Nimblebrain Forums - Not logged in
Forum Help Search Chat Register Login
Previous Next Up Topic Cosmology / Alternative Cosmology / Black hole universe? (12285 hits)
By Eduffy80911 Date 2010-05-06 03:45
Okay, I'm not an equation guy so I'm going to ask you guys to chew on this one. Watching Discovery Channel and they had a rare show where "top scientists" actually said out loud that they could very well be wrong about quite a few things. (voice over by the guy who does "Deadliest Catch").

Anyway, the pop scientist guy (asian American, can't remember his name but he's the go-to guy on Fox for all things "sciencey"), suggested that our universe might actually be within the event horizon of a black hole. He went even further to say that taken as a whole, our universe solves the equation for a black hole. I'm not sure what that means or if it's true. Sounds like a job for one of you cosmological mathematicians. Any feasibility to it? Sounds a bit like RussT's theory.

If it's the case, I would hypothesize that within the black holes of our universe would be other "universe's" in which, what seems to us like an impossibly dense environment, things are "completely normal". From there, our universe would seem ridiculously sparse, even massless. Everything is relative.

So we wouldn't really have multiple universe's so much as very different perceptual baselines where a millisecond in one environment is an eternity in another and the vacuum of space in one is infinite mass to another.
By Jade Annand Date 2010-05-06 04:12
Isn't that just the sort of Black Holes and Baby Universes thing* that Hawking has been espousing for a while; that every black hole creates a new universe?

(*NOTE: I don't know if that's originally Hawking's or not)

I'd have to ask where they all fit. Need they invoke all ten or eleven dimensions, even though some of them are purportedly curled up, in order to have multiple universes come out of this one? What's to prevent overlap? :)
By Eduffy80911 Date 2010-05-06 04:40 Edited 2010-05-06 04:44
I don't know, but the "quasar" phase of black hole development suggests to me that there's a point at which the black hole is full. Therefore stuff isn't passing through to some mystical land or folding into 11 dimensions. And if black holes take from our space and emit back into it, they aren't really separate universes, but environments we are not able to figure out as yet. As suggested on the show I referenced, black holes obey the laws of physics. They're just obeying laws we haven't discovered yet.

As for where they all fit, size, space, velocity are all relative. I don't have a problem imagining that our immense universe is imperceptibly small from another perspective and if you were operating in that kind of scale, you probably wouldn't have math to deal with anything going on wayyyyyyy down here in what might be sub-sub-sub space from someone else's point of view.
By RussT Date 2010-05-06 11:12 Edited 2010-05-06 23:21
Eduffy said:


Okay, I'm not an equation guy so I'm going to ask you guys to chew on this one.


That's okay because ALL the Maths they are using are depicting nothing that is real...why, because they ALL start with "Singularities"...which is division by 0.
So everything is "Not even Wrong"

eduffy said:


Anyway, the pop scientist guy (asian American, can't remember his name but he's the go-to guy on Fox for all things "sciencey"), suggested that our universe might actually be within the event horizon of a black hole


His name is Michio Kaku, and on another show..."Seeing Black Holes" he did three different set of equations that came out to Infinity + Infinity + Infinity...and said (which he has said before on other shows)...

"This is a disaster for physicists"...it is where the Laws of Physics break down and why they now say that GR needs to be replaced (Note they are no longer saying that GR needs to be unified with QM!!!)

Ritchie said:


Isn't that just the sort of Black Holes and Baby Universes thing* that Hawking has been espousing for a while; that every black hole creates a new universe?

(*NOTE: I don't know if that's originally Hawking's or not)


and I'll cover this now...this is actually Lee Smolins Fecund Universes and his "Constant at the Pit of Black Holes"

Now, after 100 years, mainstream STILL cannot decide if the expanding "Horizons" they are using are Black Hole Horizons or NOT...Most will tell you they are not, BUT that really means that they don't understand Black Holes at all....why...because they can't get rid of the Singularities, because their theories are "Based On Those Singularities" so they are Lost and Stuck forever!!!

They think though, that the only singularity that needs to be addressed is the Naked Singularity at T=0, so they are just starting off from "Inflation"

Now, what I have to convince you guys (and mainstream) of, is that the Big Bang singularity is not only the 0 part, and they actually admit this....BUT also that the singularity is/could be "Infinite" in size....SO...

IF the Universe started out as a Infinite singularity, and the Big Bang "DIDN"T HAPPEN", then NONE of those horizons (expanding or contracting) ever even had the possibility of existing!!!

SO, If I get agreement on this....I will show How the "REAL" SMBH's are working  :)

Hint...Lee Smolin is the closest...
By RussT Date 2010-05-08 11:29
Gentlemen....there are NO Bubble Universes!

The Naked Singularity NEVER existed, and that includes the "Horizons"!!!

Mainstreams "Static" "Open" or "Closed" universe never evenhad a chance of ever existing!

ANd there is "Proof" that mainstream just keeps waving off...

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/56088-Fractal-Universe?highlight=Fractals

"The universe is not a fractal," Hogg insists, "and if it were a fractal it would create many more problems that we currently have." A universe patterned by fractals would throw all of cosmology out the window. Einstein's cosmic equations would be tossed first, with the big bang and the expansion of the universe following closely behind.

Hogg's team feel that until there's a theory to explain why the galaxy clustering is fractal, there's no point in taking it seriously. "My view is that there's no reason to even contemplate a fractal structure for the universe until there is a physical fractal model," says Hogg. "Until there's an inhomogeneous fractal model to test, it's like tilting at windmills."

Pietronero is equally insistent. "This is fact," he says. "It's not a theory." He says he is interested only in what he sees in the data and argues that the galaxies are fractal regardless of whether someone can explain why.

Mr Pietronero also goes into detail on how they mathematically 'fudge' to get isotropy and homogeneity to come out the way they want!

In the 8th post are his papers....heres one...
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9611197

My Model DOES explain this and is completely Consistent!

Here is more on the Voids between the Galaxy Clusters too, Mr Duffy.

http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso9631/
By Eduffy80911 Date 2010-05-11 05:12 Edited 2010-05-11 05:16
interesting stuff (on the voids) As for the notion that the universe isn't fractal in nature because it's too inconvenient to be true; you might as well tell me water isn't wet.

But back to the voids. Since we don't know the nature of the space (or lack thereof), we don't know how it affects objects (like photons) that travel through or around it. Do they speed up? Slow down? No effect? Do we know the frequency of void distribution? Is it a homogenous distribution?

Point being, until we know one way or another, you have to at least consider the possibility that we may be receiving very corrupted data.

btw Michio Kaku also said that "singularity" was just a euphamism for "we have no idea".
By Eduffy80911 Date 2010-05-11 05:21
In your model, Russ, the voids are the exhaust from other black holes, right? So the void is actually filled with neutrinos rushing in. But the fact that they take up space, and seem to crowd out the matter means the neutrinos are having an impact on their environment. I won't quibble about that, since, if you are correct, there's a lot of formulas missing. But, it does again present the possibility that in such concentration, they could effect the motion and characteristics of a passing photon.
By RussT Date 2010-05-11 11:23
Eduffy said:


interesting stuff (on the voids)


Yes indeed, and did you notice they even said that a whole new paradigm needs to be developed for Galaxy formation!!!

Eduffy said:


As for the notion that the universe isn't fractal in nature because it's too inconvenient to be true; you might as well tell me water isn't wet.


Yes, they are not only good at 'ignoring' ALL the problems that do exist with their theory(s), but also extremely good at ignoring and denying anything that might be shown to be true that goes against them!!!

Eduffy said:


But back to the voids. Since we don't know the nature of the space (or lack thereof), we don't know how it affects objects (like photons) that travel through or around it. Do they speed up? Slow down? No effect? Do we know the frequency of void distribution? Is it a homogenous distribution?

In your model, Russ, the voids are the exhaust from other black holes, right? So the void is actually filled with neutrinos rushing in.


Yes, the Each Void is the exhaust from a SMBH in the center of its galaxy from the "other Universe"...and so Yes...the void is actually filled with neutrinos rushing in

SO, when you add up ALL the Voids from every direction 'spewing its Neutrinos'...that makes up ALL of our Universes "Space"...

SO, as far as we can see, there are Galaxy Clusters with Huge Voids between those clusters ad infimatum...NO Horizons expanding or contracting!!! We just cannot tell scientifically how far it goes. a Fractal Universe.

Those Voids are generally somewhere between 10 Kpc and 25 Kpc. There is one that is supposed to be a Giant Void, but I think that is just a line of sight thing, where they are seeing 2 or 3 voids lined up. What's funny about that though, is that it is supposed to be just slightly colder than the 2.73K, and with that little tidbit, all of a sudden, it started being suggested that IT was a worm hole from another Universe....heck they ALL ARE....LOL

I mean really....Think About It....the Energy for our Universe has to "Get Here" somehow...IF you start off with an Infinite Universe...where does the Energy come from???...it's no better than the Big Bang starting off with NO cause Effect...they/you are just making it up!!!

Anyway....back to the Neutrionos...

They go "Right Through" everything!!! They travel in perfectly straight lines and they travel at "c" in vacua

Now, the Neutrinos that are coming through the Voids to make our space "Dynamic" and ALL traveling at "c" in ALL/Every Direction Non-collisionally is the CMB photons at 2.73K AND IS the ZPE Field.

That solves two Huge Problems that mainstream has...
1. The Horizon Problem (Inflation was developed by Alan Guth to try to solve two problems...the flatness and horizon problems) with the horizon problem being that for space to have the same temp at different sides of the 26 billion light year sphere is virtually impossible as light does not have enough time to reach both sides to gave the same temp.
2. The 10^120 OOM (Order of Magnitude) of what the energy of space is observed to be VS what is theoretically predicted bu QM.

Now, those Neutrinos can carry MORE energy as well....SO they also carry all the other EM radiation from Gamma/Xray on down to the lowest.

SO, the exhaust coming into our Voids is what Sets the speed limit of "c" for light in our Universe   ;)

That's also how I KNOW that light cannot travel from point A to point B "Instantaneously" OR in 0 Time!!!

Then You have ALL of your MIni Bangs that are SMBH's being created and starting with "Neutrinos" as the base particle a reasonable NEW QM can be figured out and we can finally be "On The Right Track" ;)

More tomorrow on Quasars and How Galaxies ARE much Older than a mere 13 billion years and that there is no way to tell how old our Universe is!!!
By Eduffy80911 Date 2010-05-11 22:52 Edited 2010-05-11 23:53
Okay, a couple of points

If the voids are filled with neutrinos that pass through everything, unimpeded, why are the voids void? Why doesn't matter pass right through or form within it?

If the neutrinos are exhaust from black holes, why does that necessitate that they be in another universe? Could it not be expulsions from black holes within our universe?

You never get past the chicken and egg problem, no matter what creation theory you subscribe to. Every effect has a cause. But the cause is the result of an effect as well. How do you start this perpetual motion machine? That's the root of the question. We have a paradox in that we know (or think we do) that perpetual motion machines are impossible, yet we live in one, unless you can discover and prove a circumstance under which there is absolutely nothing, then there is something, without cause and without origin.
By RussT Date 2010-05-12 11:13
Very good questions E Duffy!!!

Eduffy said:


If the voids are filled with neutrinos that pass through everything, unimpeded, why are the voids void? Why doesn't matter pass right through or form within it?


Why doesn't matter pass right through

Let's start with this one...remember the "Spaghettification"?

Everything (All the baryonic matter) going into the SMBH in the "other Universe" is being Spaghettified and the exhaust (as you have coined it) is the Non-baryonic Neutrinos coming through to Our Universe giving us our 'Space' traveling at "c" in all/every direction non-collisionally.

As to why the Voids are Voids and why New SMBH's/galaxies don't go BOOOM (Long GRB's) inside of those Voids...here is my answer...

Those Voids are actually are actually rotating too...a rotating Magnetic field attached to...the E-R Bridge...the SMBH in the other Universe and so must be rotating too.

And they know that most of the LSB and BCD galaxies are what they call field galaxies...which are galaxies that are out toward the edge of those Voids rather than being closer in toward the middle of clusters where the Bif Elliptical Galaxies are...

SO...Long GRB's being the Birth Cry of New SMBH's are happening on the edge of Voids and then those galaxies make their way inward...although there are some galaxies that have been found inside the voids, BUT none toward the center of ANY Voids!

Eduffy said:


If the neutrinos are exhaust from black holes, why does that necessitate that they be in another universe? Could it not be expulsions from black holes within our universe?


Excellent! I actually had this exact scenario at one time...until I falsified it myself because it wasn't consistent!

Here's what I did...I was still considering the expanding horizons as "Real" and so I was saying that there were SMBH's in another universe sending stuff to us, and then that OUR SMBH's were sending their exhaust out into "OUR" Universe to cause the "Accelerated Expansion"...I wrote a paper that on BAUT that cover that...BUT

I Finally figured out that that is NOT constistent and that as well as having a universe level "above ours' sending us OUR exhaust....that there must be a level below our Universe as well so OUR SMBH's can send that lower Universe our Exhaust so they can have their "Space"...that makes it perfectly consistent and means that there can be Universe levels up and down to infinity.

But, all we can "Infer" is the "Communication between Universes" of one level above and one level below our universe...the CMB/ZPE Field/Neutrinos at "c" coming to Our Universe in the Voids and all the baryonic matter going into our SMBH's being spaghettified and going down to the universe below as their CMB/Neutrinos.

SO, yeah....how did the First highest level Universe get started is just as Unknowable as...how far does OUR Universe extend??? Scientifically Unknowable...;)
By Eduffy80911 Date 2010-05-12 23:25 Edited 2010-05-12 23:53
Here's an interesting link that touches on the point I'm getting at with the voids:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Herschel_Reveals_The_Hidden_Side_Of_Star_Birth_999.html

particularly this bit: "The star is not visible at these infrared wavelengths but pushes on the surrounding dust and gas with nothing more than the power of its starlight."

photons, taken by themselves, have almost negligible mass, but in ridiculously high concentration can push gasses around, to the point that they become so concentrated at the front, the gas can collapse and form new stars.

Since your proposing an environment that hadn't been considered before: a ridiculously high concentration of neutrinos, is it not possible that in such concentration they may have more rigid characteristics en masse? Thus pushing away local matter and creating the voids.

Sorry, a bit more on neutrinos - you said earlier "Now, those Neutrinos can carry MORE energy as well....SO they also carry all the other EM radiation from Gamma/Xray on down to the lowest."

If neutrinos can carry radiation, they are interacting with it. In fact, an entity that just continued in a straight line having no effect on anything would be pretty useless.  I think it's probably way too early in humans awareness of neutrinos to try to nail down all their properties and characteristics. Obviously there's a lot going on out there (and in here) that we can't explain as yet. I personally believe much of it has to do with the cumulative effects of things (like neutrinos) that we don't know much about. The maths have been developed assuming they aren't there or have no significant impact on the motion and behavior of stuff. Hence the math is running into problems.

side note: I've got to think the Electric Universe folks are pretty stoked about the discovery of ionized water vapor surrounding new stars.
By RussT Date 2010-05-13 11:04
EDuffy said:


Here's an interesting link that touches on the point I'm getting at with the voids:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Herschel_Reveals_The_Hidden_Side_Of_Star_Birth_999.html

particularly this bit: "The star is not visible at these infrared wavelengths but pushes on the surrounding dust and gas with nothing more than the power of its starlight."

photons, taken by themselves, have almost negligible mass, but in ridiculously high concentration can push gasses around, to the point that they become so concentrated at the front, the gas can collapse and form new stars.


This article has numerous things wrong with it...

first...stellar "Winds" push gas clouds away, NOT photons!

And...
It already contains eight to ten times the mass of the Sun and is still surrounded by an additional 2000 solar masses of gas and dust from which it can feed further.

From this quote...how can the star be pushing all the gas away, as in the pic, and at the same time be pulling in more to take it to 150 times Sol mass?

I'm not saying that stars don't get this big, and the big Blue Giants rid themselves of their accretion discs mush sooner I'm sure because their "Winds" are stronger, but the scenario in this article just doesn't make much sense.

Second, when they are talking about 'faster star formation rates' they are generally talking about the 'early' universe/galaxies because they have been mandated for 60+ years to 'constrain/force' anything 'far away' to be 'younger' and therefore evolve faster...AND any galaxy that is considered a 'late galaxy' to have 'slower star formation rates', and that any galaxy that 'could' be considered a new galaxy to have an 'underlying old population of stars' (TRG branch)

Since "we" know that the Universe was NOT smaller OR Younger in the past...their "Observation" is just an opinion and shows how easy it is to use the word "Observation" when really they are just making the Universe out to be working the way they 'think' it should...the very thing they are always accusing 'newbie's' of...LOL

Eduffy said:


Since your proposing an environment that hadn't been considered before: a ridiculously high concentration of neutrinos, is it not possible that in such concentration they may have more rigid characteristics en masse? Thus pushing away local matter and creating the voids.


in a word, NO. First...there was NO Universe full of "gas"...NO Big Bang...each Galaxies "gas" was formed when its Massive Black Hole was newly formed when its Long GRB (2 seconds to 100 seconds = Dwarfs and 120 seconds to 500 seconds = Spirals 10/1 ratio) went BOOOM.

ALL of "Space" is Neutrinos. Neutrinos are actully the CMB Photons and have a heat energy of 2.73K.
ALL of "Space" being CMB Photons with the lowest energy signature of the 'base particle' ALL traveling at "c" in ALL/Every Direction non-collisionally is what makes up the Zero Point Energy Field (ZPE) They go Right through Everything!!!
Eduffy said:


Sorry, a bit more on neutrinos - you said earlier "Now, those Neutrinos can carry MORE energy as well....SO they also carry all the other EM radiation from Gamma/Xray on down to the lowest."


Yes, I did say this, and it is true...

Eduffy said:


If neutrinos can carry radiation, they are interacting with it.


This is patently NOT true...Light/Photons do NOT interact with one another...

BUT, how light/photons do interact with "matter" is 100% QM and I cannot rewrite ALL of science, which needs to be done, once the Macro is understood correctly ;)
By lyndonashmore Date 2010-05-14 20:29
This is patently NOT true...Light/Photons do NOT interact with one another...

never say never in physics. the collision cross section is very small 10^-40 to 10^-50 m^-2 if I remember correctly.

http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/opal/gammagamma/gg-tutorial.html
By RussT Date 2010-05-15 11:22
Lyndon said:


never say never in physics


You are partially right, and I should be a little more careful of making 'some' blanket statements ;)

Actually I thought someone might try using the SZE against my statement ;>)

BUT, here's the thing... ALL of these things have to be "Re-done" Re-written with brand new maths that have never been developed before.

Why, because starting from the premise that Baryogenisis is being created when a "NEW" Massive Black Hole is forming, When we see/detect the High Energy Gamma Radiation Burst/Event, which creates the HI Gas for each Dwarf/spiral galaxy one by one, and then figuring out that Massive Black Holes are continually 'leaking' their 'exgaust' to Our Universe, makes our Universe an "Open System".

Mainstream has NO CLUE as to 'when' SMBH's become part of a galaxies Life, SO None of them can tell me I am wrong...;) They just know how to Deny Deny Deny and keep spouting "Relativity" and "Show me the Maths"

In doing this I have also debunked Relativity to the point that I now understand that the Singularities (All of them, including the SR singularity)...is where all current physics Laws break down, and means that the Conservation Laws are also wrong.

Now, here's the Real problem...

My last determination, after MUCH trepidation, is/was that the solution to the Galaxy Rotation curve problem, since I know that WIMPS "CDM" and Lambda are NOT right, is that the Massive Black Holes at the center of galaxies, creates a HUGE Magnetic Field, coupled to the CMB/Neutrino/ZPE Field and is ultimately responsible for keeping the stars/gas in their high speed orbits and of course this means the same for the planets orbits around their respective stars.

SO, Newton, Maxwell, Lorentz, Einstein were ALL wrong
Well actually...

1. Einstein was right about E-R Bridges BUT the Maths are wrong there too because there are 2 Event Horizons...one on each side of the galaxy core, making the SMBH a "Cylindrical Object" NOT a sphere.
2. Hoyle was right about billions of Mini Bangs
3. Alfven/Tesla were right about Magnetic Fields holding the planets in their orbits.

BUT, we have no choice but to use Newtons Maths until a new Maths structure can be developed, and definitely with no 'variable time or variable length' and definitely NOT 4D...but everything in 3D with Time as a Constant and non-dimensional, and the speed of light as a Constant "c",
now knowing how the Macro is working-
By Jade Annand Date 2010-05-15 14:55
Lyndon said:

never say never in physics. the collision cross section is very small 10^-40 to 10^-50 m^-2 if I remember correctly.


I find that pretty cool. I had heard about photon-photon collisions but not the cross-section.

Just wondering, because it's a factoid I picked up in my travels... is it otherwise true that photons will only create new particles if they get near a charge center? That would explain photon-photon collisions perhaps by the E part of the E-M waves.
By Eduffy80911 Date 2010-05-18 04:04
I still have a problem with the idea that neutrinos carry energy, but don't interact with it. That seems to be an oxymoron. I suppose you could say that when a bullet train carries a mosquito on its windshield, the interaction from the perspective of the train is negligible. But if you go a few years without cleaning the windshield, it will have a significant effect eventually. Adhesion is a mutual relationship. tape can't stick to a wall unless the wall also sticks to the tape.
By RussT Date 2010-05-18 11:21
Okay, here's what I'm going to say...

First, QM is more screwed up than anything because there is just no real way to constrain it because they are staring out with a Big Bang from "Nothing".

So when they are 'colliding' electrons or protons in the colliders, they are trying to figure out what those are made of....what 'inside them'...

BUT, that is all based on the belief that "Energy is Conserved"!!! "In a "Closed System"

Which brings us to the "First three minutes" and the HUGE where did all the Anti-Matter go Problem.

On top of that, 'supposedly' Matter can't be created or destroyed...and there are NO positrons "in" baryonic matter...protons or neutrons...and yet this is 'supposed' to be okay...

There are two distinct types of hydrogen-burning reactions that stellar core material can undergo.  Main-sequence stars lighter than about class F0 fuse hydrogen into helium via the proton-proton chain.  This is a rather straightforward nuclear reaction: (1) two protons fuse together, forming a deuterium nucleus and releasing both a neutrino and a positron (the positron eventually annihilates with an electron to produce energy); (2) then, another proton collides with the deuterium nucleus, forming a helium-3 nucleus and giving off a gamma ray photon; (3) finally, another helium-3 nucleus formed by steps 1 and 2 above collides with this helium-3 nucleus, turning it into an ordinary helium-4 nucleus and releasing two protons.  The total reaction time for this entire process is on the order of one million years.

So...everyone just ignores the 'problem' "Positron"...and if you ask the answer is ...it is there because of the "Weak Force"...which is absolutely meaningless.

The answer is...that "Energy is NOT Conserved" and there is NOTHING below the electron/positron/proton/neutron level.

When those collisions take place in the LHC, the Energy is almost immediately 'Gone"

SO, there are NO Quarks of any colour or flavor...no fermions, kaons ETC

SO yes ALL 'Matter" has Energy for MC^2 BUT not all Energy is imparted onto matter.

SO, when Long GRB's go BOOOM, when the New SMBH is forming its Event Horizon for that new galaxy...

The CMB Neutrinos are Colliding and making the Electrons/Positrons when the High Gamma Rays are "ON", and then the Xray process, which can take weeks to months, is making the protons and or neutrons where the Neutrons would have 918 electrons and 918 positrons fused together.

Something like this has to be the case, it's just that no one person should be responsible for re-writing ALL of science!!!
By Eduffy80911 Date 2011-04-17 21:42 Edited 2011-04-17 22:01
You don't have to Russ. You just have to come up with a concrete, undeniable demonstration of how the current science doesn't work. Preferably an example that the average sixth grader could relate to, even a U.S. public school sixth grader.

I have my own suspicions about the underlying nature of the universe, but until I can show how not looking at it my way causes you real problems in your daily life, who cares?

Contradictions between science and observation of objects 10 million light years away can be easily ignored, since most of the population will continue to be blissfully unaware and unconcerned one way or the other. Build a flashlight that shouldn't work, but does and people will pay attention. Much easier said than done, but that's how you change science. Throw the contradiction in everyone's face and lots of folks will get busy on the rewrite.

But before you can make people believe, you have to make them care.

I'm not talking about the professional cosmology crowd. The incentive there, for the career guys, is to demonstrate understanding of the current consensus. That's how you get speaking engagements, cocktail invitations, promotions, tenure, grants, etc. You don't dispense with the status quo until you're in danger of looking like a total buffoon if you don't. You don't want to be the last guy defending an obviously flawed theory, but there's no real danger in not being among the first.

If you're really trying to promote new science and academia isn't buying it, you need to explain it to the masses in language the average Joe understands. Joe is no less intelligent than the academics, but he's not going to get very far, very fast if he has to pull out a Cosmological Terms and Equations encyclopedia after each sentence. And if you want Joe to give you some time and attention for a topic that you're way more interested in than he is, you have to connect it to something that Joe is very interested in.
Previous Next Up Topic Cosmology / Alternative Cosmology / Black hole universe? (12285 hits)

Powered by mwForum 2.15.0 © 1999-2008 Markus Wichitill