Ok um if there are no black holes what are these densely packed fast moving stars orbiting?
The same thing that electrons orbit, that hurricanes orbit. No black holes, but I guess the black holes are the thing imagined to do the job. It is something like a black hole, in the sense that time and space are bent by this particular force.
I don't mind QM, but disagree with separate packages of energy. I think of those packages as peaks in a continuous wave, where the troughs are the gaps between the packages. Energy in an opposite form not detectable by the former.
I'm afraid you are confusing mass and volume.... But what if the object in question has more mass, thus more gravitational pull, to overcome the pauli exclusion principle? And this is where my question comes in for you. Can you explain to us what force or principle would prevent such an object to collapse further?
I believe mass is a property not caused by matter, but by what causes matter to exist, and that mass can be altered. This was understood in ancient times by people who found ways of causing a large stone to lose its mass.
So to answer the Q about what might prevent a collapse of matter, is the forces which demand that matter occupies a certain space time criteria. Those forces were anciently named the waters and the light. They are supernatural and have complex qualities. But that's just my opinion and will not go well with this thread.
...This is the part that I was referring to when I said your post is closer to modern physics than you think....
Nice to hear from you. I understand what has been proven about my points which you have outlined so well. There is proof of the background forces which I mention from time to time, which I hope to bring to the table in another thread.
Rather than looking for proof for forces that cannot be measured by a material instrument, we should not be afraid of making postulations and predictions which fit the bill. If a theory is correct in principle by itself, then observations will prove it true.
A theory can be proven to be true before it is applied by measuring it against revealed knowledge. That knowledge is contained in the authentic Bible - despite its misrepresentation by atheists and organized religions.
It describes the background forces by name, cause, relation, order and effects on nature. Including the cause of gravity.
If you become familiar with the characteristics and workings of the background forces in the authentic King James version of the (English) Bible, then you will be able to recognize in which ancient cultures these concepts were known. There were times when almost every person on earth knew about them, and the remnants of such knowledge can still be found in myths and legends, religious beliefs, archaeology, art, hieroglyphs etc.
Speaking of the knowledge of the ancients that lived between 5,300 and 4,200 BC the Bible says - For God showed them the invisible things from Him in the creation of the world, which can be clearly seen and understood by observing the things which have been created, even the knowledge of how God creates through His own eternal power. That can be found in Romans 1:18-22.
The vehicle of discovery is not guessing or doubting, but believing first and getting the evidence as a reward. A correct theory followed by research should verify it. So real faith has nothing to do with organized religions, but with an instinct and knowledge towards God that everyone is indiscriminately given.
The Bible repeatedly states that matter is not made of matter, but of things which cannot be detected in matter except by knowledge and observation. Hebrews 11:3 -by faith we understand that God made worlds, that were framed by the word of God, so that things which are tangible are not made of tangible things, but invisible.
There are hundreds of texts that go into detail about every aspect of nature, and yet this book has been trashed by fools - religious and others, for millenniums.
By refusing to acknowledge what's outside of the test tube and paperwork, science will be continually refuting previous conclusions, because their model is based on matter being self existent.
How are these two statements not contradictory. You don't accept separate packages of energy, but you do believe in separated packages of energy?
When one of those packages interacts with matter (for example during the photo electric effect, what happens to the remaining packages?
The background force has two characteristics one which causes energy to be stored or not revealed the other which causes energy to be released or expressed. Matter is an oscillation between those two characteristics, so we have packages of energy. But the gaps between are also packages of stored energy which does not reveal itself to us, except in theory.
Those changeovers of energy can happen in any amount of time, from nano seconds to millions of years on a grand scale. The fluctuations between these two forces can be seen, for example on the surface of the sun, where stored energy enters the sun, and energy is released, producing sunspots and flares, respectively.
I do not disagree with the observations or predictions/conclusions of the Higgs particle, as someone said but I pretty much go along with what NoNukes, Percy and Son Goku have posted.
All I am saying is that whatever pops up as matter, illusive as it may seem to be, is all part of the system where matter is a special effect created from forces which elude matter, and yet by which matter exists. And I do not jump from matter straight over to God, but recognize that there are hierarchical layers or dimensions of laws/forces in between, which make it possible for infinite energy to be calmed down to the finite we call matter.
The "Waters and Light" have very specific qualities and put an immediate relation or connection with any particle in the universe. That means they traverse time and space. So the disappearing and appearing act of some particles, shows that they are sharing something, in which matter resides. Otherwise we have defied energy laws.
On the edge of matter, so to speak, we have particles that are slippery and hard to define, and yet the observations predict such particles. If the particle is of such a nature then we should expect it to be able to transcend our space time boundaries to some degree, or at least sometimes. So I expect a whole lot more similar particles as the Higgs to be found in the future.
One of the reasons some scientists are doubting the Higgs is because it is potentially more powerful than matter as we know it, and it also may have those illusive qualities of being everywhere or no where at once. However its predicted interaction with matter is not unlimited, but fits in like a piece of the puzzle, and may explain things like the attractions within the atomic nucleus.