Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
Good luck in the search for wormholes. I am puzzled by your criteria for what is believable and what is not.

I didn't say I believe in worm holes smile

What I said was you can construct a scientifically consistent model which predicts such things. Those models also predict other things that I can falsify thus I can make a scientific decision on those theories. Whether they are just "toy" models I can then evaluate.

Your theory is completely inconsistent you just randomly patch things together and I can't for the life of me work with it.

Would you accept that your computer science papers mathematics is incorrect because mathematics is not consistent and varies according to my mood and time of day and how I decide mathematics works today.

Make no mistake that is what you are doing, Born rigid bodies are as inconsistent with SR/GR as the speed of light varying. It is a drop dead condition of the theory and you can't hand wave your way out of it, as the mathematics and physics in SR/GR is very detailed.

So give me a physics and mathematics consistent theory is all I ask.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
The only evidence that I can offer to date is the high spin of black holes after billions of years of slowdown.

Lets deal with that

1.) What is the evidence that says they are slowing down.
2.) I imagine hawking radiation also says they slow down so does your idea predict a different rate to hawking radiation model.

Originally Posted By: Blackholeinside
Not conclusive I know. There is also the model proposed for the origin of supermassive black holes. Again, not conclusive but a better explanation than the other ad hoc processes.

When I looked at your pages on supermassive black holes it looked like the standard accretion disk model, you will have to explain the differences to me.

My understanding is the problem with supermassive black holes is not creating them in the universe today it is in the early universe which was much smaller and hence denser on average than it is today. I suspect your theory will collapse in the younger denser universe which is a common problem with these theories. So you need to look at your theory consistency within the framework of the big bang.

In some ways supermassive black holes are trivial. If we could enclose space in the milky way at the radius of neptune from the sun with a latex film and filled it with the air pressure of earth a black hole would open up. It doesn't take much matter in a very large volume to create one, they are much more difficult to create in smaller volumes.

Edited by Orac (08/26/15 02:26 AM)
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.