What is the genesis of a Quasar?

[graybear13]

A quasar is thought, by mainstream science, to be created by a supermassive black hole at the center of the accretion disk, I disagree. All of what we see is the visible light and atomic energy, which is only a small percent of the energy of the quasar. Most of the energy is dark gravity vortexes of dark energy. I posit that dark energy is collapsing into the center of the quasar in the form of two supermassive dark gravity vortexes joined at their tips and pushing against each other's impetus toward a singularity. This gravitational action creates the accretion disk which enhances the condensation of dark energy to ultimately create the active galactic nucleus (AGN). The non-stellar radiation from the AGN in the form of beams of particles and radiation is escaping the AGN out the path of least resistance which is the tunnels created by the initial dark gravity vortexes.

The relativistic jets of non-stellar radiation from the AGN are the result of the two dark gravity vortexes pulling in more energy than the system can hold.

See Hubble pictures of quasars...

I agree with Sticky, ideas are a dime a dozen and most cannot be proven. In the music industry, good voices are a dime a dozen, but everyone is looking for a great song that is harmonious to our life.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Einstein

regards, gray

[Swift]

What is "dark gravity" and what are "dark gravity vortexes of dark energy"?

I agree with Sticky, ideas are a dime a dozen and most cannot be proven.

You miss the point. If an idea cannot be demonstrated, it isn't science. If there is no evidence for it, it isn't science.
Do you have any evidence for your idea (beyond 'look at the pictures of quasars')?

[Van Rijn]

A quasar is thought, by mainstream science, to be created by a supermassive black hole at the center of the accretion disk, I disagree.

I’ll repeat something I’ve mentioned before on this board because it’s very appropriate here. Back in my university days, around 1980, I took an astronomy class that covered subjects as understood then. Quasars/QSOs and active galactic nuclei (AGNs) were a couple of items discussed and were discussed separately. The textbook and professor were very clear that at that time these were both observational science only. While there were various hypotheses, there were then insufficient observations to nail them down in any detail and there were problems with all then existing hypotheses (there were a number of them). Resolution would require both more observational and theoretical work.

I had planned at one point to be a professional astronomer, but decided computer science was better for me. Nonetheless I kept track of work in these areas. Over time, there were better instruments and more and better observations which helped scientists to narrow down what hypotheses could fit the data. At the same time, more theoretical work was done. Sometimes hypotheses would suggest new types of observations. Sometimes observations would suggest changes to hypotheses. New supercomputers made it easier to build models, for instance models of black holes. Over time observation and theory converged, and supermassive black holes by far fit the data better than other proposed concepts. It also became clear that quasars were a type of AGN (in 1980 it wasn’t known they were related).

This shows how astronomy works. Astronomers don’t just decide on an explanation for phenomena. Rather, observations grow and hypotheses are developed and tested. I really like this example because it was something I watched developing over a number of years. It wasn’t just presented as a fait accompli in a textbook.

If you want to present an alternative explanation and show it fits the data better than the very well established black hole model, you need to do the theoretical work. It strikes me as a very difficult task, and that assuming you have the necessary expertise.

Have you made any attempt to build such a model?

All of what we see is the visible light and atomic energy, which is only a small percent of the energy of the quasar.

More than visible light. In fact “quasar” is short for “quasi stellar radio object” because they were first detected with radio telescopes. What is “atomic energy”? How are you determining the “energy of the quasar”?

Most of the energy is dark gravity vortexes of dark energy. I posit that dark energy is collapsing into the center of the quasar in the form of two supermassive dark gravity vortexes joined at their tips and pushing against each other's impetus toward a singularity.

This gravitational action creates the accretion disk which enhances the condensation of dark energy to ultimately create the active galactic nucleus (AGN). The non-stellar radiation from the AGN in the form of beams of particles and radiation is escaping the AGN out the path of least resistance which is the tunnels created by the initial dark gravity vortexes.

The relativistic jets of non-stellar radiation from the AGN are the result of the two dark gravity vortexes pulling in more energy than the system can hold.

You definitely need a model for this if you want to take this past the pure speculation stage. Also, introducing new physics (“dark gravity”) will make that more challenging.

See Hubble pictures of quasars...

Why?

I agree with Sticky, ideas are a dime a dozen and most cannot be proven. In the music industry, good voices are a dime a dozen, but everyone is looking for a great song that is harmonious to our life.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Einstein

regards, gray

So hopefully you have a lot more than just an idea.

[graybear13]

What is "dark gravity" and what are "dark gravity vortexes of dark energy"?

Do you have any evidence for your idea (beyond 'look at the pictures of quasars')?

Thank you for your questions,

Dark gravity is what mainstream science calls dark matter, which isn't really atomic matter yet. I heard Neil deGrasse Tyson use the term and it made sense to me so I am using it here to describe the missing gravity that creates and holds the quasar together, instead of a black hole at the center.

Dark gravity vortexes are essentially black holes that never approach or advance to the level of mathematical uncertainty. In this model they join at their tips and produce atomic matter by the force, mass and power of their gravitational collapse.

Looking at and seeing the geometry of quasars is evidence of this hypothesis. I can't see the dark gravity vortexes, but I can't see a black hole either.

I am not suggesting anything that cannot be made real in this world by experimentation. Since this is an alternative to the black hole explanation and a black hole cannot be experimentally proven, that should give my hypothesis the upper hand going forward.

regards, gray

[graybear13]

I’ll repeat something I’ve mentioned before on this board because it’s very appropriate here. Back in my university days, around 1980, I took an astronomy class that covered subjects as understood then. Quasars/QSOs and active galactic nuclei (AGNs) were a couple of items discussed and were discussed separately. The textbook and professor were very clear that at that time these were both observational science only. While there were various hypotheses, there were then insufficient observations to nail them down in any detail and there were problems with all then existing hypotheses (there were a number of them). Resolution would require both more observational and theoretical work.

I had planned at one point to be a professional astronomer, but decided computer science was better for me. Nonetheless I kept track of work in these areas. Over time, there were better instruments and more and better observations which helped scientists to narrow down what hypotheses could fit the data. At the same time, more theoretical work was done. Sometimes hypotheses would suggest new types of observations. Sometimes observations would suggest changes to hypotheses. New supercomputers made it easier to build models, for instance models of black holes. Over time observation and theory converged, and supermassive black holes by far fit the data better than other proposed concepts. It also became clear that quasars were a type of AGN (in 1980 it wasn’t known they were related).

This shows how astronomy works. Astronomers don’t just decide on an explanation for phenomena. Rather, observations grow and hypotheses are developed and tested. I really like this example because it was something I watched developing over a number of years. It wasn’t just presented as a fait accompli in a textbook.

If you want to present an alternative explanation and show it fits the data better than the very well established black hole model, you need to do the theoretical work. It strikes me as a very difficult task, and that assuming you have the necessary expertise.

Have you made any attempt to build such a model?



More than visible light. In fact “quasar” is short for “quasi stellar radio object” because they were first detected with radio telescopes. What is “atomic energy”? How are you determining the “energy of the quasar”?



You definitely need a model for this if you want to take this past the pure speculation stage. Also, introducing new physics (“dark gravity”) will make that more challenging.



Why?



So hopefully you have a lot more than just an idea.

Thank you for your questions,

I have an experiment in mind of how to create a strong vortex which is obviously the key to creating this model of gravitational collapse.

Looking at Hubble pictures of quasars is helpful in understanding the geometry involved in the creation of a quasar from dark energy. We can see the AGN. We can see the accretion disk collapsing/accreting into the AGN. We can see the jets of non-stellar radiation partially defining the gravity vortexes.

Every invention in the history of mankind began with "just an idea."

regards, gray

[Reality Check]

A quasar is thought, by mainstream science, to be created by a supermassive black hole at the center of the accretion disk, I disagree. All of what we see is the visible light and atomic energy, which is only a small percent of the energy of the quasar. Most of the energy is dark gravity vortexes of dark energy. ...

An obviously wrong idea, graybear13.
Using an obscure term for dark matter does not change its physical properties.

• Dark matter does not interact electromagnetically. Dark matter cannot remove energy from a quasar.
• Dark matter does not form vortexes because that needs electromagnetic interactions.

Some "Dark gravity vortexes are essentially black holes that never approach or advance to the level of mathematical uncertainty" word salad. Black holes themselves are mathematically certain. Your vortexes have no mathematics at all.
Some "In this model they join at their tips ..." word salad.
An ignorant "I can't see a black hole" statement about supermassive black holes when it is well known that we have evidence that they exist. We have decades of observation of stars orbiting the Milky Way's supermassive black hole. We have the emissions from the accretion disks of thousand of presumably supermassive black holes. We recently took a direct image of the core of M87 and its supermassive black hole (we literally "see it"!)
An assertion that black holes need to be "experimentally proven". Sceince is based on empirical evidence which includes observations as well as experimental evidence.
A "creation of a quasar from dark energy" fantasy. Dark energy is a very weak, non-massive energy spread throughout the universe. If you meant dark matter it is less of a fantasy but still wrong - see above.
"We can see the accretion disk collapsing/accreting into the AGN", etc. ignorance. The Hubble telescope does not take images of accretion disks around supermassive black holes. It does not have the resolution to see this. The AGN is the nucleus of an active galaxy, not its supermassive black hole. The Hubble telescope has "observed a disk of matter being sucked into a huge black hole" - seemingly once back in 2011.

Science is not invention. An idea in science starts with applying known and tested principles of science. That idea is then tested against real world data. If you have "dark matter vortexes" you have first show that dark matter can form vortexes. You have to deal with the issue that gravitationally bound objects have orbits that tend to be stable.

[Van Rijn]

Dark gravity is what mainstream science calls dark matter, which isn't really atomic matter yet. I heard Neil deGrasse Tyson use the term and it made sense to me so I am using it here to describe the missing gravity that creates and holds the quasar together, instead of a black hole at the center.

If you’re trying to make an argument using a mainstream concept it is best not to use nonstandard terminology. But dark matter doesn’t work that way, as Reality Check pointed out, and further, black holes are compact objects. However you manage it, put enough mass in one place, whatever the source, and you end up with a black hole.

Dark gravity vortexes are essentially black holes that never approach or advance to the level of mathematical uncertainty. In this model they join at their tips and produce atomic matter by the force, mass and power of their gravitational collapse.

This is incomprehensible. Until you make a model - with math, not words - that can be evaluated you really have nothing to discuss.

I am not suggesting anything that cannot be made real in this world by experimentation.

It can only “be made real” if you make a valid hypothesis that fits evidence. You haven’t demonstrated such a hypothesis.

Since this is an alternative to the black hole explanation and a black hole cannot be experimentally proven, that should give my hypothesis the upper hand going forward.

That’s not how science works. Nothing is ever proven in an absolute sense. I can’t prove you or the universe actually exist, but I don’t spend time seriously contemplating solipsism. The evidence for black holes accumulated in recent decades is very extensive. You get no special privilege. If you intend to replace black holes, you most demonstrate a well developed theoretical model that better fits observation.

[Van Rijn]

I have an experiment in mind of how to create a strong vortex which is obviously the key to creating this model of gravitational collapse.

That isn’t obvious to me, nor why you’re comparing a quasar to some kind of system in gravitational collapse. But let us know when you create that model.

Looking at Hubble pictures of quasars is helpful in understanding the geometry involved in the creation of a quasar from dark energy.

I thought you were talking about dark matter before?

Anyway, “look at the picture” arguments are notorious for being a poor idea in ATM arguments. Typically, the proponent makes arguments based on what something looks like to them without understanding what the image actually represents. Actual quasar models are based on far more evidence than just looking at pictures. For instance, it was understood fairly early that the energy source of a quasar was a compact object because the amount of EM radiation produced often varied quite rapidly. If the energy production were spread over a large volume that couldn’t happen because of the speed of light.

We can see the AGN. We can see the accretion disk collapsing/accreting into the AGN. We can see the jets of non-stellar radiation partially defining the gravity vortexes.

Case in point. You don’t understand the scale of what you are looking at and you are making unsupported assertions about what you see.

Every invention in the history of mankind began with "just an idea."

Fine, but again, get back to us when you have more than an idea, and actually have a detailed and falsifiable model.

[Shaula]

Every invention in the history of mankind began with "just an idea."

And all steaks start with a cow. Dumping a cow on the table doesn't mean you are now the proud owner of a 5* restaurant.

As others have asked - can you please present one or more predictions made using your ideas? Including the detailed working that led to them, ideally in the form of a model of some kind. And can you highlight any testable predictions your idea leads to that are different to the current mainstream models? Or other reasons why your approach leads to a better scientific result?

[graybear13]

An obviously wrong idea, graybear13.
Using an obscure term for dark matter does not change its physical properties.

• Dark matter does not interact electromagnetically. Dark matter cannot remove energy from a quasar.
• Dark matter does not form vortexes because that needs electromagnetic interactions.

Some "Dark gravity vortexes are essentially black holes that never approach or advance to the level of mathematical uncertainty" word salad. Black holes themselves are mathematically certain. Your vortexes have no mathematics at all.
Some "In this model they join at their tips ..." word salad.
An ignorant "I can't see a black hole" statement about supermassive black holes when it is well known that we have evidence that they exist. We have decades of observation of stars orbiting the Milky Way's supermassive black hole. We have the emissions from the accretion disks of thousand of presumably supermassive black holes. We recently took a direct image of the core of M87 and its supermassive black hole (we literally "see it"!)
An assertion that black holes need to be "experimentally proven". Sceince is based on empirical evidence which includes observations as well as experimental evidence.
A "creation of a quasar from dark energy" fantasy. Dark energy is a very weak, non-massive energy spread throughout the universe. If you meant dark matter it is less of a fantasy but still wrong - see above.
"We can see the accretion disk collapsing/accreting into the AGN", etc. ignorance. The Hubble telescope does not take images of accretion disks around supermassive black holes. It does not have the resolution to see this. The AGN is the nucleus of an active galaxy, not its supermassive black hole. The Hubble telescope has "observed a disk of matter being sucked into a huge black hole" - seemingly once back in 2011.

Science is not invention. An idea in science starts with applying known and tested principles of science. That idea is then tested against real world data. If you have "dark matter vortexes" you have first show that dark matter can form vortexes. You have to deal with the issue that gravitationally bound objects have orbits that tend to be stable.

Thank you for your comments Reality Check.

Please forgive my ignorance and I will forgive your arrogance.

I admit that I don't know algebra and calculus. I don't speak the language. However I think geometry is a valid mathematical discipline. You guys and gals are the ones that drew the geometric configurations and now you want to say I cannot use your geometry and suggest a solution to the creation of a quasar, or creation in general.

I can see what you are doing with the math. You take Einstein's math from his General Relativity and you create black holes and you say they are everywhere, one at the center of every galaxy. Then you take the same math and flip it 180 degrees in time and you go along with a Catholic priest that forces the math to create a primeval atom that you call big bang. I guess the singularity is God? Where did all of the black holes come from? Were they spit out by big bang and then their gravity created all of the galaxies and everything else in the cosmos? How exactly does a quasar come to be?

regards, gray

[graybear13]

That isn’t obvious to me, nor why you’re comparing a quasar to some kind of system in gravitational collapse.

Thank you Van Rijin,

The accretion disk would fly apart without some gravitational force to hold it together and cause accretion. Either a black hole or a genesis effect.

regards, gray

[Shaula]

Where did all of the black holes come from? Were they spit out by big bang and then their gravity created all of the galaxies and everything else in the cosmos? How exactly does a quasar come to be?

This isn't about the mainsteram theories. You could prove them wrong and it wouldn't make your ideas one iota more correct. If you don't understand the current theory then Q&A exists to get those kind of answers. Your objective here is to show that your ideas are scientific and can be used to make useful, testable predictions. If you can't do that then you need to work on your ideas until you can. Ideas are easy, turning them into science is much more work - work that you need to do if you think you have a valid approach.

[PetersCreek]

Thank you for your comments Reality Check.

Please forgive my ignorance and I will forgive your arrogance.

And I will warn you about Rule 2, Civility and Decorum and Rule 12, Politics and Religion. I recommend you review those rules before posting again.

[Reality Check]

Thank you for your comments Reality Check. ...

An irrelevant and sometimes nonsensical post about mainstream physics, graybear13.

"you want to say I cannot use your geometry" ignorance. You do not use geometry at all. Writing the word "vortex" is not geometry and is not "our" geometry (mainstream cosmology). We want you to present your idea the way that any scientific theory should be - with supporting mathematics and physics.

We do not create black holes - the universe does. The tested and working theory of general relativity predicts black holes. It was just a predication until we collected physical evidence that black holes exist. That evidence is overwhelming.
Black hole - Observational evidence

• We have an image of the supermassive black hole in the M87 galaxy.
• We have detected gravitational waves from merging black holes for over 5 years now (~20 confirmed events).
• For 25 years, we have been watching the orbits of stars in the Milky Way orbiting Sagittarius A*. This tells us that Sagittarius A* has a mass of ~4 million solar masses and a radius less than 126 AU.
• X-ray binaries with a visible star and an invisible star accreting matter from it.
• Active galactic nuclei being explained by accretion disks around and jets from supermassive black holes. And of course, quasars as an example of those AGN!

Nonsense about a Catholic priest and the Big Bang scientific theory. Belgian Catholic priest, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics Georges Lemaître published a paper in 1927 that derived what we now call Hubble's law with some physical evidence that the universe obeys that law. It was in a low-impact, Belgian journal so few read it. Edwin Hubble in 1929 published a paper with convincing physical evidence that the universe is expanding.
Questions about the mainstream astronomy that you are arguing against ! This is a basic requirement for arguing against anything - you first need to learn what you are arguing against.
Irrelevance about black holes being "spit out" by the the Big Bang. Primordial black holes are a hypothesis of black holes forming after the Big Bang and before the density of the universe decreased too much.

[graybear13]

And all steaks start with a cow. Dumping a cow on the table doesn't mean you are now the proud owner of a 5* restaurant.

As others have asked - can you please present one or more predictions made using your ideas? Including the detailed working that led to them, ideally in the form of a model of some kind. And can you highlight any testable predictions your idea leads to that are different to the current mainstream models? Or other reasons why your approach leads to a better scientific result?

Thank you for your questions Shaula,

I do not have the math skills to develop the model you want. I have to use geometry and language to create a model. The genesis effect that I am proposing, two vortexes joined at their tips and pushing against each other to create an accretion disk and active nucleus, will be fairly easy to create in our atmosphere. The hard part will be creating the vortexes that get gravity started. As the mass of the vortex increases the pull of gravity increases and more air is pulled in. This is the essence of the creation of mass. We can see it in nature in an EF5 tornado; a huge mass that can flatten entire neighborhoods. Put two vortexes together and the gravitational collapse will create an ever increasing mass that will continue to collapse into an active nucleus. When this happens and the active nucleus is contained by the genesis effect, then we have an unlimited, clean energy source. We will hold the power of creation in our hand.

regards, gray

[Reality Check]

Formal questions for you, graybear13:
We have evidence that the Milky Way like the vast majority of galaxies has a supermassive black hole, i.e. your "vortex of dark energy/matter". Ditto for M87.
How does your idea explain that the Milky Way and M87 are not quasars?

Quasars are not the only kind of AGN, just the most powerful.
How does your idea explain that other AGN such as Seyfert galaxies are not quasars?

[graybear13]

Formal questions for you, graybear13:
We have evidence that the Milky Way like the vast majority of galaxies has a supermassive black hole, i.e. your "vortex of dark energy/matter". Ditto for M87.
How does your idea explain that the Milky Way and M87 are not quasars?

Quasars are not the only kind of AGN, just the most powerful.
How does your idea explain that other AGN such as Seyfert galaxies are not quasars?

Thank you for your questions Reality Check,

I apologize for my poor attempt at humor in post#10. I meant no disrespect.

I am a convert to the existence of blackholes at the center of galaxies and quasars, but they must be caused by the genesis effect that I am describing. Do these black holes vary in size and intensity? The speed of accretion and amount of material being pulled into the black hole would determine the overall shape of the mass. The black hole that is consuming the spiral arms of the Milky Way is possibly being fed by a less intense set of dark gravity vortexes than a quasar, or a Seyfert galaxy.

I don't understand what happens to matter that is drawn into a black hole. Maybe it is reduced to it's original component, dark energy/matter, and projected out of the black hole; all of the atoms broken down to lose their charge and atomic identity. Relativistic jets of non-stellar material must be composed of atoms that have not yet completely lost their electromagnetic and gravitational identity; they haven't completely disintegrated back to dark energy/matter. I do not believe that any atomic heat or pressure can break down dark energy/matter, so I posit that it's dark energy/matter into the system through dark gravity vortexes and dark energy/matter out through a black hole.

regards, gray

[Reality Check]

I am a convert to the existence of blackholes at the center of galaxies and quasars, but they must be caused by the genesis effect that I am describing....

Your "genesis effect" story as in post #15 has nothing to do with mainstream black holes. Mainstream black holes are created by mass becoming dense enough that an event horizon surrounds the mass.
An accretion disk is made of normal matter, not your dark gravity/energy/matter in your vortexes.
An active nucleus is normal matter (gas and stars), not your dark gravity/energy/matter in your vortexes.
Gravity does not "get started". Anything with mass and energy always has gravity.
Mass is not created by your analogy with terrestrial tornadoes.
What you imagine happens for two tornadoes tip to tip is not physics.

Asking questions about the mainstream that you are arguing against is still not good. You should already know what you are arguing against. Not knowing astronomy leads to irrelevant stories such an imaginary black hole consuming the spiral arms of the Milky Way. Spiral arms are outside of a galaxy nucleus and extend for thousands of light-years. Spiral arms are stars. The supermassive black hole at Sagittarius A* is at the center of the Milky Way which probably is a bar at least 3 thousand of light years long before spiral arms start. Sagittarius A* is not consuming any stars at all. Sagittarius A*'s gravitational influence is restricted to the stars that orbit it (a few light-years).

Stories made of word salad such as "dark gravity vortexes" do not answer the questions.
How does your idea explain that the Milky Way and M87 are not quasars?
How does your idea explain that other AGN such as Seyfert galaxies are not quasars?

[graybear13]

Asking questions about the mainstream that you are arguing against is still not good. You should already know what you are arguing against.[/URL]

Thank you for your response Reality Check,

I do not believe that my definition of gravity goes against mainstream science because mainstream science has no discernable definition of gravity.

Local or linear gravity becomes operative with the appearance of the atomic organization of matter. It Is the flow of preatomic matter into atomic matter. Gravity is one of several factors concerned in holding together a tiny atomic energy system, there is also present a powerful unknown energy, the secret of the basic constitution and behavior of atoms, the genesis effect.

I believe that the organization of an atom is echoed in the organization of a quasar.

regards, gray

[Geo Kaplan]

Thank you for your response Reality Check,

I do not believe that my definition of gravity goes against mainstream science because mainstream science has no discernable definition of gravity.

Local or linear gravity becomes operative with the appearance of the atomic organization of matter. It Is the flow of preatomic matter into atomic matter. Gravity is one of several factors concerned in holding together a tiny atomic energy system, there is also present a powerful unknown energy, the secret of the basic constitution and behavior of atoms, the genesis effect.

I believe that the organization of an atom is echoed in the organization of a quasar.

regards, gray

I fully understand that you favor "just-so" stories that satisfy your personal sense of aesthetics, but your task here is to persuade others using science, not rhetoric. Repeated declarations of your beliefs are not going to work, so please desist. I don't particularly care what you believe. I do care about what you can demonstrate. Unfortunately, so far you've only demonstrated an appalling lack of knowledge of the mainstream science you hope to displace.

Declaring first that mainstream science has no definition of gravity is but one example. And then to compound that erroneous assertion with a self-serving one -- that any explanation is therefore equally valid -- is another.

Please confine your arguments to support of your as-yet to be articulated theory. Stop the fairytales, stop the critiques of mainstream theory (because even if you were to prove the mainstream to be wrong, that would in no way prove that what you are asserting is right), and stop the repeated declarations of your beliefs. Validity of an idea is not a function of the faith of its proponent.

So, do you have anything besides a confidence in your notions? If so, for Pete's sake, get on with it. Excise all that other cruft. Please.

[Noclevername]

I do not believe that my definition of gravity goes against mainstream science because mainstream science has no discernable definition of gravity.

We do in fact have a working definition of gravity. It and its observed properties have been defined both in words and in equations.

Maybe you meant, we have not found evidence yet of the mechanism in physics that explains gravity? That would be an accurate assessment.

[graybear13]

So, do you have anything besides a confidence in your notions? If so, for Pete's sake, get on with it. Excise all that other cruft. Please.

Thank you Geo Kaplan,

I am not here to displace any part of mainstream science, only to suggest a logical explanation of the secret of the basic construction and behavior of atoms, and the "mechanism in physics that explains gravity" (thank you Noclevername).

I know you want me to give you a complicated math solution using algebra and calculus, but as I have said before all I have to work with is geometry and language. I am in a catch 22. I can't get serious people like yourself to listen and ponder the idea without mathematical or experimental proof of some kind. My math is weak and I have no means to create the experiment so all I can do is throw it out there and hope that some PhD's will see the truth of it.

regards, gray

[graybear13]

mechanism[/I] in physics that explains gravity? That would be an accurate assessment.

Yes, thank you Noclevername. We have everything but the mechanism. When we have that, all that we know about gravity and the atomic organization of matter will make perfect sense. It's really a very simple truth.

regards, gray

[Shaula]

I know you want me to give you a complicated math solution using algebra and calculus, but as I have said before all I have to work with is geometry and language. I am in a catch 22. I can't get serious people like yourself to listen and ponder the idea without mathematical or experimental proof of some kind. My math is weak and I have no means to create the experiment so all I can do is throw it out there and hope that some PhD's will see the truth of it.

What we want is a logical and consistent model. Putting it in terms of mathematics is a shortcut to that - it provides a form of consistency check and is a simple way to make testable predictions. Doing it in terms of language and geometry is not impossible but requires a lot more work from you.

So far what you have done is throw out a lot of poorly defined terms and concepts that behave in ways you can't explain for reasons you cannot explain but, according to you, exnd up explaining everything. If you want people to take it more seriously, seriously enough that they will invest time in it, then you need to do a lot better.

Here is an annotated version of your first post where I've have scored phrases by giving them one point if the statement is wrong, one point if the term is undefined, one point if the term is defined but you are using it in a different way to the mainstream, one point if there is a behaviour that isn't explained. Orange =1 points, Red=2+ points. If your idea was well presented and explained there would be no colours:

All of what we see is the visible light and atomic energy, which is only a small percent of the energy of the quasar. Most of the energy is dark gravity vortexes of dark energy. I posit that dark energy is collapsing into the center of the quasar in the form of two supermassive dark gravity vortexes joined at their tips and pushing against each other's impetus toward a singularity. This gravitational action creates the accretion disk which enhances the condensation of dark energy to ultimately create the active galactic nucleus (AGN). The non-stellar radiation from the AGN in the form of beams of particles and radiation is escaping the AGN out the path of least resistance which is the tunnels created by the initial dark gravity vortexes.

The relativistic jets of non-stellar radiation from the AGN are the result of the two dark gravity vortexes pulling in more energy than the system can hold.

You can see why I don't see much benefit to looking into this idea - it is nebulous and full of terms that sound good but have not been given a defined meaning. It seems to be a platform for creating just-so stories.

[PetersCreek]

I know you want me to give you a complicated math solution using algebra and calculus, but as I have said before all I have to work with is geometry and language. I am in a catch 22. I can't get serious people like yourself to listen and ponder the idea without mathematical or experimental proof of some kind. My math is weak and I have no means to create the experiment so all I can do is throw it out there and hope that some PhD's will see the truth of it.

Here we are, 25 posts into the thread and you still haven't provided any substantive basis for your assertions. You say all you have is geometry and language. You've provided language but you haven't provided any mathematical geometry. Please do so in your next post. If you cannot, please say so.

I'll add that there is no Catch 22 here. If your math is weak and you want people to seriously consider your ideas, then work on your math.

[Reality Check]

I do not believe that my definition of gravity goes against mainstream science because mainstream science has no discernable definition of gravity.
...

Repeating the fundamental error of not learning the mainstream before trying to argue against it, graybear13. The mainstream has well known and working definitions of gravity starting with Newtonian gravitation centuries ago and mow general relativity.
You do not have any definition of gravity. Vague, ignorant stories that are not matched to the real world are not a definition or science. Atoms are held together by electromagnetism, not gravity. Imaginary "unknown energy" and "genesis effect" is nothing to do with real atoms. A fantasy that quasars are organized like atoms when they are literally vastly and massively different. For example, atoms do not have supper massive black holes at their center.

Later you go on about an alleged "secret" of the construction of atoms. The mainstream has at least a century of physical evidence about the construction of atoms. You do not have "geometry and language" - you just have language. Geometry is mathematics and your posts have none. PhDs will read your stories and ignorant them as fiction with no scientific content.
You should also look at the history of gravity where smart people have looked at mechanical explanations of gravitation, including vortexes proposed by René Descartes in 1644.

How does your idea explain that the Milky Way and M87 are not quasars?
How does your idea explain that other AGN such as Seyfert galaxies are not quasars?

[Geo Kaplan]

Thank you Geo Kaplan,
I know you want me to give you a complicated math solution using algebra and calculus

You know no such thing. Unable to show anything resembling science, and displaying a profound ignorance of mainstream theory, it seems that you are now resorting to intellectual dishonesty to position yourself as the victim of unfair demands.

All you've done is the trivially easy part: You've imagined something, and then constructed a story that pleases you. You seem to think that this is sufficient. That is yet another instance of your ignorance. Physicists think of many ideas far more elegant than yours multiple times a day. They just don't publish them, because nearly all of these ideas are wrong, and they figure that out before too long (in most instances, anyway). There's no journal named "Cool-sounding ideas that are unfortunately broken."

You see that anyone trying to displace or extend the mainstream has an additional -- and far more difficult -- burden. The new idea must be consistent with all the successful, experimentally supported predictions of the mainstream. It's what Feynman called "being creative in a straitjacket". That requires an enormous amount of knowledge. Someone who has never studied brain surgery would rarely think of suggesting new medical procedures, but somehow, some of these same folks somehow convince themselves that they can figure out the universe. Contemplate that for a minute.

Here's an imaginative idea that has entirely the explanatory power of your idea: Invisible pink unicorns make gravity. Like you, I'll claim that all I have are words and geometry. Like you, my idea has no geometry. And my idea has the virtue of taking fewer words to express. Ockham might have approved.

See? It's trivially easy to make up a story. You might object that there are no invisible pink unicorns, but then I would simply challenge you to prove that there are no pink unicorns. If you cannot, I might declare that your failure strengthens my assertion. My attitude would then be little different to yours with regard to the mainstream.

So the hard part is making up a story that works. You stopped at the trivially easy part, and think that somehow you've come up with something unique and profound. But without knowing fully what the requirements of a successful theory are, you simply cannot make that judgment.

If your boast of "having geometry" is not an empty one, then please present it. Many of us here speak geometry. I'm not asking for pages of calculus, so desist in putting words in my mouth. I'm only asking you to show us what you claimed already to have. Show us the geometry. Why is it an unreasonable request? You made the claim.

If you cannot present a geometrical argument, then all you have are words expressing your ill-founded beliefs. Not much to discuss there, unfortunately.

[graybear13]

Invisible pink unicorns make gravity.

Science does seem to believe in a magical gravitational collapse of a cloud of interstellar matter into star ignition. And then, magically, there is a balance between the collapse and thermal pressure.

The only thing in the natural world that can cause a gravitational collapse is a vortex. It's not magic, it's a simple gravity machine. To achieve star ignition there has to be more than simple gravity. It is not magic that creates dynamic equilibrium, it must be some yet to be discovered force of nature.

gray

[PetersCreek]

graybear13,

Repeating for emphasis:

You say all you have is geometry and language. You've provided language but you haven't provided any mathematical geometry. Please do so in your next post. If you cannot, please say so.

If you do not follow our rules, this thread will be closed and you risk infraction.

[Noclevername]

Science does seem to believe in a magical gravitational collapse of a cloud of interstellar matter into star ignition. And then, magically, there is a balance between the collapse and thermal pressure.

Science does not "seem to believe". Science collects data, tests and retests hypotheses, and makes predictive models based on available data. Then it adjusts the models as information becomes updated by new tests and observations.

Belief is not part of that process. Science goes where the evidence leads. Believe it or not.

The only thing in the natural world that can cause a gravitational collapse is a vortex. It's not magic, it's a simple gravity machine. To achieve star ignition there has to be more than simple gravity. It is not magic that creates dynamic equilibrium, it must be some yet to be discovered force of nature.

If by "vortex" you mean an inward spiraling of matter, that is due to gravity, friction, and orbital mechanics. A vortex is a result, not a cause. If you have some reasonable proof otherwise, please present it.