Big Bang + Black Holes = $1.1B

[malform11]

Pre:

I think alternative theory forum is insulting and assumes poster is not scientific. Unfortunately some forums call it, "beyond the standard model", yet fill it with 80 year old big bang ideology.

I refuse to post at a forum where I'm already assumed to be wrong.

BIG BANG THEORY

A recent poll demonstrated that most theorists do not believe in the Big bang meta-theory, yet the media presents it as though it were proven and universally accepted. The Big Bang INDUSTRY makes billions every year by claiming to prove their own theory without any tangible evidence and without independent confirmation.

Failed Big Bang predictions:

Einstein said that man would not be able to split the atom.

Space is not empty, it is filled with what we now call dark matter. All other cosmological models correctly predicted a media, only Big Bang did not.
 Mass is not lost in nuclear reactions, not converted directly to energy as per Einstein and Big Bang prediction.

When the atom bomb was to be detonated, Einstein was asked to predict the energy released, by using E=mc^2. The resulting figures, mass * (distances^2/time^2), were essentially meaningless, so he merely guessed and was exponentially wrong.

Electrons are not indestructible elementary particles contradicting the Big Bang prediction.

Neutrinos were proved to have mass last year contradicting the Big Bang prediction.

Big Bang predicted the temperature of space to be 50K. Steady state theorists predicted 4K. Later observations revealed the temperature to be 3.5K. Big Bang theorists claimed this as proof of their theory.(?!?!)

Matter from star plumes observed moving at six times faster than C (the speed of light) disproved Einstein and Big Bang prediction of C as the speed limit.

Propagation of gravity, contrary to Big Bang, is instantaneous. That and only that value allows for the correct prediction of future planet and star positions.

Big Bang predicted singularity which violates two basic laws of physics and was disproved by Einstein, Hawking, and Newton.

If the infinitely small singularity expanded, doubled it's size a billion times per millisecond for the last 13.7 billion years, it would still be infinitely small...

If a finite universe expanded, as Big Bang predicted, it could not be of infinite size [as we now believe] without traveling at an infinite speed or for an infinite time...

Black holes can't form without an intermediate star which removes all thermal energy by nuclear fusion/fission. A hotter early universe would only have more thermal energy further preventing immediate collapse of matter. No predicted/theorized Super Massive black hole or intermediate size black hole has ever been observed.

Only pair production creates wholesale matter and antimatter. With Big Bang, no other methodology is offered or was predicted to explain formation of matter..

Size of universe as seen by Hubble, far larger than Big Bang predicted (thought to be infinite NOW). Predicted age of universe at 13.7 billion years was based on that incorrect prediction of size, so....

No earlier epochs of formation were seen in those deep space images of the "early universe"..
no higher temperatures and speeds, no signs of compression or expansion, no abundance of quasars and SMBH's...

Astrophysicist Halton Arpe discovered Quasars exchanging matter with nearby objects. Quasars are therefore not distant and ancient as Big Bang predicted. He was publicly destroyed by the well-funded and all-powerful Big Bang Industry, and died in discredit.

 

GET BILLIONS FOR AGREEING WITH YOURSELF, NO TRIAL
 
We can not even begin to detect gravity from a great distance, such as the distance to the two colliding black holes. We could only view the collision of two black holes some billions of years later. Gravity would have to propagate at the speed of light for a wave to arrive just as we view the collision anyway, which it does not to do. Propagation of gravity is instantaneous, only that value allows for the correct prediction of future planet and star positions.

A gravity wave, as they claim, "requiring more energy that exists in the entire universe" is impossible by it's own definition. Yet the colorfulness of the statement makes fools see it as "proof".

The vast majority of people have no understanding of cosmology and physics. Because we live in a time of proven sciences, like chemistry, they assume that cosmology has solved all of it's mysteries. They don't know enough to doubt, and people naturally gravitate to colorful fantastic sounding explanations anyway.

If gravity waves really existed then they should be detectable always. Colliding black holes do not alter gravitational pull or even the center of gravity for that small area of space in which they reside, and even nearby objects are not affected in any way.

The self-verifying, now wealthy "theorists" offer no scientific methodology just how or why previously undetectable gravity waves somehow changed and became detectable...

They made over a billion dollars with that, and they were helped by the media.

The TV "news" presented films of a captive audience of college students in class being "informed" of the "discovery". It was sensationalized to look like a historical moment, like when astronauts said that the "Eagle has landed". There was the loud SOUND of many cheers and much applause, but I SAW no movement, no real reaction from the students....

Entertainment "news" programs are unashamedly biased, profit driven. Amazed by themselves they make grandiose sensational statements with a glow in their faces, declaring their important place in history. They compare this to.....the landing on the moon..

These announcers know nothing about cosmology. They tend to believe whatever sounds interesting, colorful, fantastic. A biased feel-good story promises ratings, profit....

Big Bang delivers, everything is meant to sound amazing. Exploding singularity, Infinite energy, infinite mass, infinite gravity waves.... colorful black hole statements, wormholes, time slowing infinitely, fantastic earlier epochs, multiple universes, anything super massive or virtual. Expansion leading to eventual destruction...Hitler said it best: "the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it"

No gravity was detectable, at most the optical observation would lead them to interpret redshift data. There are more scientific explanations for redshift anomaly.....

Debris from colliding black holes would increase the density of the surrounding media, with irregularly dispersed particles. Increase in density of media causes redshift.

Because this field of debris is rotating, redshifts fluctuate throughout each rotation, with regular spikes which slowly go away as the debris field expands and evens out.

 

[Maine farmer]

That is quite a verbose post for someone who refuses to post! Weather or not you are perceived as being wrong depends largely upon the quality of the evidence you provide. I would like to read more about the propagation of gravity being instantaneous, and what the evidence is to support that assertion. I ask out of curiosity and not condescension.

[spartan45]

The propagation of gravity being instantaneous is a pet subject of mine. It is an exciting topic because of the mystery and intrigue that seems to surround it. The downside is that any attempt to explore the idea is immediately rubbished. Push too hard and it's goodbye contributing to that science forum. It's even worse than discussing global warming! OK. Rant over.

[malform11]

I didn't "come up with" instantaneous gravity.

 

Hundreds of people have jobs which require them to predict future positions of asteroids, planets, moons, celestial bodies..all of them use instantaneous gravity in their equations. That is the only way to get the correct answer.

 

Surely no one denies simple physics. Objects of a given mass moving at given speeds in relation to other objects, affected by given forces. Video games emulate "physics" to simulate realistic motion of objects.

 

Suppose you wanted to predict the future position of any planet or star, or wanted to know if an asteroid is headed toward Earth. You need to know the mass of the object, speed and direction of travel, and the forces acting upon it.

 

If the mass or speed or direction is wrong, the prediction will be incorrect.

If you use any value other than instantaneuos to describe the gravity forces, the prediction will be incorrect.

 

This is observational proof.

 

I support the newtonian explanation of gravity. I explain the methodology of gravity in my book, which only applies proven science. I provide the mathematical formalization.

 

There is other empiricle evidence.
 
Gravimeters measure gravity. Scientists take those to places where eclipses occur. The force of gravity changes as the alignment actually occurs, not seven minutes later. The force of gravity actually dips slightly  during alignment, demonstrating "masking' which only supports instantaneuos newtonian gravity.

 

Big bang predicted that graviton particles form between every two particles in the universe, tethering them together. Later they went for the equally unscientific but more colorful space-time gravity theory.

Surely you don't think that lensing of light around galaxies can only suggest, and indeed prooves, that gravity is "space-time folding in on itself"?

[Maine farmer]

 

 

I support the newtonian explanation of gravity. I explain the methodology of gravity in my book, which only applies proven science. I provide the mathematical formalization.

 

There is other empiricle evidence.

 

Gravimeters measure gravity. Scientists take those to places where eclipses occur. The force of gravity changes as the alignment actually occurs, not seven minutes later. The force of gravity actually dips slightly  during alignment, demonstrating "masking' which only supports instantaneuos newtonian gravity.

 

Big bang predicted that graviton particles form between every two particles in the universe, tethering them together. Later they went for the equally unscientific but more colorful space-time gravity theory.

Surely you don't think that lensing of light around galaxies can only suggest, and indeed prooves, that gravity is "space-time folding in on itself"?

Where can your book be found?

 

I had always assumed the force of gravity to be instantaneous, but then I read somewhere (I can't remember where) that the force of gravity was propagated at the speed of light, so I have a genuine interest.

 

Did the gravimeters actually record the eclipse before it could be seen?

[malform11]

"  A place for all theories which "don't fit" anywhere else at Hypography......

 

This is the place where we put topics that are outside the bounds of standard science: they usually contain interesting but unsupported viewpoints."

.......................

It is like the kiddie table on Thanksgiving. The trash on your computer. Those who don't accept all big bang statements , those who ask questions are banned to be here.

 

if  you  "don't fit" ...don't agree with all statements supporting big bang, you are defined as unsupported, outside the bounds, set aside, suppressed...

[malform11]

Please don't continue quoting my entire posts. If you want to address a specific item you are welcome do so. To always quote entire posts opens the door for blanket dismissal and mockery.

 

If my previous explanations don't register in your mind as proof, or if you are just pretending not to understand (crimestop) either way I proved my point.

 

Your statements prevent forward progress by dismissing and ignoring established points, continually taking the conversation back to the starting line,

Edited April 27, 2017 by malform11

[malform11]

Sorry. If you really want gravity here it is..

 

GRAVITY
Astronomers can only predict the positions of stars and planets correctly if they assume that the force of gravity is instantaneous and continual. No wave can arrive instantly and waves are by definition not continual.

 

Gravity is an effect caused by motion.

When dark matter particles spin to become a quark, the change from random motion to orderly motion is an increase in dynamic pressure. The result is a decrease in static pressure, seen as a gravitational attraction.

 

Much like a vacuum, a gravitational pull is actually a push of greater media pressure from behind.

When one object comes between two other objects, it will slightly mask the gravitational attraction
between them.

 

Scientists take gravimeters to wherever eclipses occur. It is assumed that gravity forces will be the greatest when the Sun, Moon, and Earth are in alignment. However, gravimeters reveal that the pull of gravity decreases during the physical alignment of an eclipse demonstrating slight masking of the Sun's gravity by the Moon.

Motion creates Baryonic matter which creates gravity. Motion ultimately creates gravity. Negative motion does not exist, therefore gravity never repels.

Gravity is mathematically formalized as a variation of Bernoulli's principle which defined the relationship of a pressure drop with the increased velocity of flow of Baryonic matter.

Gravity = ( E1 - E2 )/2 * D
E1 = Energy of particle
E2 = Energy of surrounding media
D = Density of media

 

if I am allowed, my book is titled "Dark Matter, Antimatter, and Galaxies/beyond the standard model" available at Barnes and Noble, Amazon.
 

[spartan45]

Sorry. If you really want gravity here it is..

 

GRAVITY

Astronomers can only predict the positions of stars and planets correctly if they assume that the force of gravity is instantaneous and continual.

 

if I am allowed, my book is titled "Dark Matter, Antimatter, and Galaxies/beyond the standard model" available at Barnes and Noble, Amazon.

 

There is no question in my mind that in a static field the propagation of gravity is instantaneous.  As you correctly pointed out in an earlier post the only way space probe trajectory calculations work is to use the actual (instantaneous) position of the gravity source and not it’s light retarded position.

This is also why gravity but not light emanates from a black hole.

When an object like the Earth is moving around the Sun, the attraction of the Earth is toward the instantaneous position of the Sun and not where the Sun had been if its position was retarded using the velocity of light (this retardation actually does happen with the optical position of the Sun, and is called annual solar aberration). If the pull of gravity was toward the optical and not the actual position of the Sun, it would cause a pull ahead of the Earth, which would cause the orbit of the Earth to spiral outward. No such thing has been observed, and the Earth’s orbit is stable.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity#Laplace

Good luck with your book, Dark Matter, Antimatter, and Galaxies: Beyond the Standard Model Paperback – 2 Sep 2016, the cover seems to sum the topic up – amazing and mysterious.

[Maine farmer]

 

 

 

Scientists take gravimeters to wherever eclipses occur. It is assumed that gravity forces will be the greatest when the Sun, Moon, and Earth are in alignment. However, gravimeters reveal that the pull of gravity decreases during the physical alignment of an eclipse demonstrating slight masking of the Sun's gravity by the Moon.

Motion creates Baryonic matter which creates gravity. Motion ultimately creates gravity. Negative motion does not exist, therefore gravity never repels.

 

 

Could it be possible to create an artificial gravity based on the explanation of gravity that you provided.  Also, could it be possible to communicate instantaneously by manipulating gravity and using gravimeters as receivers?  

Edited April 27, 2017 by Farming guy

[malform11]

 

Could it be possible to create an artificial gravity based on the explanation of gravity that you provided.  Also, could it be possible to communicate instantaneously by manipulating gravity and using gravimeters as receivers?

Gravity can not be imitated in any way I know.

 

Perfume atomizers work on the same principle, also old carburetors. The rapid, directional flow of gas above the perfume draws vapor into the stream. In a carburetor, the venturi is like an hourglass, where it is thin, the flow of air is moving quickly in one direction, drawing gasoline vapor into the stream.

 

These streams are not less dense, they are actually more dense. They have less pressure.

 

Mechanical science, I think. More orderly flow means an increase in dynamic pressure, which decreases static pressure.

 

The same thing happens on a much smaller scale within the dark matter media.

 

To imitate dark matter or a quark without forming a quark? HMMMM

 

Communication:

 

Because of the laws of motion, i.e. "every action has an equal and opposite reaction..." no.

 

For communication by gravimeter, one would have to alter the center of gravity for some object with large mass. Like detonating a bomb next to an asteroid.. There would be no real way to form a message, except through many repeated explosions, like Morse code..

 

 

[Maine farmer]

 

 

Communication:

 

Because of the laws of motion, i.e. "every action has an equal and opposite reaction..." no.

 

For communication by gravimeter, one would have to alter the center of gravity for some object with large mass. Like detonating a bomb next to an asteroid.. There would be no real way to form a message, except through many repeated explosions, like Morse code..

It there a theoretical limitation to the sensitivity of gravimeters?  If you could build  sensitive enough  gravimeters, could you not then be able to receive gravitational signals by rearranging  smaller masses?

 

Additionally, couldn't you build a network of utlra-sensitive gravimeters to map the matter distribution of the universe?  I seem to recall reading that there were already gravimeters being used in orbit to detect caves on Earth, so it seems it may be doable.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Farming guy

[Boerseun]

Gravity is propagated at the speed of light. Gravity, in the Einsteinian view being the warping of spacetime thanks to mass, cannot disseminate any information as to its actual presence any faster. Call the particle mediating its presence a graviton, call it a infinitesimal suction-particle, whatever. The speed of light is the speed at which it goes.   

[malform11]

When you say rearranging smaller masses, there is no change in the center of gravity. Anything you push on earth will be offset, no change will be detectable from great distances.

[malform11]

Can you explain what spacetime is? What is warping, the methodology, and how does that create an attractive force? If it warps, spacetime has properties and is a substance, the second media filling space when they said space was empty...

[Maine farmer]

When you say rearranging smaller masses, there is no change in the center of gravity. Anything you push on earth will be offset, no change will be detectable from great distances.

If you had a minimum of two extremely sensitive gravimeters, you should be able to develop a sort of 3 dimensional image, much the way our eyes work, so you should be able, if you could have a high enough degree of sensitivity, to  determine the distribution of the mass and not just it's center of gravity.  You could possibly change the distribution from spherical to disc shaped and back to form a sort of binary code.  Bear in mind that this is just conjecture from a sub genius farmer.

 

Can you explain what spacetime is? What is warping, the methodology, and how does that create an attractive force? If it warps, spacetime has properties and is a substance, the second media filling space when they said space was empty...

This is the question a lot of us struggle with!  I have seen several documentaries where they show a sphere on fabric with another rotating sphere, with the warping fabric representing spacetime, and it is easy to visualize that way, but it looks to me like they just repackaged the concept of the aether that they say does not exist.  Relativity is an often discussed topic on this site, and I tend to believe in it, but it just seems there is a lot more to learn.

[malform11]

I believe anything that physically happens can be filmed, or depicted in a video. Any theory which can't be depicted in a video is not true, and doesn't happen.

 

When an attempt is made to use a metaphor, it doesn't pan out.

 

A  ball on a sheet in space will not depress it,

 

A bowling ball on a trampoline will depress the surface, because of gravity from beneath. if another smaller ball rolls to the bowling  ball in the center, it is not because of the bowling ball, but because of the gravity beneath..

 

The metaphor would essentially say that gravity of the bowling ball is caused by the gravity of the Earth, [which is caused by what?]

 

So the fallacy is moving problem over one step, and dismissing it. Much like believing the earth rested on the back of a turtle, which rested on the back of a another turtle, like the problem is solved, not just moved down the line.