10^66 threads.

On pre existing space ... According to Michio Kaku, mainstream is beginning to accept the probability.
.
Following is a short video: Michio Kaku, Andrei Linde, Paul Turok, Roger Penrose ... BBC series, early 2010. Please forgive the use of youtube ...



In it, among other things, Kaku discusses the probability of our universe springing forth from 'nothing' at some point and says it's really not such a bad idea if you just re-define what nothing is. He suggests that it isn't a stretch that one of the materializing particles from pre existing space might have just 'kept going' and instantaneously shoved a rather large bunch of matter/energy into the existing space.

And Andrei Linde posits an eternal (and apparently eternally accelerating) expansion of space, of which our Hubble volume is just one of the newly formed air bubbles in the Swiss cheese.

On merging black holes ... 33 pairs of merging black holes were announced by astrophysicist Julie Comerford.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu...

Abstract: "Since nearly all galaxies host a central supermassive black hole (SMBH), mergers between two galaxies can bring dual SMBHs to the resultant merger-remnant galaxy. However, only a handful of dual SMBHs have been identified observationally, and here we present new detections of 33 dual SMBHs. We searched the DEEP2 Galaxy Redshift Survey for galaxy spectra with AGN emission lines that are offset in velocity relative to the mean velocity of the host galaxy's stars, suggesting bulk motion of the AGN within the host galaxies."

"Our sample of dual SMBHs provides a direct observational probe of galaxy mergers and the galaxy merger rate, as well as SMBH mergers that are expected to produce gravity waves observable by next-generation projects such as LISA."

Not always anchored to galaxies ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

Stefanie Komossa ( Planck Institute ) and her team have now detected the consequences of such a merger: a 100-million-solar mass black hole in the process of leaving its home galaxy.

The "kick" the black hole receives is akin to the recoil of a rifle. It can propel the black hole to speeds of up to several thousand miles per second, according to theoretical simulations. The escaping black hole Komossa and her team observed was racing along at 5,900,000 mph.

On multiverses ...

Note: In the following, Ms. Mersini-Houghton of Chapal Hill creates an entirely different universe, but apparently makes no attempt to describe it's physical laws, or structure, or how it would have left that 'imprint'. Or why there would be just 'one'.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

In 2007, Mersini-Houghton claimed that the observed CMB cold spot was "the unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own", just as she and her collaborator had predicted in her theory 8 months earlier.

In Nov. 2008, a NASA team led by Alexander Kashlinsky observed the Dark Flow of clusters in the universe at exactly the velocity and alignment predicted by her earlier in the 'Cosmological Avatars of the Landscape I, II' papers in 2006.

In the same year (2006) WMAP reached agreement with SDSS experiment, that the overall amplitude of fluctuation is less than 1. If these observational findings, predicted in the 2006 papers by Mersini-Houghton et al. are confirmed over the next few years, then they may offer the first evidence of a world beyond our own. Such confirmation would tie the standard model of cosmology into a more coherent picture where our universe is not at the center of the world, but part of it.

After the observational confirmation of the three predictions (the Void, Dark Flow and Sigma8) her work continues to attract international media attention, GCHEP/UNC, and Discover magazine, October 2009.

Two astrophysicists reported recently that they have found evidence of the northern hemisphere void in analysis of WMAP data.

On October 11, 2010, Laura Mersini-Houghton appeared in a BBC programme What Happened Before the Big Bang (along with Michio Kaku, Neil Turok, Andrei Linde, Roger Penrose, Lee Smolin and other notable cosmologists and physicists) where she propounded her theory of the universe as a wave function on the landscape multiverse. The programme referred to three observational tests of her theory's predictions, which makes it the only theory on the origins of our universe ever to offer predictions and have them successfully tested.

Mersini-Houghton's work on multiverse theory is discussed in the epilogue of a recently published biography of Hugh Everett III.

Note: I won't argue whether or not the predictions were confirmed. I will argue that her theories and predictions are not based on known physical laws and could apply to any manner of phenomena. That the predicted phenomena could easily have other physical causes ... and her conclusions are hasty.

Partial list of supporting research materials and articles available on-line ...

http://www.sciops.esa.int...

http://sci.esa.int...

http://sci.esa.int...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.universetoday.com...

http://www.science20.com...

http://ttt.astro.su.se...

http://susy06.physics.uci.edu...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.nscl.msu.edu...

http://arxiv.org...

http://notes.kateva.org...

http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl...

http://arxiv.org...

http://sci.esa.int...

http://hubblesite.org...

"Hubble Astronomers Uncover an Overheated Early Universe"

October 7,2010 ... The universe went through an initial heat wave over 13 billion years ago when energy from early massive stars ionized cold interstellar hydrogen from the big bang. This epoch is actually called re ionization because the hydrogen nuclei were originally in an ionized state shortly after the big bang.


Several years ago I asked Nicholas Suntzeff (member of High-Z Super Nova team that discovered the rate of expansion of space was accelerating) why he thought the increasing rate of acceleration was a permanent feature of space. After all, it had apparently sped up in the past, slowed down then sped up again. Furthermore, we didn't even know what was causing it; what mechanism was involved. He conceded there was no basis to assume it was permanent.

Unknown.

'Singularity' was just another word for "We don't know what it is. The math breaks down." In time, 'infinitely small/dense' morphed into 'fact' despite no experimental or observational evidence.

Unknown.

One scientist chided me for wasting his time because "Even a first year physics student knows black holes don't merge".

Incorrect.

Neil Tyson argued that the bigger a black hole got, the slower it rotated.

Incorrect.

Theorists agreed the early universe was homogeneous and isotropic ... no 'lumps'.

Incorrect.

They agreed the fundamental forces did not exist at the Big Bang. No gravity ... nothing.

Evidence? None.

Unknown.



Could my model be wrong? Of course. It's one discovery away from being blown out of the water.


But it hasn't yet.













Kirraz

Con

Kirraz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Pywakit 2 years ago
Pywakit
UR) It is irrelevant anyway, whether you believe you're being unfairly marginalized,

P) I never said I was unfairly marginalized.

UR) whether you believe I and other scientists are being arrogant,

P) You are, but it doesn't bother me. Why would it?

UR) or whether you believe you have a better model than all of the current alternatives.

P) You never read it, nor is it your area of expertise, so you are hardly qualified to make any judgement as to it's content and/or relative superiority or inferiority. Your expertise is limited to format.

UR) A proper model can be objectively and scientifically verified to be superior or inferior to another model, and that is the only thing that is relevant.

P) An 'improper' one can too. If I was invoking new physics, gods, magic, time reversal, multiple dimensions, 'branes, or something entirely different ... but equally non-existent, unfalsifiable, having no predictive power, nor could be tested in the foreseeable future, your words might have some relevance.

That is not the case. You never read it, evidenced by several of your comments and questions. I am not getting the sense that you would understand it even if you took the time to go through all the science I linked that supports it. For what it's worth, it would please me to be incorrect on that observation.

That said, your point is a valid one, in the sense that a proper presentation is far superior to a crude one. Thank you.

I would add that people who wish to gain a deeper understanding than the articles provide will find links in the articles to actual papers.

You have ignored the massive failure of string cosmology to adhere to arguably far more important 'proper' methods.

UR) No amount of argument or discussion about your model has any scientific value. If you want your idea to be a strong scientific model, then you'll have to formalize it and eventually test it.

P) I'm sorry. It is being tested. I hope that's alright.
Posted by Pywakit 2 years ago
Pywakit
UR) You can call everyone who criticizes your idea an arrogant scientist and say the scientific community is religious and no longer scientific, but how would you know?

P) I don't call every one who criticizes my model arrogant. Some are. Much of it is simply because of who I am. *NOT* a member of the academic clique. It's simply inconceivable to a rather large body of 'learned' humans that an amateur could possibly know more than they do. Or more accurately, something in their area of research that they don't know.

http://www.nature.com...

George Ellis
& Joe Silk

16 December 2014

This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue " explicitly " that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.

UR) The videos you watch and the articles you read are not the venues where these ideas are discussed in detail. If you want to know how these other ideas are established, supported, or presented, you'd have to read the actual scientific literature. If you need help with access, I can help you get specific papers you need.

P) I manage to find outlets, but thank you. Directly emailing 7,000 (approx) scientists around the world was very enlightening. Debating (at times heatedly) weaknesses and strengths on sites such as Physics.org, ScienceForums.net, SciForums.com were also very helpful. Quantum? I observed long ago that no matter how bizarre that reality can be, the macro universe remains stable. My interest is the big picture.
Posted by Pywakit 2 years ago
Pywakit
Cont. ...

P) So I send him 2 or 3 recent papers on early quasars at 700 million years post Big Bang, with masses around 10 billion sols. They often get rather angry that a 'layman' just proved they were wrong.

Or a physicist in Peru states flatly ... and rudely ... "You are so stupid. Even my first year students know black holes can't merge!"

I post several papers of mainstream researchers that contradict him.

Or another might say ... "Spin is irrelevant. We have never see a black hole spinning."

*sigh* "Yes, we have," and I post the appropriate papers." Now guess the number of scientists around the world who admitted they were wrong. Out of about 7,000. That's how many received it.

One. Hundreds responded, and just one had the integrity. Lol. Yeah, I think it's safe to call them rude, egotistical, and insufferably arrogant.

It's astonishing how many were (and still are) so out of touch with the latest.

UR) You're mistaken. This is not a physical model, it is a philosophical idea. We don't just take every idea and 'try it out'.

P) True. We couldn't try out Hawking radiation , so we just said it's 'true'. 40 years later we still can't try it out. Strings? Nearly as long in this incarnation. Beautiful math, void of any relationship (so far) to the physical universe.

UR) It can take many years to test each one out. If you think yours merits scientific consideration, then it should be publishable.

P) At least my theories deal with real phenomena. Real objects. For example, I assert that everything that come out of the Big Bang (whatever it actually was) remains in gravitational 'communication', no matter how tenuous. Much of mainstream remains convinced gravity did not exist at the BB. Nor any of the fundamental forces. Evidence? None.

UR) I remind you that all paper submissions are done anonymously, so no one can reject you just because you don't have a career in science.

P) Yes they can. Cover page. List affiliations, ed
Posted by Pywakit 2 years ago
Pywakit
*Should read ...

Ed Witten and others claim ST predicts gravity. I guess ST must be true, as there certainly is gravity. Comical though, when you think about it. ST, with it's landscape (understatement of the millennium) of 10^500 +/- co-existing universes pretty much 'predict' everything.

You do amuse me young man. I hope this doesn't offend you. But in fact those questions you ask in your first paragraph are supported by a great deal of research, observations and experiments. You characterize my sources as ... what did you say? Oh yes. ".. videos and articles".

Umm, no. You didn't dig very deep into my sources. In fact, you didn't even need to 'dig'. Right there in plain site. Yes, I use 'fluffy' sources for the layman, as it's easy to get bogged down in the actual papers. Mind you, I am no mathematician. But I read abstracts, intros, as well as read through the text (I presume their math is consistent with the text) and their conclusions. Really, after it's all said and done, it's the content of the text that allows the overall visualization. If I were to say something like ... "The star we observed is atypical of population III stars, showing an unusually high level of metallicity. The question is, what is it doing there?" ... would I need to provide you with a mathematical model of the star for you to understand me? No.

So let's say that I am 'discussing' the model via email with some astrophysicist at Oxford. He says, "I will grant you have done a lot of thinking on this, but of course you know the model is fatally flawed."

"Really? How so?"

"Because it is well-established that black holes and their attendant galaxies grow in tandem, but stars and galaxies must form first, in a heirarchical process. There can't be any 'supermassive' black holes in the early universe. Anyway, we have looked, and there aren't any. They don't get achieve supermassive size until at least 10 billion years have passed."

Really.
Posted by Pywakit 2 years ago
Pywakit
Physics Titan Edward Witten Still Thinks String Theory "on the Right Track"

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

Horgan interviewed Witten in 1990 and again recently.

(I) asked Witten (in 1990) how he responded to the claims of critics that superstring theory is not testable and therefore is not really physics at all. Witten replied that the theory had predicted gravity. "Even though it is, properly speaking, a post-prediction, in the sense that the experiment was made before the theory, the fact that gravity is a consequence of string theory, to me, is one of the greatest theoretical insights ever."

When I continued to press Witten on testability, he grew exasperated. "I don"t think I"ve succeeded in conveying to you its wonder, its incredible consistency, remarkable elegance and beauty." In other words, ST is too beautiful to be wrong.

Horgan: Do you agree with Sean Carroll that falsifiability is overrated as a criterion for distinguishing science from pseudo-science?

Witten: Scientists aim to get as reliable and precise an understanding of nature as we can. The gold standard is a precise prediction that can be tested in a precise way in a laboratory experiment. Experiments that disprove theories are an important part of the scientific process.

He continues: With that said, it is a little too narrow to claim that science consists of trying to falsify theories because a lot of science consists of trying to discover things. (Chemists who attempt a new synthesis could say they are trying to falsify the hypothesis that this new synthesis won"t work. People who search for life on Mars could say they are trying to falsify the hypothesis that there is no life on Mars. People don"t usually talk that way.)

A multi-billion dollar research industry for the next 200 + years.

http://postdocs.stanford.edu...
Posted by Pywakit 2 years ago
Pywakit
UR) I'm not even sure which part you're calling a theory. I see a string of pseudo-hypotheses.

P) I'm sorry. It must be very frustrating. What is your area of research?

UR) Where do you show them to be true or highly probable?

P) I'm afraid I will need you to be more specific. Or you could just read it again. It's possible you missed some things the first read-through.

UR) Did you estimate those probabilities?

P) Again, you need to be specific, and you also need to justify why the 'probabilities' of each individual phenomenon you refer to require an estimation.

UR) Where's the mathematical modeling?

P) Like the following, you mean.

"Towards the one-loop K"hler metric of Calabi-Yau orientifolds"

December 9, 2014

Abstract

We evaluate string one-loop contributions to the Kahler metric of closed string moduli in toroidal
minimally supersymmetric (Calabi-Yau) orientifolds with D-branes. We focus on the poorly under-
stood N= 1 sectors that receive contributions from all massive string states.

http://arxiv.org...

I must admit, the math is beautifully elegant. Only one insignificant flaw ; really hardly worth mentioning. It's a complete fantasy. Even more so than 30 years ago.

UR) What, precisely, does it explain, how does it explain it, what does it predict, and what experiments would need to be done to test those predictions?

P) It seems there are a lot of scientists these days who are intent on challenging the old guard. They think that we need to dispense with trivialities such as needing to fully explain, or predict, or test, or falsify in favor of what the majority feel is 'beauty'. Not surprisingly, most are string theory researchers.

Ed Witten and others claim ST predicts gravity. I guess ST must be true, as there certainly is gravity. Comical though, when you think about it. ST, with it's landscape (understatement of the millennium) of 10^500 +/- co-existing universes pretty much 'predict
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
I'm not even sure which part you're calling a theory. I see a string of pseudo-hypotheses. Where do you show them to be true or highly probable? Did you estimate those probabilities? Where's the mathematical modeling? What, precisely, does it explain, how does it explain it, what does it predict, and what experiments would need to be done to test those predictions?

You're mistaken. This is not a physical model, it is a philosophical idea. We don't just take every idea and 'try it out'. It can take many years to test each one out. If you think yours merits scientific consideration, then it should be publishable. I remind you that all paper submissions are done anonymously, so no one can reject you just because you don't have a career in science.

You can call everyone who criticizes your idea an arrogant scientist and say the scientific community is religious and no longer scientific, but how would you know? The videos you watch and the articles you read are not the venues where these ideas are discussed in detail. If you want to know how these other ideas are established, supported, or presented, you'd have to read the actual scientific literature. If you need help with access, I can help you get specific papers you need.

It is irrelevant anyway, whether you believe you're being unfairly marginalized, whether you believe I and other scientists are being arrogant, or whether you believe you have a better model than all of the current alternatives. A proper model can be objectively and scientifically verified to be superior or inferior to another model, and that is the only thing that is relevant. No amount of argument or discussion about your model has any scientific value. If you want your idea to be a strong scientific model, then you'll have to formalize it and eventually test it.
Posted by Pywakit 2 years ago
Pywakit
Apologies. I should have checked the Kaku video. BBC has blocked it. :(
Posted by Pywakit 2 years ago
Pywakit
A shame that so few have any real interest or curiosity about our home. And that this was wasted on a 24 year old who will graduate from high school in 2017. This might be overly optimistic, of course, considering he has been held back 10 times so far.

And then we have the insulting display of academic arrogance from the self-described 'scientist', apparently incapable of discerning a physical cosmological model from a philosophical one, who feels it necessary to denigrate my level of knowledge of the universe despite, by his own admission, having little to no personal knowledge on the subject, because I lack the proper formal training and have not been published in an accredited scientific periodical. A pity he wasn't around when I was 5 and could have saved me from wasting 57 years studying the universe. Clearly, there is nothing of value I could add to the discussion.

But we can give a pass to science which abandoned the basic principles and established methodology, no longer requiring of itself such insignificant things as the ability to test, falsify and/or predict, and further, no longer even requiring the holy grail of science, sound mathematics.

At this point in cosmology, science has degenerated into, sad to say, something more akin to religion than science, where scientists opine as to the superiority of their particular belief system, and hold rigidly to their beliefs despite strong evidence to the contrary.

Fortunately for me, lacking the necessary papers, all I have are worthless ideas, and could never be taken seriously. Indeed, even the mere suggestion that an academic might examine and consider these ideas constitutes an unforgivable affront.

Oh well.
Posted by Pywakit 2 years ago
Pywakit
A shame that so few have any real interest or curiosity about our home. And that this was wasted on a 24 year old who will graduate from high school in 2017. This might be overly optimistic, of course, considering he has been held back 10 times so far.

And then we have the insulting display of academic arrogance from the self-described 'scientist', apparently incapable of discerning a physical cosmological model from a philosophical one, who feels it necessary to denigrate my level of knowledge of the universe despite, by his own admission, having little to no personal knowledge on the subject, because I lack the proper formal training and have not been published in an accredited scientific periodical. A pity he wasn't around when I was 5 and could have saved me from wasting 57 years studying the universe. Clearly, there is nothing of value I could add to the discussion.

But we can give a pass to science which abandoned the basic principles and established methodology, no longer requiring of itself such insignificant things as the ability to test, falsify and/or predict, and further, no longer even requiring the holy grail of science, sound mathematics.

At this point in cosmology, science has degenerated into, sad to say, something more akin to religion than science, where scientists opine as to the superiority of their particular belief system, and hold rigidly to their beliefs despite strong evidence to the contrary.

Fortunately for me, lacking the necessary papers, all I have are worthless ideas, and could never be taken seriously. Indeed, even the mere suggestion that an academic might examine and consider these ideas constitutes an unforgivable affront.

Oh well.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
PywakitKirrazTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
PywakitKirrazTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by sadolite 2 years ago
sadolite
PywakitKirrazTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con bailed on the debate