Anton,

"If I understand your term 'cosmic time' correctly, then black holes are much older than the 14 billion years of light-emitting objects: the heavier, the older they are."

In general I would agree with this statement. There is no method to actually determine the age of a BH. For example, an IMBH could have a recent origin from the merging of two or more less massive BHs or it could be quite old. I would say that most SMBHs are old.

"As to fairy tales..."

You should read the third reference from my essay, I think you would really enjoy it. Here a copy of the reference and the link: [3] American Scientist, September-October 2007,聽Volume 95, Number 5, Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale?, by Michael J. Disney, http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2007/9/modern-cosmology-science-or-folktale

"So I find it hard to learn and use the lingo of the present paradigm without succumbing to the same errors."

I meant that in response to your statement: "I admit that I haven't understood you essay completely because my knowledge of GR is very limited."

GR is fundamental. IMO, it has some misinterpretations that have lead to incorrect understanding in cosmology and BH theory. These misinterpretations are what I'm exposing in my theories.

"I had no other choice but to try to re-invent physics, starting from the assumption that QM and relativity theory describe the engineering principles of a self-creating universe."

You've done a more than admirable job in presenting an alternative. But, my essay would be more comprehendible with a better understanding of GR. How do you know if your lack of GR knowledge hasn't caused you to omit something from your theory? That's all I was implying.

Dan

Dan,

You raise many interesting points in your essay. The issue of the mass gap between ordinary and supermassive black holes is intriguing. With regard to your proposal that frame-dragging is the cause of the flat rotation curves for galaxies, I'm wondering if you have calculated the amount of Lense-Thirring procession in the peripheral galactic regions that were analyzed by Rubin and others. All in all, it is a well-crafted essay.

Best regards,

Paul

Paul,

Thank you for taking time out of your day to read and respond to my essay. The mass gap that you mentioned has been an ongoing astrophysical mystery, that was even more conspicuous until the recent discoveries of IMBHs in GCs and some dwarf galaxies, that has narrowed the gap somewhat.

As to the Lense-Thirring procession, I have not, as of yet, done any calculations. So this remains as only a contingent hypothesis that needs a more rigorous treatment. DM has always seemed to me to be more than just a particle physics problem. It also seem suspicious that the two empirical correlations between galaxies and their SBMHs have a exponential relationship. As you can see, I have plenty of work to do, but I believe I'm on the right track. Just last night, I came across this statement from the book Cosmos: An Illustrated History of Astronomy and Cosmology by John North;

"In 1928 James Jeans, searching for the origin of spiral nebula suggested that their centers might be places where matter 'poured into the universe, from some other and entirely extraneous, spatial dimension'."

In the light of my model, this seems to be almost a prophetic statement.

Thanks once again for your correspondence, it is much appreciated.

Dan

Dear Mister Benedict- Sometimes, when I try to argue with someone that electrons move from place to place over the arc of the curtate cycloid. They tell me I am wasting time with a function out of a high school geometry text book. Have you ever heard of the problems of the Brachistochrone and the Tautochrone? Did you know that the cycloid is the answer to both of these knotty challenges? If I am correct, that electrons motion is, by and large, cyloidal motion. Wouldn't that mean that I have solved the Brachistochrone and Tautochrone problems at the atomic level?

Good luck in the contest! Joel Mayer (author: Is Reality Digital or Analog?)

Dear Dan T Benedict,

Just now I read your essay and I strongly urge you to read not only my essay but also my 'Blog' mentioned in it.Soon after I hear from you,we will discuss the implications of our essay connections.Then you will be able to judge your position much better.

Thanks for your wonderful (surprising?) essay.

Good luck and all the best.

Sreenath B N.

    Dear Dan,

    Thanks for your positive response.The moment I saw your essay last night I called on you because of intimate relationship between our ideas.If you base your views on the basis of QG field,it would be enthralling.

    Regarding why I cannot admit BHs of smaller size than,R= 10^5 cm is because of the intrinsic relationship between micro (quantum) and macro (classical) world according to the relation r/R = 2πGβ/c2 .If the radius of BH is 10^2 cm,then the value of 'r'(Interaction-range) becomes 10^-33 cm,that is the Planck's length.That is why BHs of size smaller than 10^2 cm cannot be admitted (but I commit myself to 10^5 cm).Similarly you cannot go on increasing the gravitational radius above 10^33 cm (in my article I have restricted it to 10^30 cm),because then the value of Interaction-range 'r' correspondingly increases.For example,if R= 10^30 cm then 'r'=10^-5 cm; if R= 10^33 cm then 'r' = 10^-2 cm.Now you see the reason.If this conclusion contradicts (it will) Hawking's idea of 'Baby-BHs',it is natural.It is because his theory does n't limit the size of BHs and that is the flaw of all existing theories on BHs.

    Thanks for your suggestions on my web-article.On your suggestion, I would like to contact "Corda'.I would be glad if you too participate in this.

    Looking forward to hearing from you.

    Best regards and good luck.

    Sreenath.

    Dear Sreenath,

    Thank you for clarifying the small BH issue. I new that you had a reason within your theory, but I meant that since Hawking is seen as the authority, that this might be an issue for a journal. Since your theory seems to be consistent, can you suggest any experiments or observations that would be able to support it if they were conducted? This is another important step to getting acceptance from the mainstream physics community. Since your theory doesn't admit gravity waves (I have had doubts about them, myself), it may be difficult to get any experiment support, due to scale at which QG acts. Nevertheless, I'm glad you have considered my suggestion.

    I had always suspected that there must be some connection between my model and the quantum world, but had never made any connections of my own. You can imagine my surprise, when I read your paper. All of my ideas came from contemplation of the nature of time and from the limited knowledge that I have on GR.

    I plan to reread your paper and will assist you however I am able.

    Sincerely,

    Dan

    Peter,

    Thank you for all of your support. Getting my essay before the judges is very satisfying, especially in light of the competition. It was touch and go there for a while, but now I can relax for a bit. I have read Constantinos' essay and it was quite good. I will read Dr Ionescue's today.

    Sincerely,

    Dan

    Dear Dan,

    Congrats for making it to the last 35 and in sight a hard prize to earn.You deserved that because of a lot of stress and strain you put in to your essay thro' your wisdom and imagination.

    Soon I will be in touch with you.

    Sincerely

    Sreenath.

    Dear Dan,

    Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top 35 placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the potential prize winners btw:

    Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?

    Best wishes,

    Alan

      Dear Dan,

      Thanks for your response.Regarding suggesting any experiments or observations that would be able to support my theory,I want to make the following clarification.

      There are two ways which allow you to verify my theory.One in the classical world by observing phenomena going on in BHs by observing their dynamics.A BH,according to me,is a Hole of 'perfect vacuum' and contains 'no' matter inside it but the mass surrounding this Hole determines its 'radius',according to the well known equation R = 2GM/C^2. This Hole is characterised by Temparature and Pressure inside it.It is the presence of this Hole (which we call BH) prevents matter from falling into Singularity, thro' the force of QG.It is the violent interaction between the crushing matter and the resistance offered by the BH results in the emission of Jets by the BH with enormous power.The jet of mass gains energy of the order of 10^14 times the initial energy with which it enters the BH at its 'event-horizon'.This is nothing but the ratio of QG energy to self (or free) energy available to particles as a result of intense gravitational interaction taking place at the 'event-horizon'.

      The second way of verification is much easier. Remember that classical world is related to the micro (quantum) world by the relation r/R =2πGβ/c2 .According to this relation,the role played by QG can be seen 'directly' in explaining the energy possessed by micro-particles in the quantum-world thro' the 'Interaction-Table' (IT).To know this,please,go thro' IT and make yourself thorough with it.IT is also 'Chart of Elementary Particles' with their 'Decay-Times'.

      More on this after your response.

      Sincerely

      Sreenath.

      Alan,

      Thanks, for your correspondence. Your "Archimedes screw" analogy is an interesting one, however, I'm not convinced that gravity is created by a gauge field like those of the three other fundamental interactions. In this case, there would be no gravitons, and your analogy would be a non-starter.

      Sincerely,

      Dan

      16 days later

      An interesting essay on what obviously is a hot topic these days. Not being well versed in cosmology, I can't comment intelligently on the substance of your essay. I'd find it helpful if you'd explicitly list the predictions which your ideas allow which might be subject to falsification via experimental evidence during our possible lifetimes.

      Shoehorning your topic into the theme of this year's competition is a bit of a stretch, imo, but I can't blame you for trying. So far so good. Had you been just a bit more crafty you might have titled your essay 'Is Reality Digital or Analog?' and then gone on with it just as you did. (Joke)

      In case you've not seen it already, there's an interesting piece suggesting a possible alternative to dark matter which may be found at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.0160v1

      Good luck in the competition!

      Cheers,

      jcns