- 03 Jun 2013 13:35
#14247889
The path to understanding the Rational Universe:
What I see as some of the bigger Big Bang Nucleosynthesis Cosmology Problems:
1. The universe is not homogenous enough on large scales to produce what we see based on the standard model: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/ ... iscovered/ moreover, even if it was galaxies still cannot be formed fast enough.
2. The Galaxy and Super Massive Black Hole Co Evolution Paradox: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... aPvKJwsbAR
3. The necessity for 26.8 percent of the universe mass to be Dark Matter http://phys.org/news/2012-04-dark-theor ... k-sun.html
4. The necessity for 68.3 percent of the universe mass to be Dark Energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Energy
5. Missing Metals and other problems http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread. ... etallicity
The following is an argument based on observation and rational descent that is fundamentally contrary to the standard model. To prove it completely, I would need some assistance. In the process I will also put forth the most rational solution to discovering rational truth if the universe is indeed rational. I am going to argue that Dark Energy is no more than a modern day version of Ether and that Dark Matter are likely singularities (I use this in place of black hole because it sounds better frankly). I am going to share with you some observations, perceptions, ideas, and crappy stories in place of computer simulations.
If you destroy entropy/information (I will just call it entropy from now on) with singularities like Hawking used to, everything I put forth in this argument is inherently irrational. Then again, a universe created from such an entity would also seem equally irrational. If however you try to preserve the entropy of a singularity because it is rational to do so, you run into a horrible problem in the event of a singularity merger. The entropy of a singularity is in a quasi-state of equilibrium and no two are identical. Meaning it is trying to reach a state of equilibrium however material always keeps getting added. My argument is that built into a perceivable universe that is rational must be a natural process to keep the entropy of two separate singularities from merging before whatever they represent does. A rational universe is committed so conserving information. How do you prevent a gravitational singularity merger? The “standard model” says you don’t, they just get bigger. Isn’t that irrational? The most rational solution is the very gravity, mass, space-time, entropy, and situation creating the problem will ultimately solve it. If singularities must abort each other by their very nature because it is rational, you can see exactly where I am going with this. The universe did not begin with a single rational or irrational self-destructing singularity (I am doing the standard model a favor here, this is actually the one consensus they do not have a consensus on); I argue it was generated in a process by the abortion of 2 or more. Producing everything we see and concealing a process that has been until now out of mankind’s collective perception. I argue this process still occurs with every singularity merger albeit on a smaller scale than the initial event. To describe this new theoretical process I have created 3 simple theoretical place holders that are arguably as real as Dark Energy, Dark Matter (which I suspect are actually more singularities in galaxy halos), or ANY other standard model constant at this point. Yes, I just put every man made constant in history up for grabs. “The Vick Principle”, “The Vick Limit”, and “The Vick Field” are simply being used to describe something nobody has thought of to my knowledge.
Singulosynthesis: “The Vick Principle” states that in a perceivable and rational universe the entropy of a singularity must be preserved. In a binary singularity merger once sufficient symmetry loss (Instability) is achieved (based on the mass) the “Vick limit” is reached and simultaneously the “Vick field” is achieved. The Vick limit signals the end of the singularity and the beginning of Singulosynthesis. It is the point at which the binary singularities turn against each other. During Singulosynthesis contents of the former singularity are ejected from the system. Upon ejection, contents escaping inherit new properties from the distorted entropy (this does not have a name yet, was leaning toward Genesis). The distribution of the entropy of a singularity when it fails is the Vick field. The Vick field is maintained until the singularity of least mass is extinguished. Moreover, both the Vick limit and the Vick fields are constants, once any singularity reaches the "Vick limit" it will fail. On a cosmological scale this process is the compliment of the standard models stellar Nucleosynthesis, meaning Singulosynthesis synthesizes what we now “describe” as H/He/D/Li (by the standard model) of the universe in the quantities and distributions we observe. It is also the process by which the universe recycles entropy periodically over time.
This is the point at which using standard model methods, graphs, new constants, formulas, and math I describe this event propelling mankind into a new paradigm….. I want us to stop and ponder that… Is that rational? You want me to use “standard model” methods that cannot even accurately describe the exterior of a singularity (our reality) to describe the interior of two failing unknown realities? Is that rational? The standard model can only “jump the shark” when it comes to this scenario.
From this moment forward, there is a path to truth and man will need to set some things aside to get what he wants most. The unknown realm we must explore presupposes the one we live in and have built our knowledge on, and is in fact doubling down the illusion to our perception. How then shall we proceed? We must simulate binary failing singularity scenarios until they teach us what our physics and description of reality should be.
1. Set aside the “standard model” It should be looked at as dubiously as the Donner Party should have looked at The Emigrants’ Guide had they known what was to come. At least to begin with, it will come into play later.
2. Make no assumptions about anything (even the big E, which sucks because he inspired this mess)
3. Get some brilliant minds together (Ted I need to get in shape again)
4. Look over the variables and generate theoretical limits - the machines will take us where our perception cannot – sub Plank and down
a.2 Black holes of adequate mass with identical properties
b.Space-time with various thresholds
c.Gravity with various thresholds
d.Theoretical Entropy models
e.Theoretical collapse rates
f.Simulated Theoretical matter
g.Simulated Magnetic fields
5. Get some super computers – Just as a point of reference, a type 1a supernova simulation took 128k processors 60k hours to make.
6. Run merging simulations until we get something that looks like “standard model” H/He/D/Li and determine if the standard model name is even applicable anymore. Learn all the physics we never knew….
7. Once we are confident the computer has taught us what our new physics should be. Reproduce the “old standard model Nucleosynthesis” with the “new Nucleosynthesis physics” and verify.
8. Simulate the universe until the simulation simulates you… “The End” and go play some Starcraft 2.
9. Once we are confident we are in a new era of understanding, I go to Casa D’s in Bellevue to get one of their Chorizo burritos.
To begin the first steps into this era of understanding, here is the first simulation:
Singularity Failure Simulation #1: I have no formal models yet, so in place of singularities I will use overweight comedians… Chris Farley says “Feed me I’m starving!” So… I stuff cupcakes in his face and he replies “Yum those were good!” Then I stuff an old Chevy in his face and he says “Yum that was good!” Then I stuff some neutron stars in his face. And sure enough “Yum that was really good!” Then John Candy walks in the room… Chris looks at me and says “I can’t eat that!” I ask, “Why?” Chris says, “I just can’t!” Mr. Candy starts to walk up to Chris. Chris says, “Get away dude…. I’m not hungry anymore.” Mr. Candy grabs Chris by the hands and starts spin him around…. Chris says “Dude….!”
Results from Simulation #1: Chris ejects some strange material results are inconclusive.
Ok I will try to be serious again….
There must be something about the presence of two gravitational singularities that makes them not get along. On top of everything the mind wants to make the list shorter than it probably is. Gravity says “I gotta do what I got to do!” and spacetime says “I’m right with you!”. So here is the big list as it sits right now.
1. Spacetime while flexible might not handle being contorted so well even with gravity behaving normally (pure speculation, possibly becoming rigid at a point or micro tearing or some other unknown limit)
2. Gravity cannot do what it has to do, due to Asymmetry with spacetime behaving normally (considering the role of symmetry creating the singularity I cannot see how Asymmetry cannot be involved with in undoing it)
3. A combination of effects leading to a runaway instability. The demands made by both gravity and spacetime on each other become too great. Matter and Entropy do whatever they can to get out of the mess, following the path of least resistance.
My gut tells me it is #3…. Ultimately, I think strengths will become weaknesses in the end.
Cosmic Singulosynthesis (If you are going to hijack a train, get one with a luxury car and some babes)
I argue the initial recombination epoch of the standard model which resulted in the surface of last scattering is the direct result of not one singularity failing alone but 2 or more. Following this begins cosmic respiration. The Quasi equilibrium state of the initial failing singularities should have some correlation to the semi homogeneous appearance of CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) and the young universe. If what I am saying is true, the BAO (baryon acoustic oscillations) and the CMBR should allow us to create theoretical singularity failure models and entropy distribution patterns to describe the event (I have not done this, I do not own my own super computer). For at no other time in the universe has the same quantity of H/He/D/Li (as the standard model calls them) been synthesized without the interference of Metallicity.
What follows is not a super computer simulation (I still do not own one) but the next best thing. It is a cool story describing the young theoretic Singulosynthesis universe. After the initial event, what follows is a rapidly developing all out free for all. The first stars form, die rapidly, and the first singularities are on the scene. Binary, Triple, and quadruple systems appear all performing Singulosynthesis. This stirs up more gas and more Stars begin to form. A few front runner Singularities get ahead of the pack only to be synthesized by Singulosynthesis back down to nothing. More and more stars form. More and more singularities form. The universe is boiling…. Millions to Billions, Billions to Trillions, and on, it begins to boil over. Little packs of stars begin to gather, some gather around a large singularity and others small ones. A few singularities race ahead of the pack by sucking in entire giant stars. Singularities gaining just enough mass to not perform Singulosynthesis on themselves yet synthesize the smaller ones. More stars, gas, and other smaller singularities want to orbit the larger ones now. This becomes an edge the larger singularity will likely never loose. As stellar populations increase the big dog singularity has a big appetite. When a few big dog singularities finally do meet, it will be called a Quasar , and on and on...
The purpose of the cool story is to illustrate what the Standard model wants to be but never can. The process I am arguing for was profound early on and grew to nearly mimic the standard model over time.
The standard model argues that cosmic scale gravitational lensing is attributed to “Dark Matter” halos due to its high correlation with distance galaxies we observe... While I have no models to speak of yet, I speculate there may be far more singularities in the universe than anyone could have ever imagined.
Theory of Cosmic Respiration
Singulosynthesis gets it started. This is followed by a period of high cosmic respiration, Nucleosynthesis kicks off more Singulosynthesis and by recycling entropy the universe develops rapidly. As the universe boils over a transition occurs, Nucleosynthesis increases and Singulosynthesis decreases. The cosmic rate of Singulosynthesis has decreased so much up until now all we can see are the results.
Galactic Singulosynthesis
Standard Model argues that singularities only get larger with time on a macro scale (not discussing theoretical radiation or other entropy preservation mechanisms). Galactic Bulge mass to SMBH ratios seem to be fairly consistent in the standard model. Generically speaking, the mass of a SMBH in spirals is roughly .1 percent the mass of the entire bulge while in elliptical galaxies it appears to be .1 percent of the entire mass of the galaxy. There notable discrepancies to this rule and the standard model cannot account for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henize_2-10
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... aOvhZwsbAQ
Singulosynthesis can easily predict such a galaxy or black holes with no galaxy for that matter. Singulosynthesis can also solve the G dwarf problem since it can create H/He/D/Li (what the standard model calls them) needed for new stars whenever. I have searched for active binary singularity mass over time data; I was not surprised to find that none existed. It is my conclusion that this would be the best direct evidence to determine if something counterintuitive like Singulosynthesis may be occurring.
Galactic Singulosynthesis and Metallicity
The Standard Model argues that Metallicity increases over time. I argue with Singulosynthesis that Metallicity will generally increase over time and periodically bump down periodically. This is proving difficult to quantify because no 2 galaxies are exactly alike and witnessing the full process is inherently impractical. Right now there no irrefutable data that either completely refutes nor bolsters the concepts behind Singulosynthesis Theory.
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_h ... 56-09.html
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/research/Galaxies.shtml
According to the standard model, metallicity of spiral galaxies decreases gradually as you move away from the core and metallicity of Elliptical galaxies decreases rapidly as you move away from the core. My concept of Singulosynthesis cosmology agrees with this. Compared to the mass of the galaxies in a core merger the amount of fresh H/He/D/Li (as the standard model calls them) predicted by Singulosynthesis is quite small. Due to Star formation and violent blowouts from accretion disks, mature galaxy mergers are proving to be a difficult laboratory. Blowouts of old accretion disks do open a bit of a window for direct Singulosynthesis observation in a binary core merger. Singulosynthesis under the right conditions could help establish a new accretion disk that is lower in metals. That is only if the Singularities are the right mass; there is a mass and proximity window for the process I just do not know what it is yet. If the mass discrepancy of the 2 Singularities is too great, any new material would potentially get added to the larger Singularity with no hope of detection. There will be nothing like a Population III type star forming in the center of a mature galaxy where this is taking place. To find direct proof of fresh H/He/D/Li (as the standard model calls them) being synthesized in the necessary quantities, dwarf galaxies and planetary mass Singulosynthesis events might be the best bet. Until better observations of the Metallicity of the very youngest galaxies are made I will be stuck with tough hunt and piling on indirect evidence.
I can only predict there should be an increasing metallicity discrepancy between the Cosmic Respiration model and the Standard Big Bang model in the young universe. Meaning Metallicity should increase later under Cosmic Respiration theory than is predicted under the standard model in the young universe.
Back in the day when astronomers weren’t under house arrest they built their own telescopes and did research. Later on, Kings and whatnot liked to pimp their astronomers out. In the glory days the great philanthropists came forward and financed things in pursuit of greater truth. Today it is not the same. Observations are made and papers are written to “improve” the knowledge and advancement of the "standard model". Because this keeps the money flowing. From time to time I see work on papers with anomalies that could be pro standard model or pro Cosmic Respiration in nature. Being human, I know human nature, and I have a feeling… I suspect there is a drawer with no name or folder on a computer drive labeled “WTF” in many observatories around the world, people know it has some valuable data in it but cannot figure out what it could really mean. Most importantly of all… it would be difficult or impossible for the standard model to explain it, so it gets tucked away. If you have read this far and know what I mean, the time is now….
This argument based on rational descent and man-kinds best current observations can only lead to 3 possible conclusions:
1. The Universe is inherently irrational if Black Holes do not conserve Entropy/Information
2. The Universe is inherently rational if Black Holes do conserve Entropy/Information, which leads to a paradox in the event of a Black Hole merger, to solve this paradox you need to destroy one of the black holes in the merger (My Theory of Singulosynthesis), the process of doing this implies how the Universe was created (Genesis - contents ejected from a black hole through an unknown entropy distribution), which creates an overall cosmology fundamentally more sound than the current standard model (Cosmic Theory of Respiration), which implies intelligent design by omnipotence and omnipresence
3. The Universe is inherently rational if Black Holes do conserve Entropy/Information, which leads to a paradox in the event of a Black Hole merger, to solve this paradox you need to destroy one of the black holes in the merger (My Theory of Singulosynthesis), the process of doing this implies how the Universe was created (Genesis - contents ejected from a black hole through an unknown entropy distribution), which creates an overall cosmology fundamentally more sound than the current standard model (Cosmic Theory of Respiration), which implies we could exist in a simulation
The result? Man-kind now has a rational choice in what he thinks created the Universe. Those choices are now as follows: Deity or simulated reality. So choose, but choose wisely...
Jimmy Vick (just a man, I could always be wrong)
Bellevue WA
https://www.facebook.com/jimmy.vick1
In the event this argument goes anywhere I will rename variables accordingly based on their inspiration:
"The Vick Principle" will become the "The Susskind Principle"
"The Vick Limit" will become the "The Hawking Limit"
"The Vick Field" may become "The Titan Field" for my high school or after the name of the team that proves its existence.
"Genesis" will stay "Genesis" if it exists because.... it is what the Torpedo from Star Trek 2 the Wrath of Khan did and other reasons.
"The Einstein Effect" signals the return of space time to non-black hole state
"The Ted Effect" signals the return of matter and entropy to a non-black hole state (potentially creating a neutron star) not sure yet. There might be more to that if binary Neutron Stars were actually once large Binary stars of roughly equal age and mass. With both forming Black Holes of roughly equal mass processing each other down by Singulosynthesis only to form binary neutron stars...
What I see as some of the bigger Big Bang Nucleosynthesis Cosmology Problems:
1. The universe is not homogenous enough on large scales to produce what we see based on the standard model: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/ ... iscovered/ moreover, even if it was galaxies still cannot be formed fast enough.
2. The Galaxy and Super Massive Black Hole Co Evolution Paradox: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... aPvKJwsbAR
3. The necessity for 26.8 percent of the universe mass to be Dark Matter http://phys.org/news/2012-04-dark-theor ... k-sun.html
4. The necessity for 68.3 percent of the universe mass to be Dark Energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Energy
5. Missing Metals and other problems http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread. ... etallicity
The following is an argument based on observation and rational descent that is fundamentally contrary to the standard model. To prove it completely, I would need some assistance. In the process I will also put forth the most rational solution to discovering rational truth if the universe is indeed rational. I am going to argue that Dark Energy is no more than a modern day version of Ether and that Dark Matter are likely singularities (I use this in place of black hole because it sounds better frankly). I am going to share with you some observations, perceptions, ideas, and crappy stories in place of computer simulations.
If you destroy entropy/information (I will just call it entropy from now on) with singularities like Hawking used to, everything I put forth in this argument is inherently irrational. Then again, a universe created from such an entity would also seem equally irrational. If however you try to preserve the entropy of a singularity because it is rational to do so, you run into a horrible problem in the event of a singularity merger. The entropy of a singularity is in a quasi-state of equilibrium and no two are identical. Meaning it is trying to reach a state of equilibrium however material always keeps getting added. My argument is that built into a perceivable universe that is rational must be a natural process to keep the entropy of two separate singularities from merging before whatever they represent does. A rational universe is committed so conserving information. How do you prevent a gravitational singularity merger? The “standard model” says you don’t, they just get bigger. Isn’t that irrational? The most rational solution is the very gravity, mass, space-time, entropy, and situation creating the problem will ultimately solve it. If singularities must abort each other by their very nature because it is rational, you can see exactly where I am going with this. The universe did not begin with a single rational or irrational self-destructing singularity (I am doing the standard model a favor here, this is actually the one consensus they do not have a consensus on); I argue it was generated in a process by the abortion of 2 or more. Producing everything we see and concealing a process that has been until now out of mankind’s collective perception. I argue this process still occurs with every singularity merger albeit on a smaller scale than the initial event. To describe this new theoretical process I have created 3 simple theoretical place holders that are arguably as real as Dark Energy, Dark Matter (which I suspect are actually more singularities in galaxy halos), or ANY other standard model constant at this point. Yes, I just put every man made constant in history up for grabs. “The Vick Principle”, “The Vick Limit”, and “The Vick Field” are simply being used to describe something nobody has thought of to my knowledge.
Singulosynthesis: “The Vick Principle” states that in a perceivable and rational universe the entropy of a singularity must be preserved. In a binary singularity merger once sufficient symmetry loss (Instability) is achieved (based on the mass) the “Vick limit” is reached and simultaneously the “Vick field” is achieved. The Vick limit signals the end of the singularity and the beginning of Singulosynthesis. It is the point at which the binary singularities turn against each other. During Singulosynthesis contents of the former singularity are ejected from the system. Upon ejection, contents escaping inherit new properties from the distorted entropy (this does not have a name yet, was leaning toward Genesis). The distribution of the entropy of a singularity when it fails is the Vick field. The Vick field is maintained until the singularity of least mass is extinguished. Moreover, both the Vick limit and the Vick fields are constants, once any singularity reaches the "Vick limit" it will fail. On a cosmological scale this process is the compliment of the standard models stellar Nucleosynthesis, meaning Singulosynthesis synthesizes what we now “describe” as H/He/D/Li (by the standard model) of the universe in the quantities and distributions we observe. It is also the process by which the universe recycles entropy periodically over time.
This is the point at which using standard model methods, graphs, new constants, formulas, and math I describe this event propelling mankind into a new paradigm….. I want us to stop and ponder that… Is that rational? You want me to use “standard model” methods that cannot even accurately describe the exterior of a singularity (our reality) to describe the interior of two failing unknown realities? Is that rational? The standard model can only “jump the shark” when it comes to this scenario.
From this moment forward, there is a path to truth and man will need to set some things aside to get what he wants most. The unknown realm we must explore presupposes the one we live in and have built our knowledge on, and is in fact doubling down the illusion to our perception. How then shall we proceed? We must simulate binary failing singularity scenarios until they teach us what our physics and description of reality should be.
1. Set aside the “standard model” It should be looked at as dubiously as the Donner Party should have looked at The Emigrants’ Guide had they known what was to come. At least to begin with, it will come into play later.
2. Make no assumptions about anything (even the big E, which sucks because he inspired this mess)
3. Get some brilliant minds together (Ted I need to get in shape again)
4. Look over the variables and generate theoretical limits - the machines will take us where our perception cannot – sub Plank and down
a.2 Black holes of adequate mass with identical properties
b.Space-time with various thresholds
c.Gravity with various thresholds
d.Theoretical Entropy models
e.Theoretical collapse rates
f.Simulated Theoretical matter
g.Simulated Magnetic fields
5. Get some super computers – Just as a point of reference, a type 1a supernova simulation took 128k processors 60k hours to make.
6. Run merging simulations until we get something that looks like “standard model” H/He/D/Li and determine if the standard model name is even applicable anymore. Learn all the physics we never knew….
7. Once we are confident the computer has taught us what our new physics should be. Reproduce the “old standard model Nucleosynthesis” with the “new Nucleosynthesis physics” and verify.
8. Simulate the universe until the simulation simulates you… “The End” and go play some Starcraft 2.
9. Once we are confident we are in a new era of understanding, I go to Casa D’s in Bellevue to get one of their Chorizo burritos.
To begin the first steps into this era of understanding, here is the first simulation:
Singularity Failure Simulation #1: I have no formal models yet, so in place of singularities I will use overweight comedians… Chris Farley says “Feed me I’m starving!” So… I stuff cupcakes in his face and he replies “Yum those were good!” Then I stuff an old Chevy in his face and he says “Yum that was good!” Then I stuff some neutron stars in his face. And sure enough “Yum that was really good!” Then John Candy walks in the room… Chris looks at me and says “I can’t eat that!” I ask, “Why?” Chris says, “I just can’t!” Mr. Candy starts to walk up to Chris. Chris says, “Get away dude…. I’m not hungry anymore.” Mr. Candy grabs Chris by the hands and starts spin him around…. Chris says “Dude….!”
Results from Simulation #1: Chris ejects some strange material results are inconclusive.
Ok I will try to be serious again….
There must be something about the presence of two gravitational singularities that makes them not get along. On top of everything the mind wants to make the list shorter than it probably is. Gravity says “I gotta do what I got to do!” and spacetime says “I’m right with you!”. So here is the big list as it sits right now.
1. Spacetime while flexible might not handle being contorted so well even with gravity behaving normally (pure speculation, possibly becoming rigid at a point or micro tearing or some other unknown limit)
2. Gravity cannot do what it has to do, due to Asymmetry with spacetime behaving normally (considering the role of symmetry creating the singularity I cannot see how Asymmetry cannot be involved with in undoing it)
3. A combination of effects leading to a runaway instability. The demands made by both gravity and spacetime on each other become too great. Matter and Entropy do whatever they can to get out of the mess, following the path of least resistance.
My gut tells me it is #3…. Ultimately, I think strengths will become weaknesses in the end.
Cosmic Singulosynthesis (If you are going to hijack a train, get one with a luxury car and some babes)
I argue the initial recombination epoch of the standard model which resulted in the surface of last scattering is the direct result of not one singularity failing alone but 2 or more. Following this begins cosmic respiration. The Quasi equilibrium state of the initial failing singularities should have some correlation to the semi homogeneous appearance of CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) and the young universe. If what I am saying is true, the BAO (baryon acoustic oscillations) and the CMBR should allow us to create theoretical singularity failure models and entropy distribution patterns to describe the event (I have not done this, I do not own my own super computer). For at no other time in the universe has the same quantity of H/He/D/Li (as the standard model calls them) been synthesized without the interference of Metallicity.
What follows is not a super computer simulation (I still do not own one) but the next best thing. It is a cool story describing the young theoretic Singulosynthesis universe. After the initial event, what follows is a rapidly developing all out free for all. The first stars form, die rapidly, and the first singularities are on the scene. Binary, Triple, and quadruple systems appear all performing Singulosynthesis. This stirs up more gas and more Stars begin to form. A few front runner Singularities get ahead of the pack only to be synthesized by Singulosynthesis back down to nothing. More and more stars form. More and more singularities form. The universe is boiling…. Millions to Billions, Billions to Trillions, and on, it begins to boil over. Little packs of stars begin to gather, some gather around a large singularity and others small ones. A few singularities race ahead of the pack by sucking in entire giant stars. Singularities gaining just enough mass to not perform Singulosynthesis on themselves yet synthesize the smaller ones. More stars, gas, and other smaller singularities want to orbit the larger ones now. This becomes an edge the larger singularity will likely never loose. As stellar populations increase the big dog singularity has a big appetite. When a few big dog singularities finally do meet, it will be called a Quasar , and on and on...
The purpose of the cool story is to illustrate what the Standard model wants to be but never can. The process I am arguing for was profound early on and grew to nearly mimic the standard model over time.
The standard model argues that cosmic scale gravitational lensing is attributed to “Dark Matter” halos due to its high correlation with distance galaxies we observe... While I have no models to speak of yet, I speculate there may be far more singularities in the universe than anyone could have ever imagined.
Theory of Cosmic Respiration
Singulosynthesis gets it started. This is followed by a period of high cosmic respiration, Nucleosynthesis kicks off more Singulosynthesis and by recycling entropy the universe develops rapidly. As the universe boils over a transition occurs, Nucleosynthesis increases and Singulosynthesis decreases. The cosmic rate of Singulosynthesis has decreased so much up until now all we can see are the results.
Galactic Singulosynthesis
Standard Model argues that singularities only get larger with time on a macro scale (not discussing theoretical radiation or other entropy preservation mechanisms). Galactic Bulge mass to SMBH ratios seem to be fairly consistent in the standard model. Generically speaking, the mass of a SMBH in spirals is roughly .1 percent the mass of the entire bulge while in elliptical galaxies it appears to be .1 percent of the entire mass of the galaxy. There notable discrepancies to this rule and the standard model cannot account for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henize_2-10
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... aOvhZwsbAQ
Singulosynthesis can easily predict such a galaxy or black holes with no galaxy for that matter. Singulosynthesis can also solve the G dwarf problem since it can create H/He/D/Li (what the standard model calls them) needed for new stars whenever. I have searched for active binary singularity mass over time data; I was not surprised to find that none existed. It is my conclusion that this would be the best direct evidence to determine if something counterintuitive like Singulosynthesis may be occurring.
Galactic Singulosynthesis and Metallicity
The Standard Model argues that Metallicity increases over time. I argue with Singulosynthesis that Metallicity will generally increase over time and periodically bump down periodically. This is proving difficult to quantify because no 2 galaxies are exactly alike and witnessing the full process is inherently impractical. Right now there no irrefutable data that either completely refutes nor bolsters the concepts behind Singulosynthesis Theory.
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_h ... 56-09.html
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/research/Galaxies.shtml
According to the standard model, metallicity of spiral galaxies decreases gradually as you move away from the core and metallicity of Elliptical galaxies decreases rapidly as you move away from the core. My concept of Singulosynthesis cosmology agrees with this. Compared to the mass of the galaxies in a core merger the amount of fresh H/He/D/Li (as the standard model calls them) predicted by Singulosynthesis is quite small. Due to Star formation and violent blowouts from accretion disks, mature galaxy mergers are proving to be a difficult laboratory. Blowouts of old accretion disks do open a bit of a window for direct Singulosynthesis observation in a binary core merger. Singulosynthesis under the right conditions could help establish a new accretion disk that is lower in metals. That is only if the Singularities are the right mass; there is a mass and proximity window for the process I just do not know what it is yet. If the mass discrepancy of the 2 Singularities is too great, any new material would potentially get added to the larger Singularity with no hope of detection. There will be nothing like a Population III type star forming in the center of a mature galaxy where this is taking place. To find direct proof of fresh H/He/D/Li (as the standard model calls them) being synthesized in the necessary quantities, dwarf galaxies and planetary mass Singulosynthesis events might be the best bet. Until better observations of the Metallicity of the very youngest galaxies are made I will be stuck with tough hunt and piling on indirect evidence.
I can only predict there should be an increasing metallicity discrepancy between the Cosmic Respiration model and the Standard Big Bang model in the young universe. Meaning Metallicity should increase later under Cosmic Respiration theory than is predicted under the standard model in the young universe.
Back in the day when astronomers weren’t under house arrest they built their own telescopes and did research. Later on, Kings and whatnot liked to pimp their astronomers out. In the glory days the great philanthropists came forward and financed things in pursuit of greater truth. Today it is not the same. Observations are made and papers are written to “improve” the knowledge and advancement of the "standard model". Because this keeps the money flowing. From time to time I see work on papers with anomalies that could be pro standard model or pro Cosmic Respiration in nature. Being human, I know human nature, and I have a feeling… I suspect there is a drawer with no name or folder on a computer drive labeled “WTF” in many observatories around the world, people know it has some valuable data in it but cannot figure out what it could really mean. Most importantly of all… it would be difficult or impossible for the standard model to explain it, so it gets tucked away. If you have read this far and know what I mean, the time is now….
This argument based on rational descent and man-kinds best current observations can only lead to 3 possible conclusions:
1. The Universe is inherently irrational if Black Holes do not conserve Entropy/Information
2. The Universe is inherently rational if Black Holes do conserve Entropy/Information, which leads to a paradox in the event of a Black Hole merger, to solve this paradox you need to destroy one of the black holes in the merger (My Theory of Singulosynthesis), the process of doing this implies how the Universe was created (Genesis - contents ejected from a black hole through an unknown entropy distribution), which creates an overall cosmology fundamentally more sound than the current standard model (Cosmic Theory of Respiration), which implies intelligent design by omnipotence and omnipresence
3. The Universe is inherently rational if Black Holes do conserve Entropy/Information, which leads to a paradox in the event of a Black Hole merger, to solve this paradox you need to destroy one of the black holes in the merger (My Theory of Singulosynthesis), the process of doing this implies how the Universe was created (Genesis - contents ejected from a black hole through an unknown entropy distribution), which creates an overall cosmology fundamentally more sound than the current standard model (Cosmic Theory of Respiration), which implies we could exist in a simulation
The result? Man-kind now has a rational choice in what he thinks created the Universe. Those choices are now as follows: Deity or simulated reality. So choose, but choose wisely...
Jimmy Vick (just a man, I could always be wrong)
Bellevue WA
https://www.facebook.com/jimmy.vick1
In the event this argument goes anywhere I will rename variables accordingly based on their inspiration:
"The Vick Principle" will become the "The Susskind Principle"
"The Vick Limit" will become the "The Hawking Limit"
"The Vick Field" may become "The Titan Field" for my high school or after the name of the team that proves its existence.
"Genesis" will stay "Genesis" if it exists because.... it is what the Torpedo from Star Trek 2 the Wrath of Khan did and other reasons.
"The Einstein Effect" signals the return of space time to non-black hole state
"The Ted Effect" signals the return of matter and entropy to a non-black hole state (potentially creating a neutron star) not sure yet. There might be more to that if binary Neutron Stars were actually once large Binary stars of roughly equal age and mass. With both forming Black Holes of roughly equal mass processing each other down by Singulosynthesis only to form binary neutron stars...
- By wat0n
- By Negotiator
- By litwin