Can we move on from the BB?

Welcome Hyrum,

Meta Research feels more or less the same way about the Big Bang that you do. And many, but not all, of our members have similar misgivings about BB. Of course, in order to to talk about what is really happening it is sometimes necessary to talk about "previous attempts to talk about what is really happening".

We are pretty much convinced that the BB has been successfuly refuted. But for some reason the vast majority of technically literate people on this planet don't get it. We also have some ideas about what <u>is</u> happening out there in the real world.

These ideas are incorporated into a theory that was originally known as the Meta Model. It's focus is the origin and nature of the universe. But in recent years we have been expanding this model to include the opposite end of the size range - sub atomic particles. It is kind of interesting that the largest stuff we know about is so closely related to the smallest stuff we know about. Partly because Meta Model is expanding in this way, we are beginning to think of it by a different name these days: Deep Reality Physics. This name is a polite (we think) dig at the members of the mainstream science community that subscribe to the Copenhagen Interpreatation of quantum physics (which has concluded that "there is no deep reality" to the universe).

Have you read any of the relevant papers and articles by our founder, Tom van Flandern? From our home page, go to the Cosmology tab. At that page the default tab is also titled Cosmology, and there is a short menu along the left side that lists some of Tom's papers.

Take a look at them and let us know if this is the sort of thing you are looking for.

Regards,
LB

Thanks for the suggestions. I loved the article about the GPS and how it relates to relativity. I read, the universe in a nutshell by Hawking earlier this year and thought it was awesome, but couldn't help wondering how many extra things the scientific community had to invent to explain BB. I kept thinking that these guys were way too smart and could understand things that 'normal' people like me couldn't. Now I'm getting the idea that they don't know what they are talking about and are covering it up with technicalities.

The other awesome article was about "physics principles" like conservation of energy/matter/momentum, all of which are violated in accepted/funded theories. Maybe there's not as much money in investigating reality? It takes a lot of money to try to find evidence for dark matter/energy/black holes/evolution. If those things don't exist and the officials controlling funding know it, then they can justify any expense to keep exploring it because they know they will never find it and keep spending money. Many of these people make a lot of money through fat government contracts.

One thing my 5 year old son is infatuated with lately is 'black holes' and I must admit that the concept is intriguing. Now that I think about it, they don't make sense. Before I give my opinion, does anyone think it's strange how 'they' are trying so hard to prove the existence of black holes? It's like they're trying to convince themselves. Here's my take. What keeps stars from collapsing completely? It's the pressure and heat of the fusion reactions right? Just like anything, there's a reaction to the collapse, to oppose it. Well with the case of the black holes, they lack the normal fuel H, He..., but they would just collapse until the pressure was so great that bigger elements would fuse and that would happen until the pressure/heat would build up until what? an explosion, greater expansion?

Could that be what quasars are? I'm just guessing. I plan on reading: The Static Universe: Exploding the Myth of Cosmic Expansion
by Hilton Ratcliffe. Maybe that'll fill me in.

Thanks!

Hyrum Jones

You are welcome, Hyrum. Please continue your education. It is our favorite past time. We have plenty of material here, especially if you count this forum. But be warned - even though this is a "kook" site, we have members that even we consider kooks. One must read stuff here with a grain of salt, but it is still possible to learn from them. We have come to view all of our members as valuable, and (pretty much) the only thing that is guaranteed to get you kicked out is attacking the messenger. Messages are fair game, of course.

Black holes are indeed intriguing. They were originally know as dark stars, or Mitchell stars. A physicist named John Mitchell is generally credited with originating the concept of an accumulation of matter so large that its escape velocity was the speed of light or greater. But dark stars did not collapse to a point, as some now claim black holes do. They just stopped radiating light waves.

Because of our theories about the physical nature of the gravitational force and gravitational potential fields, we believe there may not an intrinsic upper limit to the amount of matter that can accumulate as a single object. But there is an upper limit to that object's surface gravity. (This is why, physically, an object can continue to accumulate mass without reaching a point where the gravitational force will lead to collapse.) Once that limit is reached, the gravitational mass of an object becomes more or less constant while its inertial mass, and its diameter, continues to increase. (But these are preliminary theoretical conclusions. Work continues.)

So, if you shy away from some of the Big Science dudu that has been added recently, black holes (dark stars) start making sense again.

Regards,
LB

I have a different idea about why blackholes don't exist in the real universe. It has to do with how real matter is forced by gravity into real stars that don't use fusion at all. They can only get so large because the surface area is relative to the square of the radius but the mass/volume is relative to the cube of the radius. The energy of stars is the same energy we find in all matter and amounts to a few milliwatts or so per kilogram. Stars can be very old or very new and be exactly the same-they don't age as we are told by astronomy guys at this time. A star like our sun could have been a supernova way back before the solar system evolved in my world. But, that's just me and I'm the dummy of the group-maybe not crazy but almost.

<b>[Hyrum, 06 Dec 2010 : 23:53:10] "Now I'm getting the idea that they don't know what they are talking about and are covering it up with technicalities."</b>

Perhaps. It is more likely that they are just caught in the 'specialization trap'. A technical education in the era of Big Science necessarily pushes almost all explorers to focus their attention on one small part of the puzzle we call the universe. They become very knowledgeable in that narrow speciality, but at the cost of becomming essentially illiterate in most other areas. In particular they do not learn much of the history of scientific progress.

So when they make a discovery in their narrow speciality that cannot be naturally explained by existing theory, they falsely believe they have two choices - abandon the discovery, because it must be a "sensor glitch", or devise an adjustment hypothesis for the existing theory that can explain the new discovery.

But there is another choice. History shows that this type of discovery happens with more and more frequency when the existing theory is at odds in important ways with physical reality. When these "surprising" or "unexpected" discoveries begin to happen with regularity, as it is now and has been for some time, explorers ought to go back to the beginning and re-examine the evidentiary trail. Often this trail will be read differently by modern explorers than it was by earlier explorers.

For example, very few modern explorers know that the basic concept of the black hole pre-dates Einsteinian relativity by over a hundred years. Some are skeptical of the modern belief that the "black hole is a litteral point with its mass squeezed out of the universe", but lack the background needed to challenge this idea. They "know" (have heard of) that when the math contains a singularity (division by zero) it means the theory has a defect, at least as far as its ability to describe physical reality.

But they know that the big boys know this. And they also "know about" (have heard of) the paradoxes of relativity and the "lack of deep reality" conclusion from quantum physics. And they do not want ask any dumb questions and be lectured in public about something that "everyone (else) knows". And of course, it's not their specialty anyway, so why bother?

So they reluctantly come to believe that " ... these guys were way too smart and could understand things that 'normal' people like me couldn't.", quoting from a recent post by a new member that is most likely smarter than he thinks he is.

===

If you ever find the time to explore some of our older forum threads dealing with black holes, gravity or quantum physics or, expecially, the tools of science known as logic and math, you will find that we frequently are NOT surprised by many new discoveries because the theories we use to think about the universe are not as far "out of tune with reality" as the theories of Big Science appear to be. Our theories usually allow us to explain the new discovery in a natural way, without having to invent a new epicycle or two. On the rare occasion when it is necessary to adjust a theory, we go back to the beginning, in an attempt to minimize the chances that we have misread earlier data.

To see how this "back to the basics" approach works, get a copy of Tom's book <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i>, and read the first three or four chapters. Pay special attention to the distinction between inductive logic and deductive logic.

Regards,
LB

Yes, good idea. I will search through the old entries. In addition to the science of it, I'm also interested in the reasons why all the crap is funded. Most people believe it's all benign and just a result of human frailties. With the billions of dollars being pumped into this year after year, I don't buy it. That much money means politics and probably has less to do with science.
Who controls budgets? Politicians!
Who controls politicians? Big business, especially the finance sector. They just love government spending. It means all that newly created money goes straight into the banks accounts from which they can use to back new loans. That's where they make all their money. Anyway, I would love to be able to follow the money, as it usually ends up in the bank accounts of those who are really responsible.

Scientists are dependent on money, just like everyone else. When I was a graduate student, our professors were always trying to think of ways they could get government grants. Of course they were interested in science, but that wasn't the key. The key was interesting those in control of the budgets.

Hyrum Jones