Black Hole Universe Model Questions

Nonsense. Try reading a few chapters of Euclid and see how non circular proofs work.It is the case that there are some axioms that are accepted as true without proof. But given those, it is certainly possible to derive more things without any circular reasoning. You could not possibly be this obtuse. You have already acknowledged that the universe appears to be expanding to observers within the universe. How can you say that and then follow it up with denying Dr. Adequate a viewing point within the universe?

No, that's not what I'm talking about. Here is non-circular reasoning:If you are a human then you are a mammal. You are a human. Therefore, you are a mammal.That's a straight-forward deduction. Here is circular reasoning:The Bible says that all scripture is true. The Bible is scripture, therefore it is true. Ergo, the claim that all scripture is true is, itself, true.That has nothing to do with the epistemological conundrum of knowledge ultimately relying on some axiomatic truth. By following the evidence where it leads instead of making shit up. Please don't compare yourself to Einstein. He wasn't some layperson making up shit at their computer desk. And he wasn't making shit up like you are. He was deriving mathematical equations and exploring the consequences of their explanations. Its not even remotely the same. And I rebutted that by explaining that the concepts expanding and contracting are on a macroscopic level that quantum superposition doesn't apply to. No, that's not right. As I said, at different scales different forces apply. You can ignore gravity when plotting the path of an electron, but you have to take it into account when ploting the path of a planet. Quantum superposition cannot be used to explain the motion of planets. Has anyone really claimed certainty on that? I think you're missing the point:Its not that we know your whole theory is wrong, its that some of the things it relies on aren't being described correctly. Your defense to this seems to be: "Well, it could be that way"But you don't offer any reason why is should be that way. And now that we're getting into the details of how we know you're not providing any shoulds, you're retreating into the shadows of 'all knowledge is circular' and 'Einstein made shit up too'. Sure I have:Macroscopic things cannot contract and expand at the same time.A macroscopic object cannot expand towards a singularity, it has to contract at some point.The behavior of macroscopic objects cannot be described by quantum mechanics.

What?If the paper is an analogy for spacetime, then we are all embedded in the paper. If only saying things made them so, your argument would be a lot more convincing. Also it would be an argument. If time progresses from the bottom to the top of the apple, then anywhere above the equator of the apple. You know, in the bit where the universe would be contracting. * sighs deeply *If the skin of the apple represents the universe, then the Big Bang singularity is at the bottom of the apple, and the Big Crunch singularity is at the top of the apple. There is no singularity at the center of the apple, and the notion of a singularity being there is completely meaningless, since there is no "there" there.

@ Dr Adequate Time does not progress from the bottom to the top of the apple. According to the BHUM time is essentially unreal as with the majority of other multiverse theories. The point of the apple analogy was to show that the Big Bang and Big Crunch singularity are the same thing. The universe both originates from and collapses into the same pointthe singularity at the center of the apple.Something like this: But again, the universe is not a 3-dimensional object so debating the merits of the apple analogy is a waste of time.@ Catholic Scientist Your first two points assume that General Relativity (GR) provides a complete description of all physical phenomena. It also contains the implicit premise that the universe as a whole should be treated as an ordinary macroscopic object. We know for certain that GR is an incomplete theory and the jury is still out on the nature of the universe.Your third point is just factually untrue. http://www1.amherst.edu/~jrfriedman/MacroQuantum.pdf

Well now you're just grasping at straws... How so? I don't see it having anything to do with GR. Not really, its more about what a singularity is than the specifics of the object. C'mon, I'm talking about planets n'stuff and you bring up a superconducting quantum interference device being put into a superposition of two magnetic-flux states. And that paper even says:

quote:

---

there has been no experimental demonstration of a quantum superposition of truly macroscopically distinct states.

---

Yikes, I'm afraid that's the nail in the coffin.

What do you think it's an analogue for? But don't throw away your clocks just yet. But that's meaningless. The center of the apple is not an analogue of anything.

Deforming something only makes sense if there is an object to be deformed. Spacetime is not an object; it is a mathematical construct.

Is the electromagnetic field an object or a mathematical construct? Can it be deformed? The metric field of spacetime is an almost identical type of object to the electromagnetic field. Why should it be less "real"?All the evidence of the past 100 years points to space-time being deformed, which is why you won't find any professional cosmologist in the world denying it. How do you account for that?

We know there is an electromagnetic field; we don't know there is a spacetime. The electromagnetic field is a mathematical representation of the forces present on a charged particle at a point in space. The reality that creates those forces are electromagnetic waves which are very real. Spacetime is a mathematical construct; the reality behind it is matter waves. It is the waves that are being bent, not some imaginary spacetime.Edited by Voltaire30, : No reason given.

Voltaire30, what the heck are matter waves if not something you made up? Are you referring to the deBroglie wavelengths associate with matter? How do you deal with the fact that the wave like nature of large particles is less than that of small particles while the gravity effects are larger for large masses?Further, static magnetic fields associated with a bar magnet are not propagated by electromagnetic waves. A changing magnetic field can generate a changing electric field which generates a changing magnetic field... ad nauseum.Seriously, what's the point of claiming spacetime mere math and then making up stuff out of whole cloth to replace GR with nonsense.Edited by NoNukes, : Change titleEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

"matter waves"?And what do you think is responsible for the gravitational lensing we see throughout the Universe?ABEHmmm, "matter waves" - thought the term was familiar. There was a poster here at EvC who was permanently suspended just a few days before you joined who talked about "matter waves". Shame you didn't get chance to meet Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

I didn't make anything out of whole cloth. I don't see what you are trying to say honesty.

You appear to have invented the idea that sun warps "matter waves" to cause the earth and other planets to travel in elliptical orbits around the sun. Perhaps I am wrong and you got the idea from some other source.I then gave the example of a static field (make it either electric or magnetic) to see if you could come up with an explanation of how such a field could be produced by some "waving". I don't believe you can.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Waves are not objects either. Waves are the motion of the ocean. It's water molecules that are moving. Waves absolutely need a physical medium to occur. Neither space nor time nor the combination of both can be such a medium. Both space and time are abstractions. Combining two abstractions doesn't make a fabric. It makes only a metaphor or a co-ordinates map at best. Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

Are you just making stuff up? So then, what's the medium of EMR waves? And how do you know that? That is, if you're not just making stuff up...