Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The path to understanding the Rational Universe
vickster339
Junior Member (Idle past 3892 days)
Posts: 4
From: Bellevue, WA, US
Joined: 06-03-2013


Message 1 of 8 (700522)
06-04-2013 12:59 AM


The following argument is copyrighted - not because I think its great, but because I think its meant for all the way it is. Best of all it proves God is rational.
The path to understanding the Rational Universe
What I see as some of the bigger Standard Model Big Bang Nucleosynthesis Cosmology Problems:
1. The Universe is not homogenous enough on large scales early on to produce what we see based on "The Standard Model". The Big Bang cosmology cannot move the universe from the homogeneous state seen in the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation), to the structure seen in the BAO (Baryon Acoustic Oscillations), up to the visual observations made of Quasar super clusters fast enough.
2. The Galaxy and Super Massive Black Hole Co Evolution paradox remains unsolved under the standard model. You need a large galaxy to form a SMBH while at the same time you need a SMBH to form a galaxy. Simply put the Classic chicken and egg problem.
3. Low mass galaxies with Super Massive Black Holes cannot be explained by "The Standard Model". Generically speaking, the mass of a SMBH in spiral galaxies is roughly .1 percent the mass of the entire bulge while in elliptical galaxies it appears to be .1 percent of the entire mass of the galaxy. The Henize 2-10 dwarf galaxy has a SMBH roughly the mass of the one in the Milky Way yet is a galaxy 1/1000 the size of the Milky Way. This creates that possibly of SMBH"s forming without a galaxy.
4. The necessity for 68.3 percent of the universe mass to be Dark Energy to explain the expansion rate of the universe.
5. There is a lack of metallicity observed in the young universe when compared to predictions made under "The Standard Model".
6. G dwarf stars with low metallicity levels remain unexplained under "The Standard Model". This is a problem that has plagued Astronomers for some time.
7. Spiral Galaxy and Quasar metallicity does not evolve with redshift
The following is an argument based current observation and rational descent that is fundamentally contrary to "The Standard Model". To prove it completely, I would need some assistance. In the process I will also put forth the most rational solution, using the most rational explanation, if the universe is indeed rational. I am going to argue that Dark Energy is no more than a modern day version of Ether and that Dark Matter are likely singularities (I know they are black holes but it sounds so bad) I am going to share with you some observations, perceptions, ideas, and crappy stories in place of computer simulations.
If you destroy entropy/information (I will just call it entropy from now on) with singularities like Hawking used to with Hawking radiation, then everything I put forth in this argument is inherently irrational. Then again, a universe created from such an entity would also seem equally irrational. If however you try to preserve the entropy of a singularity (I will use "singularity" in place of "black hole" from now on because it sounds better frankly) because it is rational to do so, you run into a horrible problem in the event of a singularity merger. The entropy of a singularity is in a quasi-state of equilibrium and no two are identical. Meaning it is trying to reach a state of equilibrium however material always keeps getting added.
My argument is that built into a perceivable universe that is rational must be a natural process to keep the entropy of two separate singularities from merging before whatever they “represent” merges. A rational universe is committed so conserving information. How do you prevent a gravitational singularity merger? The "Standard Model" says you don't, they just get bigger over time. This is an irrational assumption.
How then are you to prevent the irrational singularity merger then? The most rational solution is the very gravity, mass, space-time, entropy, and situation creating the problem between two singularities will ultimately solve it. If singularities must abort each other by their very nature because it is rational, you can see exactly where I am going with this. The universe did not begin with a single rational or irrational self-destructing singularity (I am doing the “Standard Model” a favor here, this is one consensus they do not have a consensus on); I argue it was generated in a process by the abortion of 2 or more singularities. Producing everything we see and concealing a process that has been until now out of mankind’s collective perception. I argue this process still occurs with every attempted singularity merger albeit on a smaller scale over time following the initial event. To describe this new theoretical process I have created 3 simple theoretical place holders that are arguably as real as Dark Energy or ANY other "Standard Model" constant at this point. Yes, I just put every man made constant in history up for grabs. "The Vick Principle", "The Vick Limit", and "The Vick Field" are simply being used to describe something nobody has thought of to my knowledge.
Singulosynthesis: "The Vick Principle" states that in a perceivable and rational universe the entropy of a singularity must be preserved. In a binary singularity merger once sufficient symmetry loss (Instability) is achieved (based on the mass) the “Vick limit” is reached and simultaneously the "Vick field" is achieved. The Vick limit signals the end of the singularity and the beginning of Singulosynthesis. It is the point at which the binary singularities turn against each other. During Singulosynthesis contents of the former singularity are ejected from the system. Upon ejection, contents escaping inherit new properties from the distorted entropy (Genesis). The distribution of the entropy of a singularity when it fails is the Vick field. The Vick field is maintained until the singularity of least mass is extinguished. Moreover, both the Vick limit and the Vick fields are constants, once any singularity reaches the "Vick limit" it will fail. On a cosmological scale this process is the compliment of the standard models stellar Nucleosynthesis, meaning Singulosynthesis synthesizes what we now "describe" as H/He/D/Li (by the standard model) of the universe in the quantities and distributions we observe. It is also the process by which the universe recycles entropy periodically over time.
This is the point at which using standard model methods, graphs, new constants, formulas, and math I describe this event propelling mankind into a new paradigm".. I want us to stop and ponder that" Is that rational? You want me to use “standard model” methods that cannot even accurately describe the exterior of a singularity (our reality) to describe the interior of two failing unknown realities? Is that rational? The standard model can only "jump the shark" when it comes to this scenario.
From this moment forward, there is a path to truth and man will need to set some things aside to get what he wants most. The unknown realm we must explore presupposes the one we live in and have built our knowledge on, and is in fact doubling down the illusion to our perception. How then shall we proceed? We must simulate binary failing singularity scenarios until they teach us what our physics and the underlying description of what our reality should be.
1. Set aside the "standard model" It should be looked at as dubiously as the Donner Party should have looked at The Emigrants' Guide had they known what was to come. At least to begin with, it will come into play later.
2. Make no assumptions about anything (even the big E, which sucks because he inspired this mess)
3. Get some brilliant minds together
4. Look over the variables and generate theoretical limits - the machines will take us where our perception cannot sub Plank and down
a. 2 Black holes of adequate mass with identical properties
b. Space-time with various thresholds
c. Gravity with various thresholds
d. Theoretical Entropy models
e. Theoretical collapse rates
f. Simulated Theoretical matter
g. Simulated Magnetic fields
5. Get some super computers - Just as a point of reference, a type 1a supernova simulation took 128k processors 60k hours to make.
6. Run merging simulations until we get something that looks like "standard model" H/He/D/Li and determine if the standard model name is even applicable anymore. Learn all the physics we never knew"
7. Once we are confident the computer has taught us what our new physics should be. Reproduce the "old standard model Nucleosynthesis" with the "new Nucleosynthesis physics" and verify.
8. Simulate the universe until the simulation simulates you "The End" and go play some StarCraft 2.
9. Once we are confident we are in a new era of understanding, I go to Casa D's in Bellevue to get one of their Chorizo burritos.
To begin the first steps into this era of understanding, here is the first simulation:
Singularity Failure Simulation #1: I have no formal models yet, so in place of singularities I will use comedians to simulate . Chris Farley says "Feed me I'm starving!" So I stuff cupcakes in his face and he replies "Yum those were good!" Then I stuff an old Chevy in his face and he says "Yum that was good!" Then I stuff some neutron stars in his face. And sure enough "Yum that was really good!" Then John Candy walks in the room. Chris looks at me and says "I can't eat that!" I ask, "Why?" Chris says, "I just can't!" Mr. Candy starts to walk up to Chris. Chris yells, "Get away dude". I'm not hungry anymore!" Mr. Candy grabs Chris by the hands and starts spin him around . . Chris moans, "Duuuude.!"
Results from Simulation #1: Chris ejects some strange material and results are inconclusive.
Singularity Failure Speculation
There must be something about the presence of two gravitational singularities that makes them not get along. On top of everything the mind wants to make the list shorter than it probably is. Gravity says "I am going to do what I am going to do!" and space-time says "I am right with you!" So here is the big list as it sits right now.
1. Spacetime while flexible might not handle being contorted so well even with gravity behaving normally (pure speculation, possibly becoming rigid at a point or micro tearing or some other unknown limit).
2. Gravity cannot do what it has to do, due to Asymmetry with spacetime behaving normally (considering the role of symmetry creating the singularity I cannot see how Asymmetry cannot be involved with in undoing it).
3. A combination of effects leading to a runaway instability. The demands made by both gravity and spacetime on each other become too great. Matter and Entropy do whatever they can to get out of the mess, following the path of least resistance.
My gut tells me it is #3. Ultimately, I think strengths will become weaknesses in the end.
Cosmic Singulosynthesis (If you are going to hijack a train, get one with a luxury car and some babes)
I argue the initial recombination epoch of the "Standard Model" which resulted in the surface of last scattering is the direct result of not one singularity failing alone but 2 or more. Following this begins the Cosmic Respiration Cycle. The Quasi equilibrium state of the initial failing singularities should have some correlation to the semi homogeneous appearance of CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) and the young universe. If what I am saying is true, the BAO (Baryon Acoustic Oscillations) and the CMBR should allow us to create theoretical singularity failure models and entropy distribution patterns to describe the event (I have not done this as of yet). For at no other time in the universe has the same quantity of H/He/D/Li (as the standard model calls them) been synthesized without the interference of Metallicity.
What follows is not a super computer simulation (I still do not own one) but the next best thing. It is a cool story describing the young theoretic Cosmic Reparation universe. After the initial event, what follows is a rapidly developing all out free for all. The first stars form, die rapidly, and the first singularities are on the scene. Binary, Triple, and quadruple systems appear all performing Singulosynthesis. This stirs up more gas and more Stars begin to form. A few front runner singularities get ahead of the pack only to be synthesized by Singulosynthesis back down to nothing. More and more stars form. More and more singularities form. The universe is boiling . . Millions to Billions, Billions to Trillions, and on, it begins to boil over. Little packs of stars begin to gather, some gather around a large singularity and others small ones. A few singularities race ahead of the pack by sucking in entire giant stars. Singularities gaining just enough mass to not perform Singulosynthesis on themselves yet synthesize the smaller ones. More stars, gas, and other smaller singularities want to orbit the larger ones now. This becomes an edge the larger singularity will likely never loose. As stellar populations increase the big dog singularity has a big appetite. When a few big dog singularities finally do meet, it will be called a Quasar, and on and on...
The purpose of the cool story is to illustrate what the "Standard Model" wants to be but never can. The process I am arguing for was profound early on and grew to nearly mimic the standard model over time.
The standard model argues that cosmic scale gravitational lensing is attributed to "Dark Matter" halos due to its high correlation with distance galaxies we observe... While I have no models to speak of yet, I speculate there may be far more singularities in the universe than anyone could have ever imagined.
Theory of Cosmic Respiration
The first event of Singulosynthesis gets it started. This is followed by a period of high Cosmic Respiration, Nucleosynthesis kicks off more Singulosynthesis and by recycling entropy the universe develops rapidly. As the universe boils over a transition occurs, Nucleosynthesis increases and Singulosynthesis decreases. The cosmic rate of Singulosynthesis has decreased so much up until now all we can see are the results. My suspicion is that not discovering Singulosynthesis has less to do with it not existing and more to do with nobody looking for it. Or knowing what it was when they saw it.
Galactic Cosmic Respiration
Singulosynthesis is the "slap chop" of the universe, it can do it all. You can go from a semi homogenous background to structure in no time. Dark Energy, who needs it? G dwarf problem, what G dwarf problem? Low Metallicity detected in the early universe, seems right to me. SMBH and galaxy co evolution paradox, what paradox? Quasar and Galaxies metallicity does not evolve with redshift, it shouldn't. Singulosynthesis is a slicer, a dicer, a chopper, a hopper, a mincer, a chunker, and a paradox solver all in one! The indirect cosmological evidence is solid. As for direct evidence, I have searched for active binary singularity mass over time data; I was not surprised to find that none was available on the web. It is my conclusion that this would be the best direct evidence to determine if something counterintuitive like Singulosynthesis is occurring.
Galactic Singulosynthesis and Metallicity
The Standard Model argues that metallicity should increases over time. Yet, the Standard model cannot account for its own discrepancies. I argue with Singulosynthesis that metallicity will generally increase over time and will periodically bump down. The bump down will also be smaller and smaller as the universe ages, making it harder and harder to detect. Unless it is occurring in a high metals area where the galaxy chemistry makes no sense. Things that make you go hmmm. This is proving difficult to quantify because no 2 galaxies are exactly alike and witnessing the full process is inherently impractical. Right now there no irrefutable data that either completely refutes or bolsters the concepts behind Singulosynthesis Theory. Just as a point of reality (actually it is an excuse) I could probably find some really good stuff if I had more time to look and develop the theory.
According to the standard model (generically speaking), the metallicity of spiral galaxies decreases as you move further away from the core. Whereas in Elliptical galaxies (generically speaking) the metallicity decreases more rapidly than spiral galaxies as you move away from the core. My concept of Singulosynthesis cosmology agrees with this. Compared to the mass of the galaxies in a core merger the amount of fresh H/He/D/Li (as the standard model calls them) predicted by Singulosynthesis is quite small. Star formation and violent blowouts from accretion disks in mature galaxy mergers are proving to be a difficult laboratory. Blowouts of old accretion disks do open a bit of a window for direct Singulosynthesis observation in a Super Massive Black Hole binary merger.
Singulosynthesis under the right conditions could help establish a new accretion disk that is lower in metals. That is only if the Singularities are the right mass; there is a mass and proximity window for the process that is still unknown. If the mass discrepancy of the 2 Singularities is too great, any new material would potentially get added to the larger Super Massive Black Hole with no hope of detection. It is very unlikely that something like a Population III type star would form in the center of a mature galaxy making for easy detection. Corruption of a fresh lower metals accretion disk by existing metals in the galaxy core further complicates direct observation opportunities. Due to their higher numbers and lower metallicity, dwarf galaxies and planetary mass Singulosynthesis events might be the best bet for direct detection. That is to find direct proof of fresh H/He/D/Li (as the standard model calls them) being synthesized in some measurable quantity. Better observations of metallicity in the youngest galaxies would be helpful in making a greater case for Singulosynthesis. I have searched the web for that slam-dunk observation; I have only found tantalizing ones so far. The tough hunt will continue and in the mean time I will continue piling on more indirect evidence.
The only sure prediction I can make is there should be an increasing metallicity discrepancy between the Cosmic Respiration model and the Standard Big Bang model in the young universe. Meaning metallicity should increase later under Cosmic Respiration theory than can be predicted under the standard model in the young universe.
Earlier in history when astronomers weren't under house arrest they built their own telescopes making the first observations and discoveries. In the time that followed, Kings, Lords, and the like would equip astronomers in hope that something may be discovered to name after them. In the glory days, the great philanthropists came forward and financed projects in pursuit of greater truth. Today it is not the same. Observations are made and papers are written to “improve” the knowledge and advancement of the "The Standard Model". Because this is what keeps the money flowing. From time to time I see work on papers with anomalies that could be pro Standard Model or pro Cosmic Respiration in nature. Being human, I know human nature, and I have a feeling I suspect there is a drawer with no name or folder on a computer drive labeled "WTF" in many observatories around the world, people know it has some valuable data in it but cannot figure out what it could really mean. Most importantly of all, it would be difficult or impossible for the Standard Model to explain it, so it gets tucked away. If you have read this far and know what I mean, the time is now.
This argument based on rational descent and man-kinds best current observations can only lead to 3 possible conclusions:
1. The Universe is inherently irrational if Black Holes do not conserve Entropy/Information
2. The Universe is inherently rational if Black Holes do conserve Entropy/Information, which leads to a paradox in the event of a Black Hole merger, to solve this paradox you need to destroy one of the black holes in the merger (The Theory of Singulosynthesis), the process of doing this implies how the Universe was created (Genesis - contents ejected from a singularity through an unknown entropy distribution), which creates an overall cosmology fundamentally more sound than the current standard model (Cosmic Theory of Respiration), which implies intelligent design by omnipotence and omnipresence
3. The Universe is inherently rational if Black Holes do conserve Entropy/Information, which leads to a paradox in the event of a Black Hole merger, to solve this paradox you need to destroy one of the black holes in the merger (The Theory of Singulosynthesis), the process of doing this implies how the Universe was created (Genesis - contents ejected from a singularity through an unknown entropy distribution), which creates an overall cosmology fundamentally more sound than the current standard model (Cosmic Theory of Respiration), which implies we could exist in a simulation
The result? Man-kind now has a rational choice in what he thinks created the Universe. Those choices are now as follows: Deity or simulated reality.
Jimmy Vick - Machinist
Bellevue WA
In the event this argument goes anywhere I will rename variables accordingly based on their inspiration:
"The Vick Principle" will become the "The Susskind Principle"
"The Vick Limit" will become the "The Hawking Limit"
"The Vick Field" may become "The Titan Field" for my high school or after the name of the team that proves its existence.
"Genesis" will stay "Genesis" for obvious reasons moreover it is the effect produced by the Torpedo from Star Trek 2 the Wrath of Khan.
"The Einstein Effect" signals the return of space time to non-black hole state
"The Ted Effect" signals the return of matter and entropy to a non-black hole state (potentially creating a neutron star) not sure yet. There might be more to that if binary Neutron Stars were actually once large Binary stars of roughly equal age and mass. With both forming Black Holes of roughly equal mass processing each other down by Singulosynthesis only to end up as binary neutron stars...
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix a bunch of " and ' (didn't get them all), and a few other formatting tweaks.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-04-2013 1:58 AM vickster339 has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 8 (700523)
06-04-2013 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by vickster339
06-04-2013 12:59 AM


Way to big and way too much mumbo-jumbo
Could you pick one, more specific point that you would like to start out with?
Post such as a new message in this topic.
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by vickster339, posted 06-04-2013 12:59 AM vickster339 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by vickster339, posted 06-04-2013 8:48 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 06-04-2013 8:51 AM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

vickster339
Junior Member (Idle past 3892 days)
Posts: 4
From: Bellevue, WA, US
Joined: 06-03-2013


Message 3 of 8 (700534)
06-04-2013 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Adminnemooseus
06-04-2013 1:58 AM


Re: Way to big and way too much mumbo-jumbo
It is a philosophical argument on the role of singularities in the universe based on the consequences of preserving Black Hole entropy... it is not meant to be taken in "bits" because it isn't meant to be and can't. It is a rational argument describing the most rational universe possible considering current observations.
The object of it is not to be right or wrong it is to get people to THINK. Galileo simply pointed out through the phases of Venus that the stinking SUN had to be at the center of the solar system. While he did not have the Newtonian mechanics to prove the orbit of Venus nor the general relativity to prove the strange orbit of Mercury. It did not change the implication of the argument he was making.
All I have done is point out the universal long term consequences created if you do preserve black hole Entropy/Information. It creates an idea that people hate not because it isn't proven to be true, but because it has to be, and there isn't a way to prove it at this time. Galileo observed the phases of Venus in 1610 and Principia did not come out until 1687. That is a 77 year gap from observation to understanding....
Please define what is "Way to big and what is mumbo-jumbo"? Did you read it entirely?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-04-2013 1:58 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 8 (700535)
06-04-2013 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Adminnemooseus
06-04-2013 1:58 AM


Re: Way to big and way too much mumbo-jumbo
Vickster appears to have abandoned a very similar thread (A call to Arms..) over at CosmoQuestX Forums after about a week (I love their moderator: "Please do not just post links without any description..."). He wasn't able to master quoting. He threw his ideas out there, demonstrated a marked misunderstanding of what modern cosmology really says, then instead of engaging in discussion on the feedback he began asking for help developing the ideas he had already been told were no good.
I agree that a very narrow focus is necessary for Vickster's first thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-04-2013 1:58 AM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by vickster339, posted 06-04-2013 10:43 PM Admin has replied

vickster339
Junior Member (Idle past 3892 days)
Posts: 4
From: Bellevue, WA, US
Joined: 06-03-2013


Message 5 of 8 (700603)
06-04-2013 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Admin
06-04-2013 8:51 AM


Re: Way to big and way too much mumbo-jumbo
You wont believe this...
So I post up there the first (call to arms) post was actually a ham handed post with the intent of getting people to attack the idea (I did it on a few elitist douche bag boards), with the goal of making my argument stronger in the weak spots. I then "re posted" my formal argument which was similar to the one I posted here and they were so pissed off they deleted it. They were so pissed off they wouldn't even discuss it. I also posted the same formal argument here http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=01e_1370081244
Turns out the guy attacking me on liveleak @fishdontfeelpain IS tusenfem on Cosmoquest the ADMIN.... he lays into me attacking me on Liveleak then takes MY responses on liveleak and posts them under MY name on cosmoquest to make me look crazy.... then censors me. Unreal.... Please read @fishdontfeelpain responses to me on liveleak THAT is who is running the cosmoquest boards... He even selectively EDITED my cosmoquest post to make me look dumb...
The version I posted here is even more updated. This "consensus for a narrow focus stuff is a bunch of elitist crap". Consensus according to who? It undermines scope and validity of the point I am getting at. That is why they want to chop it up into bits.
If you look at "Big Bang Cosmology" collectively it just gets worse over time. I have read the papers of the guys trying to form galaxies out of the early homogeneous background and they are pulling their hair out because it cannot be done period. There is no structure to create more structure with fast enough. Even with imaginary crap. G dwarf problem = 40 years of head banging....
Pre-Galileo we had Astrology which used this model:
Irrational Theory based on Consensus > Rational Descent > Observation
Astronomy in the pursuit of truth used to be this model:
Observation > Rational Descent > Theory
Modern Cosmology has become "Scientific Astrological Cult" using this model:
Irrational Theory of Consensus > Rational Descent > Observation
What I am doing is the ultimate blasphemy to their little "Scientific Astrological Cult" and that is tearing their heart out by making clear they have made 2 huge and possibly fatal assumption. That being, just because the universe is all expanding means it must have all started in one place and two that black holes just get bigger over time and have no other possible function.
Most of the elites are sitting on a rock thinker types trying to dream up impossible math for things that are impossible to explain under the standard model... @fishdontfeelpain IS tusenfem (string theory or M10 type) seriously read what I was saying, thought it through, and when he realized it HAD to be true, he was fucking furious, I mean FURIOUS, bananas furious because he knew I nailed it. He attacked me for not having nothing hanging on my wall, a masters, or PHD blah blah blah told me I would never figure it out and I laughed my ass off. The irony is it is only because I didn't join the "Scientific Astrological Cult" that I could run of the reservation... The quasar super cluster thing is what got me off my butt... stuff like that forces smart ones out of the box. You can read it for yourself.
I stood back, looked at everything collectively, and threw down Occam's Razor on the whole mess. With one unique, logical, rational idea I created one argument that solves the all major cosmological problems, paradoxes, and most offensive of all it makes more sense. They have a million impossible problems I know they can never solve. I just have one difficult one I think I can.
I am working on specs for my simulation stuff now. Looking over Gamov's work
for some ideas but I know I cant rely on any of that. Big Bang elements got made at different intervals and there are some outputs I know I need to look for. Rofl why am I doing this to myself... Phase 1 will be a theoretical particle generation creating like 3 solar mass ish black holes and tinkering with them to try and generate instability, then it will be theoretical entropy hologram structures, and finally the awesome pain in the ass of magnetic fields.. hopefully creating a nice spew of plasma cooling just right...
Anyhow I always like seeing stuff like this:
http://www.universetoday.com/...meda-and-triangulum-galaxies
One of my biggest issues with the big bang is this huge dispersion and perfect cooling with no metals... ya right... the spontaneous inflation to get the universe to cool just right... and it will never happen again, and we can never know, and take our word for it... blah blah
When I am not working on my modeling I am looking at research stuff... where they find hydrogen in all the wrong places... I love it.
Edited by vickster339, : No reason given.
Edited by vickster339, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 06-04-2013 8:51 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 06-05-2013 9:13 AM vickster339 has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 6 of 8 (700632)
06-05-2013 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by vickster339
06-04-2013 10:43 PM


Re: Way to big and way too much mumbo-jumbo
Hi Vickster,
If Adminnemooseus or some other moderator wants to handle this proposal then that would be fine, but since there was no response from Adminnemooseus last night I'll handle this for now. I think I'll be saying the same things Adminnemooseus would say.
Please pick just one narrow topic and write a thread proposal about it of at most a few hundred words. Please also describe the evidence that led you to your position.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by vickster339, posted 06-04-2013 10:43 PM vickster339 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by vickster339, posted 06-05-2013 10:04 PM Admin has replied

vickster339
Junior Member (Idle past 3892 days)
Posts: 4
From: Bellevue, WA, US
Joined: 06-03-2013


Message 7 of 8 (700681)
06-05-2013 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Admin
06-05-2013 9:13 AM


Re: Way to big and way too much mumbo-jumbo
Can you give me an idea of what a "narrow" topic is?
Are you guys familiar with Entropy/Information preservation problems inherent to black hole mergers?
Or is the "lets not talk about that" or "you need a more narrow focus" idea based on the fact I came up with the best and only solution to the problem?
Or are you buddies with that elitist jerk over at cosmoquest?
Oh well back to research... and working on the Cosmic Respiration Web sit...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 06-05-2013 9:13 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Admin, posted 06-06-2013 8:29 AM vickster339 has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 8 of 8 (700712)
06-06-2013 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by vickster339
06-05-2013 10:04 PM


Re: Way to big and way too much mumbo-jumbo
vickster339 writes:
Are you guys familiar with Entropy/Information preservation problems inherent to black hole mergers?
This would be fine as a topic. Please start a new thread proposal, I'm closing this one. It will still be viewable, you can cut-n-paste from it freely if it contains anything useful for the new proposal.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by vickster339, posted 06-05-2013 10:04 PM vickster339 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024