Hello, /sci/, no dark matter guy here again. This is why I

Yeah, no. Misinformed as always.

Current cosmology does not include any mention of a primordial singularity. That is an outdated idea. You're debating a strawman.

As to why the universe kept expanding the the very early universe that can be solved by looking at it today, it's flat. If it's flat today it was flat at all times under standard cosmology so at all times it was able to expand forever and overcome it's gravity. Because it was flat there is no global curvature and because there is no global curvature it never forms a black hole. So your whole premise is wrong.

Dark energy is the late time effect in cosmology. It did not have an effect in the very early universe. Unless you're proposing some radial equation of state but then I request a demonstration it works within current constraints.

You cannot do cosmology in words. Learn some real cosmology and start with the Friedmann equations.

>>8128263
>radical* equation of state

Dark Matter obviously does not exist, it's just a little thing to patch up faulty formulas.

>>8128350
>obviously
That's not how science works. Unless you can explain the CMB powerspectrum, the BAO amplitude and cluster collisions without dark matter it isn't going anywhere. Dark matter predicted these things.

>>8128263

The universe is flat!

Just like the world!

>>8128263

You're conjecturing a lot of conclusions there. We know the observable universe is flat but we don't know if the shape of the universe is flat it may be closed or open.

Regardless of how the overall universe is curved the nature of mass to collapse to a black hole when it is compressed below its Schwarzschild radius is not really up for argument.

Was all the mass in the observable universe in one location at one time? If not then what was the state of the universe immediately following the big bang and how was the density and gravity of the mass not sufficient to collapse the mass into a black hole? If so then shouldn't the universe be a black hole?

Even if we allow for an infinite flat universe if we assume that all the mass of that universe will be contained in one area of less volume than its Schwarzschild sphere then current black hole theory indicates it would all collapse into a singularity.

>>8128432

Dat confirmation bias.

>>8129994
>You're conjecturing a lot of conclusions there. We know the observable universe is flat but we don't know if the shape of the universe is flat it may be closed or open.
It's a fundamental principle of cosmology that the observable universe is a representative sample of the entire universe. Otherwise you might as well argue that no physics at all can be applied to the universe.

>Regardless of how the overall universe is curved the nature of mass to collapse to a black hole when it is compressed below its Schwarzschild radius is not really up for argument.
The Schwarzschild limit does not apply to rapidly expanding matter. You are applying a static solution of the gravitational equations to something which is not static. This is what happens when you use words instead of math.

>Was all the mass in the observable universe in one location at one time?
No! Did you attempt at all to learn about cosmology before you tried to critique it? The Big Bang was not at a single location, it was everywhere in (infinite) space.

>Even if we allow for an infinite flat universe if we assume that all the mass of that universe will be contained in one area of less volume than its Schwarzschild sphere then current black hole theory indicates it would all collapse into a singularity.
No it doesn't. Learn the theory. Then come and talk.

How come no one is posting equations to back up their shit?

>>8130204
it's a """space science""" thread. here freshmen dropouts and HS students come to pretend to be scientists making smalltalk about sci fi.

fuck these threads

>>8130142

Wow.

The sample of the universe we see here can still be curved. You know how the world looks flat to the horizon even though it's curved? As long as omega is even slightly greater or less than one the universe is curved. We don't have enough data to declare that the entire universe is definitively flat.

I want to see a demonstration of how a matter can be below its schwarzschild sphere and not collapse. Mass cannot move faster than light by propulsion, so are you suggesting that inflation scattered mass far and fast enough away from each other to prevent collapse? That's about the only reasonable model I could see.

Yes the big bang occurs in all space, but models of big bang cosmology still indicate that the known universe was small and dense. There is no space that one can say was excluded from the big bang, but the fact that universal expansion exists is that everything was closer together in the past and redshift indicates that space itself is expanding. Thus models exist where the observable universe was much smaller than it is now, I've heard estimates of the universe being smaller than a proton.

File: 1-1220061%5C2533aa6e-5279-4dbf-a761-5baa1b428aef.jpg (10KB, 623x137px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 623x137px

>>8130369
>The sample of the universe we see here can still be curved. You know how the world looks flat to the horizon even though it's curved? As long as omega is even slightly greater or less than one the universe is curved.
It doesn't matter. It's close enough to 1 that it would overcome gravity.

>I want to see a demonstration of how a matter can be below its schwarzschild sphere and not collapse.
There is no event horizon in then FLRW metric. The Schwarzschild radius isn't a part of the metric. There is no intrinsic scale in the FLRW metric. I'm not sure how else I can demonstrate that.

How about you show me how a black hole collapses in flat spacetime? That's what you're suggesting is happening.

>Thus models exist where the observable universe was much smaller than it is now, I've heard estimates of the universe being smaller than a proton.

And yet you don't find it odd that nobody but you identifies this as a problem? You being a person who has no background in cosmology or GR.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/according-to-the-big-bang/

>>8131461

OK, the position that inflation in an FLRW model does appear to show that under specific conditions the universe does not collapse after the big bang. I also concede that if I were to demand evidence for an FLRW homogeneous and isotropic universe which failed to collapse due to inflation your response can be as simple as "Well here we are." However current big bang models still demand emergence from a singularity, meaning they still insist upon the breakdown of general relativity. I submit that the model I wish to present here preserves general relativity even before the big bang, as the universe I present is an infinitely dense gravitational foam of black-hole like space where mass simply does not cross event horizons because space beneath an event horizon is inverted.

If you accuse me of moving the goal posts I think I'd concede that too.

I would however like to state that the model I wish to present does produce a homogeneous and isotropic universe in the moment before the big bang. It would also produce an inflation period. But yes it does make two demands: Dark Energy and an overall positive curvature of the universe.

At some point of the expansion of the proton-universe when the space of the universe equaled the universe's schwarzschild radius dark energy would be equally spread across the entire universe in perfect balance with the gravitational forces holding it together in a highly stressed black hole density. When dark energy overcame the gravitational forces the big bang would occur across the whole of this very Isotropic and Homogeneous surface and the energy of this release would result in an inflationary period. The model I'm suggesting is not so off from FLRW inflation, but they are not the same. Still, you've made me have to make a response video. Thanks for your time.

>>8128203
>This is why I don't worry about the big bang and why you shouldn't either.
Nobody's "worried" OP.

Oh, and the video is shot vertically, so I can't take it seriously.
Got to 0:03 and closed it.

What about MOND? We discussed it two semesters before and I don't remember why it is "inferior" to DM since it does explain dynamics of galaxies.

>>8131764
>However current big bang models still demand emergence from a singularity
No they don't. We've been over this. The earliest accepted model in cosmology is inflation. There is no singularity in inflation.

>I submit that the model I wish to present here
You haven't presented a model. Words are not a model. Words are an idea at best.
What's the difference between GR in words and the ramblings of a randomer on the street? GR has mathematical machinery behind the words, it can be tested. So to can FLRW spacetime. Your words cannot.

>infinitely dense
GR breaks down.

I don't think you understand the field as well as you think. Dark energy isn't some anti-gravity force, it's a catch-all term for models which explain the apparent late time expansion of the universe. So things like this:

>When dark energy overcame the gravitational forces

Don't make any sense because in the most common and simplest model for dark energy that could never happen. A cosmological constant can only overpower gravity when the universe has expanded to do so. That's another reason why words fail.

You really do need to pick up a textbook.

>>8131821
It's inferior for a host of reasons. MOND was an attempt to fix a known observational relation in the rotation velocities of disk galaxies. It took something observational and claimed it was physical. It was ugly to begin with.

The problem is it doesn't explain anything beyond simple galaxies it's been tuned to. It doesn't explain the clustering of galaxies, it doesn't work in galaxy clusters where it requires dark matter. It doesn't do cosmology either. Cold dark matter on the other hand sails though these tests.

Further problems arise when one looks closer. To fit the dynamics in MOND you use a fitting function, within a few boundary conditions you can do whatever you like. The same fitting functions fail for different types of galaxies. The same fitting function doesn't work on the milky way and other galaxies simultaneously.

It's ugly and limited. It's probably not telling us anything physical. Dark matter on the other hand can be simulated from the simple universe we see in the cosmic microwave background to naturally form the shapes which explain the rotation of galaxies. MOND just declared it to be so with no explanation as to why or how. Because CDM can be simulated it makes many predictions.

>>8128350
What's the relationship between a stars mass before supernova and the black hole afterwards. How much non-bright matter is their from our supermassive supernova (aka quasar) going off and forming our supermassive black hole and where is it?

>>8132421
A quasar is not a supernova. It's a supermassive black hole which is acreeting material.

We know supermassive black holes couldn't account for dark matter anyway as cosmological constraints say dark matter was never normal matter.

"dark matter" is a just a science bitch's way of saying "god's will"

File: france_120114-005.png (168KB, 622x350px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 622x350px

>>8133696
Can "god's will" predict the powerspectrum? No.

Don't confuse a testable model with a handwave.

>>8133786

Let the baby have his confirmation bias.

>>8133854
And how exactly is that confirmation bias?

>>8133914

I don't doubt that there is additional gravity in galactic clusters. I also see that we have no elaborated mechanism for it. Thus in the absence of clarity we can assign whatever properties we want to 'dark matter.' I have no doubt that models will be made that match observational results because we already know what to expect by understanding galactic interactions . What we lack is a firm mechanistic explanation. In the absence of this models can be constructed to be whatever they need to be and they will fit the results because that's what they've been designed to do. Confirmation bias.

>>8133927
>I also see that we have no elaborated mechanism for it
But we do, cold dark matter. Just because there isn't a particle discovered which fits the bill doesn't mean there isn't a mechanism already described.

>Thus in the absence of clarity we can assign whatever properties we want to 'dark matter.'
That's nonsense. For example if I declare dark matter is hamsters, I can calculate the CMB powerspectrum for that. It doesn't fit. Similarly the baryon density in the early universe wouldn't fit with primordial nucleosynthesis. So it doesn't work.

>because we already know what to expect by understanding galactic interactions
And how does that relate to predicting the acoustic physics of the early universe?

>In the absence of this models can be constructed to be whatever they need to be and they will fit the results because that's what they've been designed to do.
But what you don't know is that CDM PREDICTED the shape of the powerspectrum. It was calculated before the acoustic peaks were measured. That's not confirmation bias, that's confirmation.

CDM goes beyond fitting results. It has predicted many such as the amplitude and scale of the BAO peak in the present universe before it was even detected.

>>8134036


None of that contributes to a model of the claim. I would expect predictions to be made regarding what we currently know about galactic clustering to line up with the CMB. You want to call something dark matter even though you don't know if that is what it is and because there are great and accurate predictions of what it does you're asserting extraordinary claims about what it is. All of that is confirmation of extant observation, nothing more. Mechanism or your just making an assertion. I get that we know what dark matter isn't. That's not my issue my issue is the claim that it is anything at all other than a phenomenon we can predict but cannot explain.

>>8134093
>None of that contributes to a model of the claim.
What?

>I would expect predictions to be made regarding what we currently know about galactic clustering to line up with the CMB.
I don't care what you expect, it isn't trivial. Dark matter as low mass stars for example would be consistent with clusters, it would not be consistent with the CMB however. You cannot go from clusters to the CMB without a model. Just to interpret the CMB you need a cosmology. Tell me exactly how you predict the powerspectrum from clustering without dark matter.

>You want to call something dark matter even though you don't know if that is what it is and because there are great and accurate predictions of what it does you're asserting extraordinary claims about what it is.
No. I have a model. It can fit the CMB TT powerspectrum with 6 parameters. 5 of those can be taken from other observables. Until there is a simpler model with equvalent predictive power my model is the best there is.
You don't need to know what dark matter is to model how it behaves, that is how it is tested.

> All of that is confirmation of extant observation
You're not listening. CDM made predictions before BAO or the CMB powerspectrum was observed.

>>8128203
You should really consider focusing your sights on something established enough to have a more solid and agreed upon source. Arguing against a relatively new theory that does not have a widely agreed upon source is a waste of time and energy.

Assuming you are capable of forming valid arguments, which is unusual for armchair skeptics, they will likely all be focused on different specific formulations which will all be gone in 2 years without having any impact on dark matter as a whole.

If you want to participate in "cutting-edge" science, you are going to need to learn to do the math yourself. But I'm sure you've heard that before, and hearing it again likely wont get through to you.

>>8134116

My hypothesis is so simple that all I want is for it to be tested by those with expertise. If it is wrong I can be torn up inside but I can move on but for one cross examination I want the simple claims taken seriously:

Spacetime inverts where r(s) > r
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZZ8eKhpuLM
Light cones close at event horizons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNqOnpWjBx8
The 'dark matter' phenomenon results from Einstein-Rosen Bridge geometry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxAbXmXkaR4

I don't like that the hypothesis is so simple. I don't like that I don't have a mathematical model. I don't like that I have to go out making extraordinary claims following a declaration that the current black hole model embraced by experts is wrong. I meet mostly with disdain for doing so. But it's a hypothesis. I'd want it debunked it it's wrong. If nothing else I'm learning more all the time.

All I am is another youtube crackpot on /sci/. I know that but the way I see it, for now, this is where I belong.

I don't want to participate in the cutting edge. I don't want to be a physicist. This is nothing but an investigation. I went looking for something wrong in physics and I think I found it if I'm not wrong then once it's done I can walk away. If I am wrong then I can once and for all be formally disproved.

>>8134148
>all I want is for it to be tested by those with expertise
>I don't like that I don't have a mathematical model.

Then it can't really be tested.

>>8135117

What I mean to say is I have presented the above principles around witch a model can be made, and that model can be tested.

>>8135173
Then go make one, publish it (or at least make it public) and show some conclusions. What you have right now a series of qualitative statements that are too weak to be put to any kind of test.

>>8128263
>Current cosmology does not include any mention of a primordial singularity. That is an outdated idea. You're debating a strawman.
Not really. There is as yet no physical evidence of the universe existing prior to the singularity. It is an interesting concept, but until they find such proof it is not wrong to debate on different theories.

>>8135811
You misunderstand what I said. Inflation starts from the universe at a finite size, it is not prior to a singularity. As I said, modern cosmology does not involve a singularity. There is no evidence for it, there is no theory to govern it. You can debate whatever you like but it doesn't make it standard cosmology.

>>8134148
All 3 videos are you talking about the same thing.

I just wanted to make a few points.
1. Laws of physics breaks down at the event horizon. We cannot make any assumptions past that because physics there could be radically different.
2. It's well established that worldlines end at event horizons. Read a brief history in time.
3. Even if we could observe the interior, it wouldn't matter because the mass of the entire black hole can be measured, and it's not enough to account for dark matter. Since presumably, the inside of the hole contains a singularity, there is no need to consider the implications of a hyper sphere. Also, you contradict yourself by your own hypothesis when you state that nothing actually crosses the event horizon. If this were true, then there would be no interior to a black hole at all because it could never form before the event horizon itself. In this situation, the mass of the universe would not change.

You should take some time, say specifically that you think geometry inside a black hole amplifies mass and explain why.

Right now you have 3 arguments that aren't really connected, contradict themselves and fail to show why dark matter isn't necessary.

>>8136040

If Nothing crosses the event horizon the interior may simply be inverted spacetime. I know the mass of the black hole is not enough to account for dark matter, but my hypothesis is leading to the question of if the interior can form an E-R Bridge with another black hole could that bridge of negatively curved spacetime result in positively curved spacetime in our universe? If gravity is just the curve of spacetime could this be a new way that space is curving? I don't see how you started your post saying the three videos are saying the same thing and conclude with me saying that the arguments aren't connected.