Pinkerton Theoretical Cosmological Model of The Universe

Discussion in 'Introduce Yourself' started by pywakit, Dec 20, 2009.

  1. pywakit
    Offline

    pywakit Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    39
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +7
    Ok. I guess this is where I was supposed to do this ... :eusa_clap:

    The following is an 'open' letter to cosmologists, astrophysicists, or any other science-minded individual. Tear it apart. And Good Luck ....

    I am writing to you because the science community does not make allowances for innovation, or insights from a layperson. ( non-theist version ) It's not my desire to annoy you, or waste your time. But it is my hope that in the spirit of open-mindedness, you might take a few minutes to read the following.

    It seems impossible to separate ego ( I have a big one, too ) and beliefs from an objective view of the universe. Having read a great deal about black holes, I am struck not by the consensus of opinion, but the lack of one. It fascinates me that the less someone knows about these structures the more authoritative they sound.

    I realize that my theory on black holes flies in the face of mainstream science, and undoubtedly your 'beliefs' too. Perhaps you have already traveled this road and found it desolate. If so, my apologies.

    I first proposed this on 1/26/09. It is short, and self-explanatory.
    Pinkerton Theoretical Cosmological Model Of The Universe 1/26/09
    The Theory:
    1. The visible/local universe has a finite amount of mass.
    2. Black holes have a finite critical mass limit.
    3. That limit is exactly equal to the total mass ( matter + energy ) in the visible/local universe.
    The Process:
    1. Black holes convert all matter/energy into sub-elemental hydrogen for uniform 'stacking'.
    2. Black holes do not appear to be subject to normal laws of space ( rotational speed limits, inertia )
    3. Black holes ( to our knowledge ) currently merge at velocities 'tethered' by the rotational force and tidal forces of the satellite galaxy, or even just a single stellar companion.
    4. Over eons of time black holes will grow in mass/gravity.
    5. Although some escapes temporarily through x-ray/gamma ray bursts ( and possibly through Hawking Radiation ) they continue to grow in mass/gravity.
    6. Eventually unencumbered by the rotational/tidal force of orbiting galaxies, black holes could theoretically achieve near infinite velocities. Therefore significantly speeding up the merging process and 'chasing down' gravitational sources at velocities far out-pacing the expansion of space.
    7. As the mass/gravity grows so does it's rotational speed, and potential velocity as it seeks other sources of gravitons.
    8. The strain on space ( ripple effect ) increases with the growing mass.
    9. As our visible/local universe nears the end of it's life cycle, only one black hole remains, containing nearly all the mass in the visible/local universe ( still within upper mass limits predicted by physicists )
    10. At this trigger point, all remaining space containing matter/energy collapses into the black hole.
    11. When the last sub-atomic particle reaches the point of singularity, critical mass is achieved.
    12. The Big Bang.
    13. Space 'snaps' back to near-uniformity taking hydrogen/microwave/x-ray/gamma ray radiation with it.
    14. Space immediately begins to cool, and star/galaxy formation begins.
    The Logic:
    1. All things in the physical universe have a critical mass point. Except, so far, black holes.
    2. I believe theoretical physics currently allows for such a process, and observations are beginning to bear out this reality.
    3. At the time calculations were made regarding upper-mass limits, black holes were mere theoretical oddities, and even Einstein argued against the possibility of their actual existence in physical space.
    4. Though we have never seen a black hole reach critical mass, that in no way suggests they don't.
    5. The visible/local universe has yet to reach infancy compared to it's expected life span. It is premature to assume on such small evidence that the current expansion will go on forever.
    The Evidence/Proof:
    1. The laws of physics, quantum mechanics.
    2. The observations, predictions and experiments providing adequate proof/accuracy of those laws.
    3. The current chemical/radiological composition of the visible universe.
    4. The current ( and upwardly mobile ) estimated mass of the visible/local universe now approaching the numbers derived for black hole upper-mass limits.
    5. Recent observations of black holes merging or set to merge.
    6. The recent acceptance that all galaxies have black holes, or super-massive black holes at their core.
    7. The recent observations detecting more galaxies gravitationally bound to ours, and Andromeda.
    8. No evidence to support the recent hypothesis that black holes are limited to 50 billion sols.
    9. No evidence of black holes showing appreciable loss of mass over time.
    10. No evidence that black holes 'shunt' mass anywhere else.
    11. No evidence of branes, strings, 5th through 11 dimensions, etc.
    12. Closed-loop obeys all laws of thermo-dynamics/entropy.

    13. Not affected by hypothetical dark matter/energy.
    Predictions:
    1. Black holes in excess of 50 billion sols will be discovered through the latest and soon to come optical/radio telescopes.
    2. Every new discovery will fit within the parameters of this model.
    3. This cycle will repeat endlessly.
    In Conclusion:
    1. This model answers the question of the observed chemical/radiological composition of the visible/local universe.
    2. This model provides for 100% recycling of all matter/energy in the visible/local universe.
    3. This model explains where the big bang got it's mass.
    4. This model appears to violate no known laws.
    5. This model requires no 'new' laws to function.
    6. This model is vastly superior to all flawed existing, and previous models.
    7. It still leaves the question "How did it begin?" to future theorists.
    It is also my theory, however, that per Einstein's Uniformity of Space math ( born out by observations ), the universe is indeed infinite. That black holes are simply 'borrowed' energy from the fabric of space. That dark energy is not a force that 'acts' upon space but rather a 'property' of space. This process/cycle is akin to the sub-atomic particles that 'materialize' and are instantly annihilated by anti-particles ... but on a much larger scale.
    And I also suggest that this process is going on throughout infinity, and has been eternally. The distance between black holes would be equivalent to the distance between the 'materializing' particles. If the loop was not closed, then we would get photons from outside our universe leaking ( over eternity ) here into our universe. And of course if the loop was not closed ... meaning if even a single photon were allowed to escape, the 'next' black hole would be one photon short of critical mass. I don't think space allows this to happen.
    Logic tells me that if this theory is incorrect, then the universe did in fact have a beginning. And therefore it can not be either infinite, or eternal. That there really is nothing beyond the bubble of our expanding visible universe. That there was some metaphysical reason ( ie: God ) since it truly would have had to spring into existence from 'nothing' ... because there was no space with it's inherent energy to 'borrow' from.
    I think there is sufficient evidence in Einstein's math to safely conclude this is not a possiblity. The 'lines' of space would not have an 'endpoint'.
    It is possible that my supposition of black hole inertia-less velocities will not be born out by future observations, however this would not stop the process. Instead, it would merely slow it down. No matter how far space 'expands' the last black hole standing would warp space sufficiently to pull back any remaining mass/energy.
    Reasonable logic tells me that if a 'big bang' could simply materialize from 'nothing' ( 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. That would appear ( so far, anyway ) not to be the case. There must be a process. A function that allows matter to exist, if only temporarily.
    Logically, it took all the energy from our universe to create our universe.
    I hope this didn't take too much of your time.
    Thank you for your attention.
    James Pinkerton
    Copyright 2009 James Pinkerton


    After Galileo's conviction for heresy ... and his subsequent sentencing ...

    As he was being led away, he was credited with uttering these words under his breath .....

    "But they move. They move!"

    As I am being led away I will quietly utter these words .....

    "But they merge. They merge!"
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    44,127
    Thanks Received:
    9,267
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +15,417
    You really should provide extensive links supporting each or those postulates. It would contribute a tad more credibility to your post.
     
  3. pywakit
    Offline

    pywakit Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    39
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +7
    That would be rather annoying ... and would take hundreds if not thousands of 'links' covering a host of scientific disciplines. I would suggest, rather, that you pick your poison, and attack any portion of my model on it's merits. I will be happy to provide you with supporting evidence on any single aspect ...
     
  4. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    44,127
    Thanks Received:
    9,267
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +15,417
    Thanks for the suggestion. But being this is Sunday I think I'll just have a beer, watch some football, and consider that road desolate.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Sunni Man
    Offline

    Sunni Man Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    40,001
    Thanks Received:
    5,328
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    Patriotic American Muslim
    Ratings:
    +12,444
    Pywakit. your theoretical/cosmological model of the Universe is very elementary and needs alot of work.

    I was where you are at now, some 25 years ago.

    Please spend a few more years on your theory and then get back to me.

    Otherwise, you are just wasting my time. :doubt:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Samson
    Offline

    Samson Póg Mo Thóin Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,357
    Thanks Received:
    3,742
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    A Higher Plain
    Ratings:
    +4,210
    I agree.

    Now can I Have the Guacamole and Tortilla Chips?
     
  7. HUGGY
    Offline

    HUGGY I Post Because I Care Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    33,727
    Thanks Received:
    3,805
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Seattle, in a run down motel
    Ratings:
    +6,285
    This is all real interesting-like there pywaket....You might try introducing yourself with a little background before bringing up a theory so obviously well thought out. After you have offered up a little potential credibility then your universal theory might fit nicely in the Science catagory...where someone might look for sciency topics.
     
  8. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    44,127
    Thanks Received:
    9,267
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +15,417
    Dabatable.

    [​IMG]

    Irrefutable.
     
  9. pywakit
    Offline

    pywakit Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    39
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +7
    Is that a fact? Hmm. Let's see the model you came up with 25 years ago .... before black holes were actually verified to exist. How curious. And prescient of you.

    You are just another loser windbag with nothing but these childish petulant words to back your claim.

    Post something real, knucklehead. And your time means nothing to me. I couldn't care less if you feel it was wasted. I seriously doubt you even understand what I wrote.

    Elementary. Indeed. Lol.

    Let's see the flaw jack ass. Show me the flaw instead of your egotistical crap.

    You don't know shit about our universe.

    Oh, and hello everyone. I'm just a guy. Some knot head suggested I post my model here, because there would be some intelligent people capable of debating the science.

    If the Brainiac above is the best you got, I'll go find others to play with.

    :lol:
     
  10. pywakit
    Offline

    pywakit Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    39
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +7
    Well, it will still be here when you have more energy to devote to intellectual pursuits.

    Show me the flaw guys. Don't be so pathetic.

    There are plenty of points to challenge ... assuming you know how to.

    I will be happy to provide you with supporting evidence on any single aspect ...
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2009

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

pywakit james