Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Stormy]

Lol..@ Xris. I still believe that a field of eternity that endures everything, in which everything and anything can take place likened unto a dream world, slowed down to what became the speed of light, in which all of reality took place, and that dark matter presides over our ID, that dark energy is in fact the brakes, expanding reality by creating more space in doing so. Black holes are visible entrances to real time, dream world itself, where one is all, and all can become everything. I guess.

[Wanderer101]

Poster

I am sad that you decided to leave. Hopefully you will change your mind. I think that it is good to have people on both sides of a discussion that makes it interesting. I actually prefer it so I can see things from multiple sides. You gave good and informative replies that represented well the QM and popular view point of scientists today. It does not matter so much if people disagree what is important is that they be courteous to each other.

I noticed that Xris is passionate about what he believes but I did not detect any rudeness but I guess you two may have some history that I am unaware of. It appears that the points I have raised will go unchallenged. Perhaps someone else will try later on.

As for my declaration that Big Bang is wrong, I would not say it is all wrong. I do believe certain assumptions that have been made are close to being correct while others I feel are way off base. So I guess my feeling is that the latest observations strongly suggest that some of the basic assumptions of the theory are most likely incorrect. I do believe that the Big Bang happened and I do believe it will happen again. I even have imagined what the trigger is which I do not see in any theory out there today. My idea of course is much simpler in concept than what QM Theory would suggest. Actually I believe that it is computable with a proper combination of mathematics. Basically the math needed would be 3 fold.

1. Einstein’s General Field equations for gravity. These equations provide the explanation for the compression of matter.

2. Classical Electromagnetic field equations with emphases on the repulsive properties and the role they play at extreme high pressures and compressions.

3. QM equations to handle the randomness and complexity of the overall process leading up to trigger that causes the big bang. In conjunction with the other set of equations it also will explain the time immediately after the expansion of the Black Hole.

It is my belief that there exists a number that represents the largest size in mass a Black Hole can be before it becomes unstable. That number most likely corresponds to the total mass in the Universe. It’s another one of those strangely perfect numbers that is just perfectly tuned for things to work out. The Universe seems to be filled with these magical natural constants that make life possible in this Universe.

Xris

We observe movement and make assumptions. Those assumptions gather disciples and the assumptions becoming embedded as facts.

This is probably one of the key problems in physics today. It’s not that QM is bad or of no value. It’s the philosophy, interpretations and assumptions that support it. That I think is where the problem is. Honestly I really don’t understand QM all that well that’s why I have decided to have a discussion so I can get a better understanding of this viewpoint. Also a problem with physics today is in the philosophy of Science that was created by CI. In that time we entered into what I like to refer to as scientific gridlock.

Quote from Feynman. In physics today we know” we can't define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers”… one saying to the other: "you don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says: "what do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by know?" When discussing objective reality versus QM reality things always end up with that kind of a discussion. Somehow we all need to be able to at least agree on what is real. I will give it some thought. Perhaps there is a way to compromise. This might be good idea for another topic of discussion.

[Xris]

Wanderer, Its not about if it is right or wrong it is the certainty with which it is preached. Yes I am the niggly creature that upsets all the proponents of suspect concepts. I suggest you do not align yourself with me it may cause you a few problems. To me there are certain concepts that need to be visited every time their proponents preach these wonderful truths. Search threads on most subjects and the BB or particles are wheeled out like the ten commandments. Obey and observe or receive the wrath of the gods.

-- Updated Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:32 pm to add the following --

Lol..@ Xris. I still believe that a field of eternity that endures everything, in which everything and anything can take place likened unto a dream world, slowed down to what became the speed of light, in which all of reality took place, and that dark matter presides over our ID, that dark energy is in fact the brakes, expanding reality by creating more space in doing so. Black holes are visible entrances to real time, dream world itself, where one is all, and all can become everything. I guess.

Stormy I am sorry but I believe this dark stuff is a concept too far and black holes belong to science fiction.

[Wanderer101]

Xris

I am not aligning with anyone person per se. I align with what I feel is the truth. In some things I agree with traditional science and some things I agree with non-traditional science.

As for the Dark Stuff remark, I have doubts about the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy the jury is still out on those. Black holes are definitely real and exist there is a lot of observational evidence for the existence of Black Holes.

-- Updated June 13th, 2012, 10:47 am to add the following --

Well unless someone challenges to my enumerated points that have been put forward, it appears as if the discussion will end with my simple big bang theory winning out over the traditional model as proposed by current day scientists.

To summarize I have stated that according to my concept the big bang happens as a result of an oscillatory process concerning a black hole theory that states that there is a maximum value for the size of a black hole. Once the black hole accumulates the max value of mass the black hole becomes unstable. The instability is triggered by super heating of the core material do to extreme compression of the atoms within the core. An avalanche nuclear fission effect occurs and this effect causes the material in the core to go through a transition from an incredibly dense solid to a plasma state. Once the plasma state occurs the gravitational field is weakened. The expansion then begins. The event horizon collapses and the big bang occurs. This plasma quickly cools during the expansion period. After the plasma cools to a certain temperature the elements Hydrogen and Helium come into being.

Then over millions of years the gasses condense into stars and galaxies. Eventually black holes begin to come into being and the collapse of the Universe begins again. In the later stages of the Universe the Black Holes combine eventually pulling all the matter and energy back into one Super Massive Black Hole. This Black Hole after some time becomes unstable and the cycle begins again.

[Xris]

Xris

I am not aligning with anyone person per se. I align with what I feel is the truth. In some things I agree with traditional science and some things I agree with non-traditional science.

As for the Dark Stuff remark, I have doubts about the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy the jury is still out on those. Black holes are definitely real and exist there is a lot of observational evidence for the existence of Black Holes.

-- Updated June 13th, 2012, 10:47 am to add the following --

Well unless someone challenges to my enumerated points that have been put forward, it appears as if the discussion will end with my simple big bang theory winning out over the traditional model as proposed by current day scientists.

To summarize I have stated that according to my concept the big bang happens as a result of an oscillatory process concerning a black hole theory that states that there is a maximum value for the size of a black hole. Once the black hole accumulates the max value of mass the black hole becomes unstable. The instability is triggered by super heating of the core material do to extreme compression of the atoms within the core. An avalanche nuclear fission effect occurs and this effect causes the material in the core to go through a transition from an incredibly dense solid to a plasma state. Once the plasma state occurs the gravitational field is weakened. The expansion then begins. The event horizon collapses and the big bang occurs. This plasma quickly cools during the expansion period. After the plasma cools to a certain temperature the elements Hydrogen and Helium come into being.

Then over millions of years the gasses condense into stars and galaxies. Eventually black holes begin to come into being and the collapse of the Universe begins again. In the later stages of the Universe the Black Holes combine eventually pulling all the matter and energy back into one Super Massive Black Hole. This Black Hole after some time becomes unstable and the cycle begins again.

So you disagree with the idea that there is no evidence of a prior universe? I am interested to hear why you believe black holes exist?

[Wanderer101]

Xris Yes I disagree to the idea of no prior Universe. I believe in a oscillatory universe theory. How the Universe got here I do not know. That to me is beyond comprehension. Perhaps God got the ball rolling eons ago. Perhaps the Universe was always here. Who knows.

I believe that Black Holes Exist because of an article I read some time ago. In the article astronomers continued photographing the center of our milky way and after the time lapsed photographs were spliced together it was obvious that the stars in that area were orbiting around a dark massive object.

Astronomers previously theorized that Sgr A* is a black hole based on observations of the stars speeding around it. The observations showed that the object is four million times more massive than the sun and is no bigger than Pluto's orbit.

In December 2008, results were announced from a very difficult observational effort that required 16 years to complete The precision in tracking the orbits of these 28 stars at the galactic center in the last years of the study was equivalent to being able to see a 1 euro coin from 10,000 km distant. The stars closest to Saggitarius A* are not in defined orbits. They swarm like bees buzzing around a hive. Further away from the massive black hole, six stars are in defined orbits. One of them named S2, completed one orbit of Saggitarius A* during the 16 year time period of this study. It is likely that the tidal forces of the massive black hole catalyzed the formation of these stars.

This is very, very convincing evidence. I don't like to rely on just math predictions alone, I prefer observational evidence to convince me.

[Xris]

Wanderer it has those who object to the concept with valid reasons worth considering.Here is a link to at least of them. http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html

[Wanderer101]

Xris

I read over the article you sent. I am not really qualified to go out and analyze the papers and such that the author suggests are evidence of the non-existence of the big bang and black holes. Generally speaking I keep an open mind to controversial ideas and concepts. But I doubt that this particular person’s opinion can be scientifically validated. He seems to be of the opinion that there is a conspiracy of some sort which I do not believe is true. Whenever there is a rejection of papers and such it is generally because scientists involved truly believe that the paper is wrong. I do not believe that scientists are just trying to squash valid ideas.

On the other hand I do believe a lot of what scientists today believe about fundamental issues in science is in fact incorrect. Their errors are of ignorance not of a conspiracy of some sort. When we get down to issues of fundamental importance the playing field becomes more even between experts and people who are not expert in the field. The reason that I believe this is so is because nobody really knows what an electron looks like or what it is. For that matter nobody really knows what particles are and how they work. So anyone’s guess is as good as another. Obviously a scientist’s guess is going to be better most of the time but not all of the time.

[Xris]

Xris

I read over the article you sent. I am not really qualified to go out and analyze the papers and such that the author suggests are evidence of the non-existence of the big bang and black holes. Generally speaking I keep an open mind to controversial ideas and concepts. But I doubt that this particular person’s opinion can be scientifically validated. He seems to be of the opinion that there is a conspiracy of some sort which I do not believe is true. Whenever there is a rejection of papers and such it is generally because scientists involved truly believe that the paper is wrong. I do not believe that scientists are just trying to squash valid ideas.

On the other hand I do believe a lot of what scientists today believe about fundamental issues in science is in fact incorrect. Their errors are of ignorance not of a conspiracy of some sort. When we get down to issues of fundamental importance the playing field becomes more even between experts and people who are not expert in the field. The reason that I believe this is so is because nobody really knows what an electron looks like or what it is. For that matter nobody really knows what particles are and how they work. So anyone’s guess is as good as another. Obviously a scientist’s guess is going to be better most of the time but not all of the time.

If you read his papers, he sounds very well informed and he is not alone.Conspiracy is not exactly the right word but there is lot of vested academic interests in modern cosmology that works against the principles of science. Listen to a plasma scientist and his explanations of the universe are completely different to a cosmologist.It is a time when we must gather what information we can and make our own judgement. There is so much conflicting opinions no one can be certain of anything. You would think with all the knowledge we have gathered a clear picture would have evolved.

-- Updated Sat Jun 16, 2012 7:28 am to add the following --

http://www.plasmacosmology.net/history2.html We do need to understand there is more than one way of looking at matter and the universe.