Misgivings on the big bang idea
When one endeavors to produce written articles, something of your self does indeed carry worth onto that produced which shines out to most readers as tell tale spoor.
Now what kind of opening statement is that for a paper on physics? Well for some time now, the quality of input or lack of it, in the various message boards that I visit has provoked me. I have decided that it is time to pick a fight with not just the type of ideas presented but with the way in which they are presented as well. This approach has several objectives in mind, one is to have people bring scrutiny to not just the ideas that some mull over or support, but more so as to how folks really are formulating these ideas. Taking issue with the goofy way in which some engage in dialogue may be what is necessary to have folk truly think for themselves. The best hoped for result would be to render an example of real cognition and real hypothesis both of which are severely lacking in what I have been seeing of late.
Let's for a moment try and list the numerous ways or at least some of the qualities of the ways people present subjects and topics.
1) The writer pushes a "shtick" from a some what irrational emotional and not well thought out viewpoint and commitment to "feel good" premise.
2) The writer, submitting to current opinion, placates to the fear of being perceived as "to off track" "not mainstream" by the prevailing beliefs.
3) The writer with much blackboard hand waving bullies the reader with so called "gospel-truth" "ivory-tower" unassailable notions, which amounts to the promotion of a mythology.
The best hoped for result of all of the above is extrapolation, which is not very good at all and is not science. In fact the business of science is hypothesis to overthrow the false axiomatic naive notions we all are susceptible to. Now that said how can one go forth with the presentation of ideas (particularly Cold Fusion) without taking all this in to account, at least try to surmount some of it, and call it science? If that were not bad enough, add to this situation the fact the people quipping these trite remarks have no grounding in the study of human history. A sad state of affairs, might this humble author, yours truly, make a dent?
I shall try.
Needed now more than ever is good dialogue between theoreticians, laymen and engineers that cross-pollinates so to speak populations with ideas about Fusion, Cold Fusion, and Nuclear energy in general. We are doomed to repeat the dark ages if a shift to new more efficient energy systems is not made, regardless of whether political or monetarist power structures aid this transition or hinder it. Cold Fusion is what I really want to talk about and perhaps if the time is right, the launching of a new branch of science called Nucleonics, the purpose of which is to breach the gulf between Chemistry and Particle Physics, and indeed it is a gulf. However, there are some things that have to be cleared up first. Let us start with "Dark Matter"; how much is out there? Can we see it? What are the limitations in the techniques to
Measure it? Or is this "dark matter" stuff simply theoretical?
I cordially await your responses.
Nice to see the banter rolling along.
I would ask if any of you have given thought as to the shape of the object associated with the dark gravitational singularity(black hole). In past I have referred to such as "Brown Donuts" or "Dark Donuts". I have not had great success with this metaphor, to much knee-jerk reaction.
None the less, I would report to you these mis-givings;
Would angular momentum accumulate as matter is drawn in, is this not what we see with these X-ray Pulsars?
Would we not expect a null region at the center of such dense aggregates of matter that accumulate rotation?
Is there a reason that we would conclude that rotational inertia becomes insignificant in the presence of such powerful gravitation or is this erroneous.