[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 64 KB, 660x478, Andromeda.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5778536 No.5778536 [Reply] [Original]

Hello, again, /sci/ No dark matter guy here. I sent a letter on my hypothesis to an astrophysicist but hearing no reply, I'm looking for more feedback.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7R2s8Tm090

>> No.5778573

This doesn't hold up. Your writing style is off and you are missing neccesary references (textbooks are not valid references since they are not peer reviewed) and derivations. Also refereces should be indicated in the text, so the reader knows exactly which statement is taken from which reference.

Until you rewrite it is not clear whether your idea has merit.

>> No.5778576

>>5778573
Also, you seem to have confused a metric for a Lorentz transformation. Such a misunderstanding really puts off anyone reading your thing. "This guy doesn't even know basic theory. In the bin it goes".

>> No.5778580

>>5778576
I suggest you try to read some more advanced books, like Wald, before you go out on endeavors like this. At least then you will be well aquainted with the theory. I don't think Carroll's book is particularly advanced.

>> No.5778584

I don't really know what you were trying to show or how you can really claim that you showed anything. Your letter was a mish-mash of disorganized ideas, and you jump to random conclusions with no explanation.

I assume the reason he hasn't responded is because he doesn't want to waste his time correcting your confused nonsense.

>> No.5778597

Also, your basic premise is patently false. You suppose that the event horizon is a genuine singularity, rather than an artifact of the particular coordinate you're using. Since you can get rid of the singularity by simply changing your coordinates, this is obviously an incorrect hypothesis.

I fear you're taking coordinates too seriously.

>> No.5778819

>>5778573

The only thing I took from textbook were the Lorentz boost and the coordinate rotation, neither of which really needs peer review, as they are mathematical consequences of different coordinate systems. These are just raw numbers. The majority of the major material claims come from Einstein's paper.

>>5778576
The metric I am using is the Lorentz metric. I am comparing and contrasting the Lorentz metric which may yield an event horizon given constant acceleration with the Schwarzschild metric which may yield an event horizon at the Schwarzschild radius. The purpose, I feel directly presented, is showing that there is an inherent incompatibility with the two which is apparent in the numbers themselves. This is vital because the case of objects passing through the event horizon in the Lorentz metric is used to argue the validity of crossing the event horizon in the Schwarzschild metric. If the two are incompatible, then the example is flawed.

>> No.5778830

>>5778597

The particular Eddington-Finkelstein coordinate system used to bypass the Event horizon singularity has never been experimentally confirmed. The Schwartzschild metric on the other hand has been. I see no reason to adopt a coordinate system which has not been aptly shown to hold water, and may be flawed in its premise as a means to bypass obvious singularities which appear in the experimentally confirmed Schwarzschild metric.

>> No.5778843

>>5778830

Einstien's wormhole has never been experimentally confirmed either.

>> No.5778854

>>5778843

Well, that's what My hypothesis is trying to open up the chance to.

>> No.5778879

This is such an aspie video. Nobody wants to watch a video of you poorly reading something off your laptop. Make one with a visual demonstration of what you're trying to say.

>> No.5778885

>>5778879

Those are my earlier videos...But I wouldn't call them any less aspie, so you may want to pass.

>> No.5778898

>>5778580

Thank you for the recommendation.

http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/science_and_technology/physics/General_Relativity_Theory/General%20Relativity%20-%20R.%20Wald.pdf

>> No.5778997

Dark matter supposedly exists because if it didn't, then the mass of the universe doesn't make sense in regards to the Big Bang.

Basically, the universe isn't obeying science. It seemingly thumbs it's nose at our attempts to explain it. Dark matter is a plug in the bottom of a sinking ship.

You might want to take a look at the electric universe theory. It attempts to explain the currently understood cosmology by stating that gravity doesn't exist, and that what we model as gravity can be explained by electromagnetism.

I have no idea why you're bringing up black holes and white holes. It seems almost like you're meandering around in trivia instead of actually looking for any revolutionary explanation. Almost a perfect example of irrelevant, self-justifying academia.

>> No.5779040

>>5778997

Dark matter represents an argument from ignorance. "I don't know why, so it must be dark matter doing it!" In every single instance where we look for experimental confirmation of dark matter we get nothing.

But set it aside for now. I strongly feel that E-R bridges are the cause of galactic clustering however that does not matter if I cannot argue that E-R bridges form in the first place.

The only model of the black hole to my knowledge that can form and sustain E-R bridges is the nonsingular model.

Now, if the numbers disprove the possible existence of a nonsingular black hole then my hypothesis must be wrong outright.

SO while my ultimate goal is to establish a connection between E-R bridges and Galactic clustering (the supposed dark matter phenomena) the work laid out before me first is to if not confirm, then at least persuade the physics community to calculate an E-R bridge model based on the premise of nonsingularity.

>> No.5779045

>>5779040

I personally feel that the numbers bear out the strong likelihood that nonsingularity is the correct interpretation. This means nothing. Unless I can convince the science community to take the nonsingular model seriously, or be convinced that the nonsingular model is a physical impossibility then I have to keep working on the problem.

>> No.5779090

>>5778536
Physics is not fucking philosophy that you can just think and dream about shit and come with "hypothesis"

Show your fucking math.

>> No.5779104

>>5779090

It's right there in the letter.

>> No.5779109

Ehh.... he probably shut it off after seeing your hatsune miku shirt. Not a good idea for presentation attire

>> No.5779116

>>5779045
If you assume nonsingularity and create a decent theory from that, and work with an experimentalist to devise ways of testing your theory, you might be able to gain some ground. Once you find results which are only predicted by your theory, then other theoriticians will take up the slack and figure out why nonsingularity is correct.

>> No.5779135
File: 11 KB, 400x400, JennyIsNotAmused.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5779135

>>5779109

You are so right.

>> No.5779150

>>5779109
Thought it was pretty badass

>> No.5779158
File: 471 KB, 257x137, dealwithitagain.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5779158

>>5779150

PoPiPo, motherfucker. Miku fan.

I'm never gonna live that down. It'd actually be pretty bad if this video catches on and people actually do start taking my hypothesis seriously. Miku becomes the face of the idea.

Ah, well.

>> No.5779203

>sentence 2
>believe
Oh snap.
>zeno's paradox
is this really /sci/ stuff?
I mean, I'm not a math guy (dem matrices.... ehhh, brings back bad highschool memories...) but the other stuff sounds like homeopathic science: dilute it enough and....

>> No.5779209

>>5779040
>dark matter is arrogance
Orly?
Krauss disagrees. Feel free to write him with such sentiments. I look forward to that letter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5Vs

I can't read any more of this thread...

>> No.5779214

>>5779209

argument from ignorance.

Don't read any more of this thread because apparently you aren't reading it.

>> No.5779216

>>5779214
It's late, sage.
The point stands.

>> No.5779221

>>5779216

Well thank you for donating a double layer of irony on the argument from ignorance by literally being ignorant, being made aware of it and arguing still.

>> No.5779227

>>5779221
And thank you, once again, for attempting to derail the thread.

>somebody was accidentally wrong on the internet
>better point it out forever...
>forever...
>forever...
>better ignore the validity of their points, though.

aaaand goodnight amerika.

>> No.5779249

Your points:

Someone disagrees with you.

Well, whatever. I give you too much credit taking you seriously as you clearly don't of me.

But for the record your response was woefully misinterpreted and misrepresented and you have no argument that Dark matter is in fact an argument from ignorance. It might be right! But without confirmation of its existence it is in fact an argument from ignorance.

>> No.5779258

>>5779249

Now, here's the thing MY hypothesis is also an argument from ignorance. I don't have the numbers. I don't have the mechanics of how ER bridges would effect clusters. So I should really shut up about dark matter. I've changed the names of videos from There is no dark matter to The nonsingular universe to rectify just that. The only numbers and argument I have now is just the nonsingular model.

How better can I present that kernal idea? Because I think straying from that might be harming me.