[quote=xilman;188198]I suggest that

a) you ignore davieddy's most recent comment and
b) reduce your number of postings until you have a substantial amount of your proposal ready for public view.

Paul[/quote]

I'll try to do that, but I'm at the mercy of mixed computer resources.
So I type what I can when I can. But I'll try to use your recommendation.

Of course don't wait for the proof that the fact that there are exactly 200 possible
elements implies the Riemann Hypothesis and the Infinitude of the Mersenne Primes.
That's for another day. :-)

Do you work in a patent office in Switzerland by any chance?:smile:

[quote=davieddy;188283]Do you work in a patent office in Switzerland by any chance?:smile:[/quote]

Sounds funny, but I don't get the reference, being a pure "Yank".
Care to ruin the joke by elaborating?

Oh I see, Albert E. Haha. If I turn out to be right, thanks in advance.

Because of limited computer access, I must continue this way for now:
Here's page three.


Does the Universe have a border or boundary?

No.

Everything that exists exists within the Universe. A border would be a
separation of the Universe from something or someplace outside the Universe,
and no such thing or place exists. A boundary would be a barrier of some
kind between the Universe and something else, and there is nothing else
but that which is within the Universe.

Are there multiple or parallel or alternate Universes?

No.

The Universe contains all that exists. There can be only one Universe.
An empty or contentless additional Universe is a contradictory concept
and can not exist. The so-called Multiverse is pure mysticism.

Is Einstein's Theory of Relativity correct?

Yes, as far as it goes.

The total mass-energy of the Universe is conserved and constant.
The Einstein formula (E=mcc) is correct.
The Lorentz equations more accurately reflect physical measurements
and more correctly explain physical phenomena than Newton's Theory.

Newton and Einstein were both right. Both theories improve the
understanding of nature and provide a mathematical framework
for physical science.

Is space curved?

Yes.

Massed objects produce curvature of space such that light rays curve
noticeably when passing massive objects like the sun and planets.
Space is not flat or Euclidean, although the primary 3-d spatial
dimensions are topologically locally Euclidean everywhere.

And it is this curvature of space that produces the phenomenon
of gravity.

Are there spatial singularities?

No!

Space itself is continuous.

Are there temporal singularities?

No!

Time is measured continuously and only progresses.

End of page three.

[QUOTE=davar55;187843]Now bear with me, because I think I'm going to sound like a crank.[/QUOTE]

You think?

[quote=lfm;188329]You think?[/quote]

At least I know it SEEMS so.

But when you're trying to discuss a possible
cosmological paradigm shift, you can't help
but sound somewhat egotistical and crankish.

Still, I welcome comments.

[quote=davar55;188326]Is space curved?

Yes.

Massed objects produce curvature of space such that light rays curve noticeably when passing massive objects like the sun and planets. Space is not flat or Euclidean, although the primary 3-d spatial dimensions are topologically locally Euclidean everywhere.

And it is this curvature of space that produces the phenomenon of gravity.

Are there spatial singularities?

No!

Space itself is continuous.[/quote]So, there's no singularity in a black hole -- then what [I]is[/I] in it where the gravity is stronger than any force that could oppose it? Does your theory somehow prevent that from happening?

(But no need to answer now -- I'm prepared to wait for an answer to be revealed on a future page.)

This is page four.

Is time-travel into the past possible?

No.

While the concept of time-travel makes great science fiction and is
a tribute to the imagination of humanity, actual time-travel is not
possible. Time flows at a fairly constant rate, and only flows forward.
It is not reversible.

Are tachyons real?

No.

Fundamental particles that travel faster than light or backwards in
time are fictional.

Are black holes real?

Yes, very much so.

A black hole is formed when numerous particles such as protons,
electrons, neutrons, atoms, and molecules accumulate in a certain
location, frequently the center of a galaxy, where gravity is already
high, and thus form a gravity hole from which little can escape.
When enough material accumulates, the internal gravity becomes so
great that the internal materials are forced into forming larger atoms,
enen to the point of forming the stable super-heavy atoms
(approximately atomic numbers 116-199). Ultimately, even the
heaviest element (which I call Endon-200) is formed. This is so dense
that it bottom-dwells the black hole. This dense substance produces
a strong gravitational file in its proximity, with an event horizon
beyond which very few particles of the black hole can escape.
The Center of the Milky Way Galaxy, and indeed most every galaxy,
contains a black hole.

That's page four.

This is page five.

Is entropy reversible?

Perhaps not surprisingly, I give this a qualified yes!

When a black hole forms by aggregation of particles under gravitational
attraction, and the gravity strength exceeds some value, the nucleons
are crushed, ultimately into smaller and smaller neutrinos which I call
neutrinoinos.The ultimate material substance, called neutrino dust,
ultimately execeeds some critical mass and then may be sparked by a
photonic burst (say a nearby nova). This then explodes, and a galactic
genesis cycle is initiated. Thus while entropy has been increasing during
the formatioin of the black hole, the explosion and subsequent
reaggregational clumpings and star formations produce a natural
decremental entropic singularity.
(I'm sure THIS will be super-controversial).

To be continued ...

I see that you are mainly posting your own personal contentions.
What are the deeper reasonings behind this?
So, adding a few extra photons to a black hole causes it to shatter?

[quote=Uncwilly;188414]I see that you are mainly posting your own personal contentions.
What are the deeper reasonings behind this?
So, adding a few extra photons to a black hole causes it to shatter?[/quote]

To the latter: I think a star going nova near a black hole would be a
significant event. Not merely a few extra photons, but a major spark to
the tinderbox of neutrino dust (others call degenerate matter) that results
in a major explosion, which may be a star-generating cyclic initialization.

To the former: sure, much are personal contentions, but when you ask
about deeper reasonings behind them, I need to know what you're
questioning (as opposed to everything I've written).