Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Brandon Coonrod on 29/03/2016 01:03:58
-
Coonrod-Barnes Theory of Expansion
According to Newton’s third law, every reaction force has an equal and opposite reaction. We find this true in Astronomy, especially for stars, where the opposing gravitational forces inwards and radiation forces outwards provide balance to keep them burning bright. But we’re led to believe that in black holes, gravitational forces win out and there is no counteracting force. I find this false:
1.) Dark energy is the counteracting force to black holes’ gravitational implosion.
2.) Space-time has a maximum density: 1 quark per quark dimension.
Forcefully overpower this density, you rip a hole in space-time in which the curvature becomes infinitely warped in the vertical direction and the quarks become infinitely compressed into a singularity. As quarks in a singularity are compressed however, Newtonian laws don’t break down: there is still aforce to counter the singularity’s immense gravitational forces inward.
Gravitational forces collapsing inward in a black hole are balanced out by dark energy’s force radiating outward. This force is caused by quarks, ceaselessly failing to break apart from each other and not occupy the same point in space-time.
3.) This force, (quark degenerative pressure), rendered futile by overwhelming gravitational pressure, succeeds in creating ripples of gravitational waves, (horizontal warping in the fabric of space-time), outward, which collide with opposing gravitational waves radiated from other singularities. The collision of these opposing waves and their subsequent reversal push superclusters apart, a phenomenon observed as: “dark energy”.
As the amount of matter caught in black holes is consistently increasing, so is the force of dark energy, which explains why the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Hello forum members. Recently, I've been developing a theory about the relationship between black
holes and dark energy. As this seems to be a center for knowledge and discussion, I would appreciate
some expert input. Please let me know what you think, and the best way to pursue publishing such a
theory.
*Note*: Barnes is the last name of my current high school astronomy teacher; she hasn't had any input
on the theory so far, but I think it will be appropriate to partially dedicate it in her honor if it's correct.
-
Coonrod-Barnes Theory of Expansion
According to Newton’s third law, every reaction force has an equal and opposite reaction. We find this true in Astronomy, especially for stars, where the opposing gravitational forces inwards and radiation forces outwards provide balance to keep them burning bright. But we’re led to believe that in black holes, gravitational forces win out and there is no counteracting force. I find this false:
1.) Dark energy is the counteracting force to black holes’ gravitational implosion.
2.) Space-time has a maximum density: 1 quark per quark dimension.
Forcefully overpower this density, you rip a hole in space-time in which the curvature becomes infinitely warped in the vertical direction and the quarks become infinitely compressed into a singularity. As quarks in a singularity are compressed however, Newtonian laws don’t break down: there is still aforce to counter the singularity’s immense gravitational forces inward.
Gravitational forces collapsing inward in a black hole are balanced out by dark energy’s force radiating outward. This force is caused by quarks, ceaselessly failing to break apart from each other and not occupy the same point in space-time.
3.) This force, (quark degenerative pressure), rendered futile by overwhelming gravitational pressure, succeeds in creating ripples of gravitational waves, (horizontal warping in the fabric of space-time), outward, which collide with opposing gravitational waves radiated from other singularities. The collision of these opposing waves and their subsequent reversal push superclusters apart, a phenomenon observed as: “dark energy”.
As the amount of matter caught in black holes is consistently increasing, so is the force of dark energy, which explains why the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Hello forum members. Recently, I've been developing a theory about the relationship between black
holes and dark energy. As this seems to be a center for knowledge and discussion, I would appreciate
some expert input. Please let me know what you think, and the best way to pursue publishing such a
theory.
*Note*: Barnes is the last name of my current high school astronomy teacher; she hasn't had any input
on the theory so far, but I think it will be appropriate to partially dedicate it in her honor if it's correct.
Interesting , but to have a theory you would need to observe and explain what dark energy is. Presently dark energy is just something of the imagination, imagination is not fact, so until you can or someone else can find and observe dark energy, then theories involving dark energy are similar to Harry Potter and make believe.
-
Fact: The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Since this rate of expansion is not constant, some sort of energy must be causing this expansion. We call this unknown source of energy: "Dark Energy".
It's not something of the imagination, though arguably one's hypothesis of what dark energy specifically is could be imaginary.
-
Fact: The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Since this rate of expansion is not constant, some sort of energy must be causing this expansion. We call this unknown source of energy: "Dark Energy".
It's not something of the imagination, though arguably one's hypothesis of what dark energy specifically is could be imaginary.
Theory - The universe is expanding at an accelerated rate,
Fact - There is no proof any more I seen to that.
Fact- We have no idea if dark energy really exists we just imagine it exists.
Ok?
-
We are in the Universal lobe powered by a Universal black hole. The Universal black hole continuously emits energy into the Unviersal lobe. This energy causes the matter at great distances from us to accelerate away from us. This energy is dark energy.
Our Universe is a larger version of the following.
'Black holes banish matter into cosmic voids'
Article at spacedaily.com
"But Haider's team also found that a surprising fraction of normal matter - 20% - is likely to be have been transported into the voids. The culprit appears to be the supermassive black holes found in the centres of galaxies. Some of the matter falling towards the holes is converted into energy. ... This energy is delivered to the surrounding gas, and leads to large outflows of matter, which stretch for hundreds of thousands of light years from the black holes, reaching far beyond the extent of their host galaxies."
At the scale of our Universe the energy described above is dark energy. A Universal black hole is powering the Universal lobe we exist in.
-
Having unreasonable perplexity at poll point, which seems applies to thesis at hand. I have not read the thesis (yet) and refrain comment on it until such point.
Instead I comment solely on the poll from an non thesis biased point of view:
One question with two answers of difference, are infact the same answer, viewed from two differing angles of view, depending upon one's point of view.
I thought the answers were the same and was reluctant to click one for fear it invalidates the other, solely based on preference of slant to the angle. 50/50 might be the expected result. Another result might invalidate my analysis, but may not prove anything....
It's definitively subjective? Can you rewrite the poll? Is it prudent?
I lack answer, therefor I can't answer.
-
Interesting , but to have a theory you would need to observe and explain what dark energy is. Presently dark energy is just something of the imagination, imagination is not fact, so until you can or someone else can find and observe dark energy, then theories involving dark energy are similar to Harry Potter and make believe.
I perceived this comment has emanated from within the box.
"Dark" is by definition not visible. Implying an impossibility must be possible, for proof of impossibility is inherently impossible.
Stay in the and please stop responding to posts by including entire content. It redundantly makes no point clear, other than clearly lacking point in the first place.
However, it also inadvertently serves purpose, of original posters poll, as to, the inherent problem of thinking within a BOX like mentality.
-
I have been working what I believe is a similar thesis derive from an entirely differing angle of approach.
While working toward clarification of inherent problems of boxing boxlike boxprospectives.
This is not my assertion, nor do I hold its conclusion true in any sense of the words, other than I was told by a person possessing questionable grasp of theories of comment exactly this as a point of argument:
You do not believe GR because you do not believe Lambda-CDM principles.
I paraphrased, but the sentiment retains the original lack of substance that has been derived from inherent flaws I've briefly commented. It defies all logic in that GR was not derived from LCDM. The converse is true: LCDM was derive from GR.
chicken/egg - conundrum cycle - not applicable.
cause/effect - sequence WRONG - logic withheld.
effect/cause - sequence identified - logic not applicable, therefore can not apply.
Lambda-CDM is a branch of science that deviates from a notion of science based on reasoning and of an attempt to extrapolate meaning of an inherently complex subject matter of simplifying nature.
I think I got that statement right.... The subject matter therein, is inherently complex... one of many concepts from which a complex theory is based on a complex theory intended to simplify another highly intertwined and relevant topic.
(excuse me, I go bang head on wall for a while)
The gist of my theory is this.
BB/Lambda-CDM starts from a singularity. The singularity is a point presently impossible to perceive because it's derived at a point where the General Relative theory is theorized to BREAK.
Now I don't know how many assertions can/should/might ever be held true by starting from a BROKEN point such as this.
Lambda-CDM starts at such a point. It has become termed "accepted" within a branch of science.
I believe I'm closing in on a simplification of evidently apparent logic that some how remains hidden due to the nature of its inherent and difficult to conceive non-SCIENTIFIC-basis.
Seems a cause-effect issue does apply. I think DE has roots. I'm working on spelling it out w/logic.
-
Fact: The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Since this rate of expansion is not constant, some sort of energy must be causing this expansion. We call this unknown source of energy: "Dark Energy".
It's not "fact" it is a theorized and improvable possibility.
"Dark" implies not visible and inevitably leads to a conclusion of implausible probability of no answer.
It's not something of the imagination, though arguably one's hypothesis of what dark energy specifically is could be imaginary.
Dark Energy is a product of Lambda-CDM is a theory termed as "accepted" and considered as science.
The sheer volume of precepts used to construct the theory lead to a high probability of implausible.
Any one question phrased wrong could have an indirect cause and effect difficult to discern, if there is not reason to re-evaluate the defective question and premature conclusions it might imply, intentionally or not, occur when use of precepts are necessary to establish theory in the first place.
Any true "scientist" understands the consequences of using a precept. Lambda-CDM is an conundrum in and of itself, due to necessity to apply liberal use of the precept. When the result is improvable, science must revert to scrutinizing ANY and/or EVERY precept to determine potential consequences issues. But because Lambda-CDM contains a lot of AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE, this rarely happens to ALL precepts.
-
Joe Brown, you're making this unnecessarily complex by adding a level of skepticism more appropriate for a philosophical discussion than a scientific one. I would ask that you refrain from commenting on this thread unless you directly defend or criticize my theory on scientific grounds, or unless you're suggesting helpful ways to publish such a theory.