Advanced search

Message boards : Cosmology and Astronomy : Singulosynthesis - Really wish I could take Fred Hoyle out for a beer...

1 · 2 · Next
Author Message
Jimmy Vick
Send message
Joined: 21 May 13
Posts: 38
Credit: 19,740
RAC: 0
Message 12987 - Posted: 21 May 2013, 18:37:37 UTC
Last modified: 21 May 2013, 18:40:45 UTC

Singulosynthesis: Is my framework for a theoretical process by which binary gravitational singularities progressively distort each other under tidal forces. Once sufficient symmetry loss is achieved (based on the mass), the singularity fails and the contents are ejected asymmetrically. Upon ejection, contents escaping inherit new properties from the distorted entropy of the event horizon. The distribution of the entropy of a singularity when it fails is the "Vick". The "Vick" is maintained until the singularity of least mass is extinguished. Moreover, the "Vick" is a constant, once any singularity reaches the "Vick" it will fail. On a cosmological scale this process is the compliment of stellar Nucleosynthesis, meaning Singulosynthesis synthesizes the lighter elements of the universe in the quantities and distributions we observe. It is also the process by which the universe restores entropy to itself. A gravitational singularity is the only place in the universe where Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity, and all other forces seem to peacefully coexist. The rest of the time they are at war with each other generating the reality we perceive.

Every venue I have tried to create a discussion of this idea based on rational descent has been met by censorship... While being admittedly as radical as an idea can get, not quantified, difficult to create a framework to simulate, let alone run a simulation, difficult to directly observe, and largely based on indirect evidence I have been unable to find any other idea like it anywhere. It is merely an attempt to apply Occam’s razor to the universe based on the best possible current observations and theories collectively. There is a fundamental lack of harmony between so many theories on every scale that when taken together they end in a universe of contradictions and paradox... how then do I perceive my existence? In my own logjam of thoughts, this is my best guess using my own reason at how best to dynamite the logjam.

1. The "purpose" of a gravitational singularity is mainly a recycling mechanism built into the universe. I have no reputation to loose so what the hell... I said it.

2. What would cause a singularity with the mass of the universe to simply fail on its own and create what we see the way we see it? Whatever boat you choose (Big Bang or Singulosynthesis) everything gains its identity leaving a gravitational singularity and surrenders it upon return. The lack of causality inherent to current big bang cosmology is nearly as troubling as the assumptions it is based on.

3. Why are there so many gravitational singularities in the universe? The only known object capable of producing "big bang" densities/temperatures and the potential to create "big bang" elements, yet they seem fairly stable with some exceptions....

4. How can the entropy in the event horizon of two gravitation singularities merge before the singularities themselves do, when they are at best in a state of quasi equilibrium but never identical? Information must be conserved. We "think" singularities must be able to merge at the final stage of a galaxy merger, but by their nature can they?

5. Space time is smooth but the cosmic microwave background radiation (as it is known today) and matter distributions are not homogeneous enough to explain a big bang scenario where what we see could have been created the way we see it.

6. Why do quasars, active galactic nuclei, or what I like to call active "Singulosynthesis" events appear to be larger when the universe was younger? Why were the gravitational singularities so much larger in the young universe than they are now?

7. Could what we perceive as "big bang" radiation actually be the radiation of another process, see #6?

8. Why would the mechanism for creating lite elements or recycling entropy cease? Are we so sure the Big Bang IS the only way?

9. What is the true nature of Super massive black hole and galaxy rotation sigma? Could it be that matter propagates out from the center of each galaxy through the process I have described? Or for that matter the universe...

10. What could create Giant elliptical galaxies with low luminosity cores? Could it be the result of Singularities of roughly equal mass performing Singulosynthesis?

11. What could cause distinct groups of mature galaxies we observe? Could the combination of binary singularity axis angles, singularity mass combinations, and matter distributions be limited to form a universe of galaxies like the one we observe?

12.. How do you solve the super massive black hole/galaxy co-evolution problem? Is there ANY other more rational solution?

I could go ON and ON but I am sure most of you are begging me to stop so I will. I got so much direct and indirect evidence it makes my head explode.... Now all I need to figure out what "Vick" has to be... calling Dr. Emmett Brown! I have seen all the crazy crap they have done or made up to get big bang cosmology to work....

Blame Obama for this idea, if he could win the Nobel Peace Prize for WTF??? Then I can surely win the Nobel Prize for physics...

Thanks for reading if you made it this far and I look forward to the inevitable criticism...

I can only HOPE this post makes it past the administrators "delete" option because even an original bad idea can possibly lead to an original good one. Even if I am partially or completely right, humanity will likely live up to its colorful and well documented history of consistently giving Astronomers the shaft… ironically, coming from a species governed by institutionalized mediocrity, the shaft is the greatest trophy of them all.
Jimmy Vick

Jimmy Vick
Send message
Joined: 21 May 13
Posts: 38
Credit: 19,740
RAC: 0
Message 12993 - Posted: 22 May 2013, 23:41:11 UTC

One last bit I left out because I got tired writing that post up... Dark Energy and Dark Matter are the great Ether of our time. Both are constructs of man to support a cosmological model that does not match with what we observe.

Singulosynthesis will accelerate the expansion of the universe more over time as more events occur. What did we need Dark Energy for again?

Singulosynthesis will give the illusion of "cosmic scale" dark matter in the form of gravitational lensing. The remnant of the former gravitational singularity exists in the form of distorted spacetime. According to current theory, the further you look back across the cosmos with a telescope the more dark matter you need to peer through to see distance galaxies thereby creating the lensing. The reality is, looking across the cosmos is just increasing the chances of looking through warped spacetime left behind from Singulosynthesis.

Errr... I just destroyed 95% of the current theoretical mass of the universe in 5 minutes... Which seems more likely? A fundamental process built into the universe at the very edge of our perception... or bunch of magical stuff, that does magical things, but only in magical places....

Jimmy Vick

Jimmy Vick
Send message
Joined: 21 May 13
Posts: 38
Credit: 19,740
RAC: 0
Message 12999 - Posted: 27 May 2013, 21:01:23 UTC

Working on revising my argument and adding some data...

Jimmy Vick
Send message
Joined: 21 May 13
Posts: 38
Credit: 19,740
RAC: 0
Message 13001 - Posted: 28 May 2013, 7:03:30 UTC

Let me start off by saying that due to typing until very late at night on a regular basis I have made some incorrect comments that I would like to clarify before explaining the reasoning behind my idea.
First I said: 6. why do quasars, active galactic nuclei, or what I like to call active "Singulosynthesis" events appear to be larger when the universe was younger? Why were the gravitational singularities so much larger in the young universe than they are now?
-The first part was worded poorly, I meant more “luminous” not “larger”. The 2nd part I KNOW was incorrect statement and I have no idea why I typed it. While Quasars in the past were very active, the largest known Singularities in the universe to date exist in Large Elliptical galaxies roughly 26 B solar masses give or take. That was my bad!
With that done… here we go….
What I see as some of the bigger Big Bang Nucleosynthesis Cosmology Problems:
1.The universe is not homogenous enough on large scales to produce what we see based on the standard model: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/11/largest-structure-in-universe-discovered/ moreover, even if it was galaxies still cannot be formed fast enough.
2.The Galaxy and Super Massive Black Hole Co Evolution Paradox: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/09/21/3322710.htm#.UaPvKJwsbAR
3.The necessity for 26.8 percent of the universe mass to be Dark Matter http://phys.org/news/2012-04-dark-theories-mysterious-lack-sun.html
4.The necessity for 68.3 percent of the universe mass to be Dark Energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Energy
5.The Dark Matter Blowout problem… In the early universe Dark Matter seems to keep galaxies from blowing away all of their gas during a merger. In the late universe this seems to happen all the time.

The following is not meant to be a proof nor is it meant to be. It is an argument based on observation and rational descent that is fundamentally contrary to the standard model. To prove it completely, I would need some assistance. I am going to argue that Dark Energy and Dark Matter are no more than a modern day version of Ether. Concepts of man that have been created to fill the gaps for the unknown until it can be known. I am going to share with you some observations, perceptions, and ideas. Right now the best I can do is change out these 2 place holders with 2 of my own. It would only take one or two really solid observation to refute or promote my ideas. I will do my best to fairly represent the standard model ideas and make it clear when I am presenting my own.

If you are a singularity entropy destroyer like Hawking then everything I am getting to is pointless. If however you try to preserve the entropy of a singularity in any way (realizing we do not have an adequate physics model for a singularity let alone method to describe it) you run into a horrible problem in the event of a singularity merger. My argument is that built into the universe must be a natural abortion process to keep this from happening. The most reasonable solution being the very gravity creating the problem will ultimately solve it. If singularities must abort each other by their very nature, you can see exactly where I am going with this. The universe did not begin with a single self-destructing singularity, I argue it was generated in a process by the abortion of 2 or more. Producing everything we see and concealing a process that has been until now out of mankind’s collective perception. I argue this process still occurs with every singularity merger albeit on a smaller scale than the initial event. To describe this new theoretical process I have created 2 simple place holders that are arguably as real as Dark Energy or Dark Matter. “The Vick Limit” and “The Vick Field” are simply being used to describe something nobody has thought of to my knowledge.

Singulosynthesis: Is my framework for a theoretical process by which binary gravitational singularities progressively distort each other under tidal forces. Once sufficient symmetry loss is achieved (based on the mass) the Vick limit is reached and simultaneously the Vick field is achieved. The Vick limit signals the end of the singularity and the beginning of Singulosynthesis. It is the point at which the very gravity of a singularity has turned against it. During Singulosynthesis contents of the former singularity are ejected asymmetrically. Upon ejection, contents escaping inherit new properties from the distorted entropy. The distribution of the entropy of a singularity when it fails is the Vick field. The Vick field is maintained until the singularity of least mass is extinguished. Moreover, both the Vick limit and the Vick fields are constants, once any singularity reaches the "Vick limit" it will fail. On a cosmological scale this process is the compliment of stellar Nucleosynthesis, meaning Singulosynthesis synthesizes the H/He/D/Li of the universe in the quantities and distributions we observe. It is also the process by which the universe is expanding faster over time how it restores entropy to itself periodically over time.

Cosmic Singulosynthesis (If you are going to hijack a train, get one with a luxury car)

I argue the initial recombination epoch of the standard model which resulted in the surface of last scattering is the direct result of not one singularity failing alone but 2 or more. The initial expansion of the universe was created by the blowout from this event. If what I am saying is true, the BOA and the CMBR should allow us to create theoretical singularity failure models and entropy distribution patterns to describe the event (I have not done this, I do not own my own super computer). For at no other time in the universe has the same quantity of H/He/D/Li been synthesized without the interference of Metallicity.

What follows is not a super computer simulation (I still do not own one) but the next best thing. It is a cool story describing the young theoretic Singulosynthesis universe. After the initial event, what follows is a rapidly developing all out free for all. The first stars form, die rapidly, and the first singularities are on the scene. Binary, Triple, and quadruple systems appear all performing Singulosynthesis. This stirs up more gas and more Stars begin to form. A few front runner Singularities get ahead of the pack only to be synthesized by Singulosynthesis back down to nothing. Little packs of stars begin to form but Singulosythesis blowout tries to blow them apart. A few singularities race ahead of the pack by sucking in entire giant stars. Singularities gaining just enough mass to not perform Singulosynthesis on themselves yet synthesize the smaller ones. More stars, gas, and other smaller singularities want to orbit the larger ones now. This becomes an edge the larger singularity will likely never loose. As stellar populations increase the big dog singularity has a big appetite. When a few big dog singularities finally do meet, it will be called a Quasar.
The purpose of the cool story is to illustrate what the Standard model wants to be but never can. The process I am arguing for was profound early on and grew to nearly mimic the standard model over time.

The standard model argues that Cosmic scale gravitational lensing is attributed to “Dark Matter” halos due to its high correlation with distance galaxies we observe. I argue that the lensing is created by the remnant of a long gone singularity in the form of distorted spacetime which is only visible on those scales. These spacetime fabric distortions should correlate with galaxies because they aided in creating them.

Galactic Singulosynthesis

Standard Model argues that singularities only get larger with time on a macro scale (not discussing theoretical radiation or other entropy preservation mechanisms). Galactic Bulge mass to SMBH ratios seem to be fairly consistent in the standard model. Generically speaking, the mass of a SMBH in spirals is roughly .1 percent the mass of the entire bulge while in elliptical galaxies it appears to be .1 percent of the entire mass of the galaxy. There notable discrepancies to this rule and the standard model cannot account for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henize_2-10
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/09/21/3322710.htm#.UaOvhZwsbAQ

Singulosynthesis can easily create such a galaxy. Singulosynthesis cosmology has no Dark Matter and drastic blow outs can occur even in the early universe. I have searched for active binary singularity mass over time data, I was not surprised to find that none existed. It is my conclusion that this would be the best direct evidence to determine if something counterintuitive like Singulosynthesis may be occurring.

Galactic Singulosynthesis and Metallicity

The Standard Model argues that Metallicity increases over time. I argue with Singulosynthesis that Metallicity will generally increase over time and periodically bump down. This is proving difficult to quantify because no 2 galaxies are exactly alike and witnessing the full process is inherently impractical. Right now there no irrefutable data that either completely refutes nor bolsters the concepts behind Singulosynthesis Theory.

http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2009/35/aa11756-09/aa11756-09.html
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/research/Galaxies.shtml

According to the standard model, metallicity of spiral galaxies decreases gradually as you move away from the core and metallicity of Elliptical galaxies decreases rapidly as you move away from the core. My concept of Singulosynthesis cosmology agrees with this. Compared to the mass of the galaxies in a merger the amount of fresh H/He/D/Li predicted by Singulosynthesis is quite small. Due to Star formation and the violent blowout from Singulosynthesis itself, mature galaxy mergers are proving to be a poor laboratory. There will be nothing like a Population III type star forming in the center of a mature galaxy where this is taking place. Without direct proof of fresh H/He/D/Li being synthesized in the necessary quantities, Singulosyntheis is in a bit of a pickle. Until better observations of the Metallicity of the very youngest galaxies are made I will be stuck with indirect evidence I can only predict there should be an increasing metallicity discrepancy between the Singulosynthesis model and the Standard model in the young universe. Meaning Metallicity should increase later under Singulosynthesis theory than is predicted under the standard model in the young universe.

Thanks if you read this!

Jimmy Vick
Send message
Joined: 21 May 13
Posts: 38
Credit: 19,740
RAC: 0
Message 13002 - Posted: 29 May 2013, 13:33:11 UTC

During a merger blowout from old accretion disks should clear away old material. If singulosynthesis is real it could play a role in the creation of a new disk. If that is the case singulosynthesis would predict accretion disk metallicity would appear lower over time when compared to the metallicity of the galaxy core. If such a pattern exits...
____________

Jimmy Vick
Send message
Joined: 21 May 13
Posts: 38
Credit: 19,740
RAC: 0
Message 13005 - Posted: 30 May 2013, 2:36:05 UTC

A few changes... like anybody cares...
1. I think what we perceive as "Dark Matter" are actually Singularities from early cosmic respiration
2. Added Theory of Cosmic Respiration
3. Got rid of some nonsense and added a story... it stars Chris Farley and John Candy!
Sorry If there aren't any proofs for failing singularities... focusing on theory and observations... I have a job...


What I see as some of the bigger Big Bang Nucleosynthesis Cosmology Problems:
1. The universe is not homogenous enough on large scales to produce what we see based on the standard model: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/11/largest-structure-in-universe-discovered/ moreover, even if it was galaxies still cannot be formed fast enough.
2. The Galaxy and Super Massive Black Hole Co Evolution Paradox: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/09/21/3322710.htm#.UaPvKJwsbAR
3. The necessity for 26.8 percent of the universe mass to be Dark Matter http://phys.org/news/2012-04-dark-theories-mysterious-lack-sun.html
4. The necessity for 68.3 percent of the universe mass to be Dark Energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Energy
5. Missing Metals and other problems http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?74565-Evolution-of-Galaxies-amp-Metallicity

The following is not meant to be a proof nor is it meant to be. It is an argument based on observation and rational descent that is fundamentally contrary to the standard model. To prove it completely, I would need some assistance. I am going to argue that Dark Energy and Dark Matter (actually I think they are singularities now) are no more than a modern day version of Ether. Concepts of man that have been created to fill the gaps for the unknown until it can be known. I am going to share with you some observations, perceptions, and ideas. Right now the best I can do is change out these 2 place holders with 2 of my own. It would only take one or two really solid observation to refute or promote my ideas. I will do my best to fairly represent the standard model ideas and make it clear when I am presenting my own.

If you are a singularity entropy destroyer like Hawking then everything I am getting to is pointless. If however you try to preserve the entropy of a singularity in any way (realizing we do not have an adequate physics model for a singularity let alone method to describe it) you run into a horrible problem in the event of a singularity merger. My argument is that built into the universe must be a natural abortion process to keep this from happening. The most reasonable solution being the very gravity creating the problem will ultimately solve it. If singularities must abort each other by their very nature, you can see exactly where I am going with this. The universe did not begin with a single self-destructing singularity, I argue it was generated in a process by the abortion of 2 or more. Producing everything we see and concealing a process that has been until now out of mankind’s collective perception. I argue this process still occurs with every singularity merger albeit on a smaller scale than the initial event. To describe this new theoretical process I have created 2 simple place holders that are arguably as real as Dark Energy or Dark Matter. “The Vick Limit” and “The Vick Field” are simply being used to describe something nobody has thought of to my knowledge.

Singulosynthesis: Is my framework for a theoretical process by which binary gravitational singularities progressively distort each other under tidal forces. Once sufficient symmetry loss is achieved (based on the mass) the Vick limit is reached and simultaneously the Vick field is achieved. The Vick limit signals the end of the singularity and the beginning of Singulosynthesis. It is the point at which the very gravity of a singularity has turned against it. During Singulosynthesis contents of the former singularity are ejected asymmetrically. Upon ejection, contents escaping inherit new properties from the distorted entropy. The distribution of the entropy of a singularity when it fails is the Vick field. The Vick field is maintained until the singularity of least mass is extinguished. Moreover, both the Vick limit and the Vick fields are constants, once any singularity reaches the "Vick limit" it will fail. On a cosmological scale this process is the compliment of stellar Nucleosynthesis, meaning Singulosynthesis synthesizes the H/He/D/Li of the universe in the quantities and distributions we observe. It is also the process by which the universe is expanding faster over time how it restores entropy to itself periodically over time.

Singularity Failure: Since everything I am working on relies so greatly on this concept I figured I would record some ideas. I must repeat I do not own a supercomputer and the computer between my ears is more of a Commodore 64… Singularities are like overweight comedians… Chris Farley says “Feed me I’m starving!” So… I stuff cupcakes in his face and he replies “Yum those were good!” Then I stuff an old Chevy in his face and he says “Yum that was good!” Then I stuff some neutron stars in his face. And sure enough “Yum that was really good!” Then John Candy walks in the room… Chris looks at me and says “I can’t eat that!” I ask, “Why?” Chris says, “I just can’t!” Mr. Candy starts to walk up to Chris. Chris says, “Get away dude…. I’m not hungry anymore.” Mr. Candy grabs Chris by the hands and starts spin him around…. Chris says “Dude….!” And then proceeds to barf up some really weird stuff.

There must be something about the presence of two gravitational singularities that makes them not get along. On top of everything the mind wants to make the list shorter than it probably is. Gravity says “I gotta do what I gotta do” and spacetime says “I’m right with ya”. So here is the big list.
1. Spacetime while flexible might not handle being contorted so well even with gravity behaving normally (pure speculation, possibly becoming rigid at a point or micro tearing or some other unknown limit)
2. Gravity cannot do what it has to do due to Asymmetry with spacetime behaving normally (considering the role of symmetry creating the singularity I cannot see how Asymmetry cannot be involved with in undoing it)
3. A combination of effects leading to a runaway instability. The demands made by both gravity and spacetime on each other become too great. Matter and Entropy do whatever they can to get out of this mess.
My gut tells me it is #3…. Ultimately, all of gravitational singularities greatest strengths will become its greatest weaknesses.

Cosmic Singulosynthesis (If you are going to hijack a train, get one with a luxury car)
I argue the initial recombination epoch of the standard model which resulted in the surface of last scattering is the direct result of not one singularity failing alone but 2 or more. Following this begins cosmic respiration. If what I am saying is true, the BOA and the CMBR should allow us to create theoretical singularity failure models and entropy distribution patterns to describe the event (I have not done this, I do not own my own super computer). For at no other time in the universe has the same quantity of H/He/D/Li been synthesized without the interference of Metallicity.

What follows is not a super computer simulation (I still do not own one) but the next best thing. It is a cool story describing the young theoretic Singulosynthesis universe. After the initial event, what follows is a rapidly developing all out free for all. The first stars form, die rapidly, and the first singularities are on the scene. Binary, Triple, and quadruple systems appear all performing Singulosynthesis. This stirs up more gas and more Stars begin to form. A few front runner Singularities get ahead of the pack only to be synthesized by Singulosynthesis back down to nothing. More and more stars form. More and more singularities form. The universe is boiling…. Millions to Billions, Billions to Trillions, and on, it begins to boil over. Little packs of stars begin to gather, some gather around a large singularity and others small ones. A few singularities race ahead of the pack by sucking in entire giant stars. Singularities gaining just enough mass to not perform Singulosynthesis on themselves yet synthesize the smaller ones. More stars, gas, and other smaller singularities want to orbit the larger ones now. This becomes an edge the larger singularity will likely never loose. As stellar populations increase the big dog singularity has a big appetite. When a few big dog singularities finally do meet, it will be called a Quasar.

The purpose of the cool story is to illustrate what the Standard model wants to be but never can. The process I am arguing for was profound early on and grew to nearly mimic the standard model over time.

The standard model argues that Cosmic scale gravitational lensing is attributed to “Dark Matter” halos due to its high correlation with distance galaxies we observe... While I have no models to speak of yet, I speculate there may be far more singularities in the universe than anyone could have ever imagined.

Theory of Cosmic Respiration

Singulosynthesis gets it started. This is followed by a period of high cosmic respiration, Nucleosynthesis kicks off more Singulosynthesis and by recycling entropy the universe develops rapidly. As the universe boils over a transition occurs, Nucleosynthesis increases and Singulosynthesis decreases. The cosmic rate of Singulosynthesis has decreased so much up until now all we can see are the results.

Galactic Singulosynthesis

Standard Model argues that singularities only get larger with time on a macro scale (not discussing theoretical radiation or other entropy preservation mechanisms). Galactic Bulge mass to SMBH ratios seem to be fairly consistent in the standard model. Generically speaking, the mass of a SMBH in spirals is roughly .1 percent the mass of the entire bulge while in elliptical galaxies it appears to be .1 percent of the entire mass of the galaxy. There notable discrepancies to this rule and the standard model cannot account for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henize_2-10
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/09/21/3322710.htm#.UaOvhZwsbAQ

Singulosynthesis can easily predict such a galaxy or blackholes with no galaxy for that matter. Singulosynthesis can also solve the G dwarf problem since it can create H/He/D/Li needed for new stars whenever. I have searched for active binary singularity mass over time data; I was not surprised to find that none existed. It is my conclusion that this would be the best direct evidence to determine if something counterintuitive like Singulosynthesis may be occurring.

Galactic Singulosynthesis and Metallicity

The Standard Model argues that Metallicity increases over time. I argue with Singulosynthesis that Metallicity will generally increase over time and periodically bump down periodically. This is proving difficult to quantify because no 2 galaxies are exactly alike and witnessing the full process is inherently impractical. Right now there no irrefutable data that either completely refutes nor bolsters the concepts behind Singulosynthesis Theory.

http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2009/35/aa11756-09/aa11756-09.html
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/research/Galaxies.shtml

According to the standard model, metallicity of spiral galaxies decreases gradually as you move away from the core and metallicity of Elliptical galaxies decreases rapidly as you move away from the core. My concept of Singulosynthesis cosmology agrees with this. Compared to the mass of the galaxies in a core merger the amount of fresh H/He/D/Li predicted by Singulosynthesis is quite small. Due to Star formation and violent blowouts from accretion disks, mature galaxy mergers are proving to be a difficult laboratory. Blowouts of old accretion disks do open a bit of a window for direct Singulosynthesis observation in a binary core merger. Singulosynthesis under the right conditions could help establish a new accretion disk that is lower in metals. That is only if the Singularities are the right mass; there is a mass and proximity window for the process I just do not know what it is yet. If the mass discrepancy of the 2 Singularities is too great, any new material would potentially get added to the larger Singularity with no hope of detection. There will be nothing like a Population III type star forming in the center of a mature galaxy where this is taking place. To find direct proof of fresh H/He/D/Li being synthesized in the necessary quantities, dwarf galaxies and planetary mass Singulosynthesis events might be the best bet. Until better observations of the Metallicity of the very youngest galaxies are made I will be stuck with tough hunt and piling on indirect evidence.

I can only predict there should be an increasing metallicity discrepancy between the Singulosynthesis model and the Standard model in the young universe. Meaning Metallicity should increase later under Singulosynthesis theory than is predicted under the standard model in the young universe.


Jimmy Vick
Send message
Joined: 21 May 13
Posts: 38
Credit: 19,740
RAC: 0
Message 13013 - Posted: 1 Jun 2013, 3:49:54 UTC - in response to Message 13005.

The time is now..... new update... new stuff.... Added sugar to the Grape Kool Aid

The path to understanding the Rational Universe:
What I see as some of the bigger Big Bang Nucleosynthesis Cosmology Problems:
1.The universe is not homogenous enough on large scales to produce what we see based on the standard model: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/11/largest-structure-in-universe-discovered/ moreover, even if it was galaxies still cannot be formed fast enough.
2.The Galaxy and Super Massive Black Hole Co Evolution Paradox: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/09/21/3322710.htm#.UaPvKJwsbAR
3.The necessity for 26.8 percent of the universe mass to be Dark Matter http://phys.org/news/2012-04-dark-theories-mysterious-lack-sun.html
4.The necessity for 68.3 percent of the universe mass to be Dark Energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Energy
5.Missing Metals and other problems http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?74565-Evolution-of-Galaxies-amp-Metallicity

The following is an argument based on observation and rational descent that is fundamentally contrary to the standard model. To prove it completely, I would need some assistance. In the process I will also put forth the most rational solution to discovering rational truth if the universe is indeed rational. I am going to argue that Dark Energy is no more than a modern day version of Ether and that Dark Matter are likely singularities (I use this in place of black hole because it sounds better frankly). I am going to share with you some observations, perceptions, ideas, and crappy stories in place of computer simulations.

If you destroy entropy/information (I will just call it entropy from now on) with singularities like Hawking used to, everything I put forth in this argument is inherently irrational. Then again, a universe created from such an entity would also seem equally irrational. If however you try to preserve the entropy of a singularity because it is rational to do so, you run into a horrible problem in the event of a singularity merger. The entropy of a singularity is in a quasi-state of equilibrium and no two are identical. Meaning it is trying to reach a state of equilibrium however material always keeps getting added. My argument is that built into a perceivable universe that is rational must be a natural process to keep the entropies of two singularities from merging before whatever they represent does. A rational universe is committed so conserving information. How do you prevent a gravitational singularity merger? The “standard model” says you don’t, they just get bigger. Isn’t that irrational? The most rational solution is the very gravity, mass, space-time, entropy, and situation creating the problem will ultimately solve it. If singularities must abort each other by their very nature because it is rational, you can see exactly where I am going with this. The universe did not begin with a single rational or irrational self-destructing singularity (I am doing the standard model a favor here, this is actually the one consensus they do not have a consensus on); I argue it was generated in a process by the abortion of 2 or more. Producing everything we see and concealing a process that has been until now out of mankind’s collective perception. I argue this process still occurs with every singularity merger albeit on a smaller scale than the initial event. To describe this new theoretical process I have created 3 simple theoretical place holders that are arguably as real as Dark Energy, Dark Matter (which I suspect are more singularities), or any other standard model constant at this point. Yes, I just put every man made constant in history up for grabs. “The Vick Principle”, “The Vick Limit”, and “The Vick Field” are simply being used to describe something nobody has thought of to my knowledge.

Singulosynthesis: “The Vick Principle” states that in a perceivable and rational universe the entropy of a singularity must be preserved. In a binary singularity merger once sufficient symmetry loss (Instability) is achieved (based on the mass) the “Vick limit” is reached and simultaneously the “Vick field” is achieved. The Vick limit signals the end of the singularity and the beginning of Singulosynthesis. It is the point at which the binary singularities turn against each other. During Singulosynthesis contents of the former singularity are ejected from the system. Upon ejection, contents escaping inherit new properties from the distorted entropy (this does not have a name yet, was leaning toward Genesis). The distribution of the entropy of a singularity when it fails is the Vick field. The Vick field is maintained until the singularity of least mass is extinguished. Moreover, both the Vick limit and the Vick fields are constants, once any singularity reaches the "Vick limit" it will fail. On a cosmological scale this process is the compliment of the standard models stellar Nucleosynthesis, meaning Singulosynthesis synthesizes what we now “describe” as H/He/D/Li (by the standard model) of the universe in the quantities and distributions we observe. It is also the process by which the universe recycles entropy periodically over time.
This is the point at which using standard model methods, graphs, new constants, formulas, and math I describe this event propel mankind into a new paradigm….. I want us to stop and ponder that… Is that rational? You want me to use “standard model” methods that cannot even accurately describe the exterior of a singularity (our reality) to describe the interior of two failing ones? Is that rational? The standard model can only “jump the shark” when it comes to this scenario.

From this moment forward, there is a path to truth and man will need to set some things aside to get what he wants most. The unknown realm we must explore presupposes the one we live in and have built our knowledge on, and is in fact doubling down the illusion to our perception. How then shall we proceed? We must simulate binary failing singularity scenarios until they teach us what our physics and description of reality should be.
1.Set aside the “standard model” It should be looked at as dubiously as the Donner Party should have looked at The Emigrants’ Guide had they known what was to come. At least to begin with, it will come into play later.
2.Make no assumptions about anything (even this big E)
3.Get some brilliant minds together (Ted I need to get in shape again)
4.Look over the variables and generate theoretical limits
a. 2 Black holes of adequate mass with identical properties
b. Space-time with various thresholds
c. Gravity with various thresholds
d. Theoretical Entropy models
e. Theoretical collapse rates
f. Simulated Theoretical matter
g. Simulated Magnetic fields
5.Get some super computers – Just as a point of reference, a type 1a supernova simulation took 128k processors 60k hours to make.
6.Run merging simulations until we get something that looks like “standard model” H/He/D/Li and determine if the standard model is even applicable anymore. Learn all the physics we never knew….
7.Once we are confident the computer has taught us what our new physics should be. Reproduce the “old standard model Nucleosynthesis” with the “new Nucleosynthesis physics” and verify.
8.Simulate the universe are it actually is until the simulation simulates you… “The End” and go play some Diablo 3.
9.Once we are confident we are in a new era of understanding, I go to Casa D’s in Bellevue to get one of their Chorizo burritos.

To begin the first steps into this era of understanding, here is the first simulation:
Singularity Failure Simulation #1: I have no formal models yet, so in place of singularities I will use overweight comedians… Chris Farley says “Feed me I’m starving!” So… I stuff cupcakes in his face and he replies “Yum those were good!” Then I stuff an old Chevy in his face and he says “Yum that was good!” Then I stuff some neutron stars in his face. And sure enough “Yum that was really good!” Then John Candy walks in the room… Chris looks at me and says “I can’t eat that!” I ask, “Why?” Chris says, “I just can’t!” Mr. Candy starts to walk up to Chris. Chris says, “Get away dude…. I’m not hungry anymore.” Mr. Candy grabs Chris by the hands and starts spin him around…. Chris says “Dude….!”

Results from Simulation #1: Chris ejected some strange material results inconclusive.

Ok I will try to be serious again….
There must be something about the presence of two gravitational singularities that makes them not get along. On top of everything the mind wants to make the list shorter than it probably is. Gravity says “I gotta do what I gotta do” and spacetime says “I’m right with ya”. So here is the big list as it sits right now.
1. Spacetime while flexible might not handle being contorted so well even with gravity behaving normally (pure speculation, possibly becoming rigid at a point or micro tearing or some other unknown limit)
2. Gravity cannot do what it has to do, due to Asymmetry with spacetime behaving normally (considering the role of symmetry creating the singularity I cannot see how Asymmetry cannot be involved with in undoing it)
3. A combination of effects leading to a runaway instability. The demands made by both gravity and spacetime on each other become too great. Matter and Entropy do whatever they can to get out of this mess, following the path of least resistance.
My gut tells me it is #3…. Ultimately, I think strengths will become weaknesses in the end.
Cosmic Singulosynthesis (If you are going to hijack a train, get one with a luxury car and some babes)

I argue the initial recombination epoch of the standard model which resulted in the surface of last scattering is the direct result of not one singularity failing alone but 2 or more. Following this begins cosmic respiration. The Quasi equilibrium state of the initial singularities should have some correlation to the semi homogeneous appearance of CMBR and young universe. If what I am saying is true, the BOA and the CMBR should allow us to create theoretical singularity failure models and entropy distribution patterns to describe the event (I have not done this, I do not own my own super computer). For at no other time in the universe has the same quantity of H/He/D/Li (as the standard model calls them) been synthesized without the interference of Metallicity.

What follows is not a super computer simulation (I still do not own one) but the next best thing. It is a cool story describing the young theoretic Singulosynthesis universe. After the initial event, what follows is a rapidly developing all out free for all. The first stars form, die rapidly, and the first singularities are on the scene. Binary, Triple, and quadruple systems appear all performing Singulosynthesis. This stirs up more gas and more Stars begin to form. A few front runner Singularities get ahead of the pack only to be synthesized by Singulosynthesis back down to nothing. More and more stars form. More and more singularities form. The universe is boiling…. Millions to Billions, Billions to Trillions, and on, it begins to boil over. Little packs of stars begin to gather, some gather around a large singularity and others small ones. A few singularities race ahead of the pack by sucking in entire giant stars. Singularities gaining just enough mass to not perform Singulosynthesis on themselves yet synthesize the smaller ones. More stars, gas, and other smaller singularities want to orbit the larger ones now. This becomes an edge the larger singularity will likely never loose. As stellar populations increase the big dog singularity has a big appetite. When a few big dog singularities finally do meet, it will be called a Quasar.

The purpose of the cool story is to illustrate what the Standard model wants to be but never can. The process I am arguing for was profound early on and grew to nearly mimic the standard model over time.

The standard model argues that cosmic scale gravitational lensing is attributed to “Dark Matter” halos due to its high correlation with distance galaxies we observe... While I have no models to speak of yet, I speculate there may be far more singularities in the universe than anyone could have ever imagined.

Theory of Cosmic Respiration

Singulosynthesis gets it started. This is followed by a period of high cosmic respiration, Nucleosynthesis kicks off more Singulosynthesis and by recycling entropy the universe develops rapidly. As the universe boils over a transition occurs, Nucleosynthesis increases and Singulosynthesis decreases. The cosmic rate of Singulosynthesis has decreased so much up until now all we can see are the results.

Galactic Singulosynthesis

Standard Model argues that singularities only get larger with time on a macro scale (not discussing theoretical radiation or other entropy preservation mechanisms). Galactic Bulge mass to SMBH ratios seem to be fairly consistent in the standard model. Generically speaking, the mass of a SMBH in spirals is roughly .1 percent the mass of the entire bulge while in elliptical galaxies it appears to be .1 percent of the entire mass of the galaxy. There notable discrepancies to this rule and the standard model cannot account for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henize_2-10
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/09/21/3322710.htm#.UaOvhZwsbAQ

Singulosynthesis can easily predict such a galaxy or black holes with no galaxy for that matter. Singulosynthesis can also solve the G dwarf problem since it can create H/He/D/Li (what the standard model calls them) needed for new stars whenever. I have searched for active binary singularity mass over time data; I was not surprised to find that none existed. It is my conclusion that this would be the best direct evidence to determine if something counterintuitive like Singulosynthesis may be occurring.

Galactic Singulosynthesis and Metallicity

The Standard Model argues that Metallicity increases over time. I argue with Singulosynthesis that Metallicity will generally increase over time and periodically bump down periodically. This is proving difficult to quantify because no 2 galaxies are exactly alike and witnessing the full process is inherently impractical. Right now there no irrefutable data that either completely refutes nor bolsters the concepts behind Singulosynthesis Theory.

http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2009/35/aa11756-09/aa11756-09.html
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/research/Galaxies.shtml

According to the standard model, metallicity of spiral galaxies decreases gradually as you move away from the core and metallicity of Elliptical galaxies decreases rapidly as you move away from the core. My concept of Singulosynthesis cosmology agrees with this. Compared to the mass of the galaxies in a core merger the amount of fresh H/He/D/Li (as the standard model calls them) predicted by Singulosynthesis is quite small. Due to Star formation and violent blowouts from accretion disks, mature galaxy mergers are proving to be a difficult laboratory. Blowouts of old accretion disks do open a bit of a window for direct Singulosynthesis observation in a binary core merger. Singulosynthesis under the right conditions could help establish a new accretion disk that is lower in metals. That is only if the Singularities are the right mass; there is a mass and proximity window for the process I just do not know what it is yet. If the mass discrepancy of the 2 Singularities is too great, any new material would potentially get added to the larger Singularity with no hope of detection. There will be nothing like a Population III type star forming in the center of a mature galaxy where this is taking place. To find direct proof of fresh H/He/D/Li (as the standard model calls them) being synthesized in the necessary quantities, dwarf galaxies and planetary mass Singulosynthesis events might be the best bet. Until better observations of the Metallicity of the very youngest galaxies are made I will be stuck with tough hunt and piling on indirect evidence.

I can only predict there should be an increasing metallicity discrepancy between the Singulosynthesis model and the Standard model in the young universe. Meaning Metallicity should increase later under Singulosynthesis theory than is predicted under the standard model in the young universe.

Back in the day when astronomers weren’t under house arrest built their own telescopes and did research. Later on, Kings and whatnot liked to pimp their astronomers out. In the glory days the awesome philanthropists came forward and financed things in pursuit of greater truth. Today it is not the same. Observations are made and papers are written to “improve” the knowledge and advancement of the standard model. Because this keeps the money flowing. From time to time I see work on papers with anomalies that could be pro standard model or pro Cosmic Respiration in nature. However because I’m human and I know human nature I have a feeling… I suspect there is a drawer with no name or folder on a computer drive labeled “WTF” in many observatories around the world, people know it has some value data but cannot figure out what it could mean. Most importantly of all… it would be difficult or impossible for the standard model to explain it. If you have read this far and know what I mean, the time is now…

If I get disappeared or institutionalized you will know the truth.

Jimmy Vick
Send message
Joined: 21 May 13
Posts: 38
Credit: 19,740
RAC: 0
Message 13014 - Posted: 1 Jun 2013, 5:02:26 UTC

I have been also posting this madness on facebook and the few other sites that will let me. I have encountered heavy censorship from the establishments that are more concerned with preserving mediocrity. I have kept a copyright record with legalzoom so nobody can take credit.... it isnt about that anyway.... I want the truth to be known and found...

Jimmy Vick

Jimmy Vick
Send message
Joined: 21 May 13
Posts: 38
Credit: 19,740
RAC: 0
Message 13015 - Posted: 2 Jun 2013, 8:10:58 UTC - in response to Message 13014.

Here we go... I named all the major variables after myself not to be Mr. Universe (greatest pun ever) but to accept responsibility if the idea did not pan out... I picked them early on and rapidly. I did not realize the full implications of what I was doing.... If this thing comes together... The major variables will be named after the inspirations that led to them. They actually sound really good!

"The Vick Principle" will become the "The Susskind Principle"
"The Vick Limit" will become the "The Hawking Limit"
"The Vick Field" may become "The Titan Field" for my high school or after the name of the team that proves it exists.
"Genesis" will stay "Genesis" if it exists because.... it is what the Torpedo from Star Trek 2 the Wrath of Khan did and other reasons.

Jimmy Vick
Send message
Joined: 21 May 13
Posts: 38
Credit: 19,740
RAC: 0
Message 13016 - Posted: 2 Jun 2013, 9:37:34 UTC - in response to Message 13015.


"The Vick Principle" will become the "The Susskind Principle"
"The Vick Limit" will become the "The Hawking Limit"
"The Vick Field" may become "The Titan Field" for my high school or after the name of the team that proves it exists.
"Genesis" will stay "Genesis" if it exists because.... it is what the Torpedo from Star Trek 2 the Wrath of Khan did and other reasons.
"The Einstein Effect" signals the return of space time to non black hole state
"The Ted Effect" signals the return of matter and entropy to a non black hole state (potentially creating a neutron star) not sure yet. There might be more to that if binary Neutron Stars were actually once large Binary stars of roughly equal age and mass. Both forming Black Holes of roughly equal mass processing each other down by Singulosynthesis to form binary neutron stars...

Jimmy Vick
Send message
Joined: 21 May 13
Posts: 38
Credit: 19,740
RAC: 0
Message 13023 - Posted: 5 Jun 2013, 3:32:19 UTC - in response to Message 13016.
Last modified: 5 Jun 2013, 3:33:12 UTC

ROFL! Glad you guys aren;t crazy...

The Admin from http://cosmoquest.org/forum/forum.php named tusenfem is also @fishdontfeelpain on http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=01e_1370081244

The dude has MAJOR issues, he is taking my posts on liveleak and selectively posting bits on cosmoquest under my account to make me look like an idiot. He is also selectively hiding my better stuff and selectively editing my existing material...

Guess my idea sucks really bad... well back to working on the simulation specs...

Always love seeing these unsolved mysteries... http://www.universetoday.com/102011/hydrogen-clouds-discovered-between-andromeda-and-triangulum-galaxies/

Jimmy Vick
Send message
Joined: 21 May 13
Posts: 38
Credit: 19,740
RAC: 0
Message 13035 - Posted: 8 Jun 2013, 5:37:40 UTC

How did Freddy Kruger put it? Oh yes, it was "You got the body and I got the brain."

I am sure those interested in my ideas come back hoping to see some math.... That is my ultimate goal. The universe is a riddle that can be expressed with math... The key is solving as much of the entire riddle as possible, then doing the math... Continually doing this over and time. Again and again.

In my first argument I was throwing everyone under the bus to demonstrate there is still very much a riddle to solve. The majority of individuals don't know there is a riddle or if they do, they don't care. Aside from these meatheads is a small minority of individuals that know there is a riddle and care about solving it as much as possible.

Most people who care about solving it assume the beginning and end of the riddle are already known. As observations are made, math and concepts are created to fit them into the "agreed" boundaries of the riddle. Can this method lead to the best possible or right answer to a riddle? Observations over time adding information to the riddle should be considered in the riddles entirety over time.

My riddle solving and work is far ahead of what I have shared. I am prepared to share no more. I am trying to make sure I know as much of the riddle as possible and the best possible answer possible. This is rapidly in development. This will then be followed by the math. I have created a formal Philosophical argument regarding the role of Black Holes (singularities) in the universe and copyrighted it. What I have expressed so far here is meant to entice some out of the box "non standard model" thinking. It was not meant for "peer review" and is ultimately useless by itself. If you could see the bits of the riddle solving I have not shared, you wouldn't believe how awesome the universe really is...

Not going to pull a Henry Comstock (reference to the Comstock Lode) send me a message if you are interested in hearing about my work....

Jimmy Vick
Send message
Joined: 21 May 13
Posts: 38
Credit: 19,740
RAC: 0
Message 13058 - Posted: 14 Jun 2013, 1:39:55 UTC - in response to Message 13035.

So... 68 percent of the universe is dark energy or recycled entropy...

Jimmy Vick
Send message
Joined: 21 May 13
Posts: 38
Credit: 19,740
RAC: 0
Message 13106 - Posted: 26 Jun 2013, 16:46:00 UTC - in response to Message 13058.

I have made updates to my argument regarding the implications of conserving physical information in the horizon of a black hole. It can be found on the timeline of my facebook page. It should be easy enough to find. Please let me know if you find any of my reasoning irrational or refutable.

Jimmy Vick
Send message
Joined: 21 May 13
Posts: 38
Credit: 19,740
RAC: 0
Message 13117 - Posted: 29 Jun 2013, 2:40:05 UTC - in response to Message 13106.

Einstein's Deterministic Universe Project = under way...

Jimmy Vick
Send message
Joined: 21 May 13
Posts: 38
Credit: 19,740
RAC: 0
Message 13119 - Posted: 29 Jun 2013, 23:49:02 UTC - in response to Message 13117.

I shared the latest version (I am juggling the argument and 10 other things related to it) of my argument with a gentleman who has an undergrad degree in physics last night. Being an open minded fellow he read it all without making an judgement. He proceeded to make his objections to my idea in turn. After a follow up discussion I made some things clear to him regarding his objections and he left extremely disturbed. He told me he would think it over and get back to me. He is a strong person and the fairest I have spoken to. Many of my own friends with computer science and physics degrees cannot finish reading my argument to even discuss it.

Jimmy Vick
Send message
Joined: 21 May 13
Posts: 38
Credit: 19,740
RAC: 0
Message 13121 - Posted: 30 Jun 2013, 20:39:41 UTC - in response to Message 13119.

Big mystery here I tell ya.... http://news.discovery.com/space/galaxies/black-hole-unleashes-supermassive-belch-130108.htm

Jimmy Vick
Send message
Joined: 21 May 13
Posts: 38
Credit: 19,740
RAC: 0
Message 13127 - Posted: 1 Jul 2013, 7:32:56 UTC - in response to Message 13121.

This animation is awesome... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80HkL3EF2tc

Jimmy Vick
Send message
Joined: 21 May 13
Posts: 38
Credit: 19,740
RAC: 0
Message 13128 - Posted: 1 Jul 2013, 23:46:16 UTC - in response to Message 13127.

My idea must be crap.... The Giga Society contacted me.... I have to cook up something respect able now.... I think I am going to hit them with humor... I got stories for days.... Wanna hear one?

Jimmy Vick
Send message
Joined: 21 May 13
Posts: 38
Credit: 19,740
RAC: 0
Message 13129 - Posted: 1 Jul 2013, 23:46:16 UTC - in response to Message 13127.

My idea must be crap.... The Giga Society contacted me.... I have to cook up something respect able now.... I think I am going to hit them with humor... I got stories for days.... Wanna hear one?

1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Cosmology and Astronomy : Singulosynthesis - Really wish I could take Fred Hoyle out for a beer...