Nova model/theory:

When you’re a little innovative the world loves you and cheers you on. When you’re a lot innovative they mostly look at you like you’re crazy and give you shit. It’s not like humanity is well equipped to recognize significant development when they see it.  Did you  know it took 4 YEARS after the publication of S. Relativity before anyone recognized it as being pertinent and worthy? -And that’s only because Max Planck got ahold of it, who was absolutely brilliant in his own right.

Humans haven’t changed much. They gave shit to Galileo, the gave it to Darwin, they gave it to Einstein, and they still largely don’t have the presence of mind to genuinely question if what they think they know actually best represents what they want to know.    Most humans are not interested in the humble reasoning of a single individual, they want someone with fame telling them what is.    This page is dedicated to those who are more concerned with what the properties of the universe imply, as humans determine nothing in this realm.

Theories are comprised of roughly 2 elements: observation, and human translation of that data. The theory that is more comprehensive and aligns with observation better is the more accurate theory.period!

Modern physics has issues that cannot be resolved within existing framework; not to mention a universe build from the mathematics of prevailing theory [Relativity, the Standard Model of quantum mechanics, Big Bang] would look very different from our own. -They’re not reconcilable with each other, or the structure of the universe. Furthermore, you know your theories have issues when they break down; Relativity and QM break down. Still, we have very good reasons to trust what we know! Relativity and QM are the most successful models humanity has ever produced! -But we’re still missing something, and many, if not most scientists expect it to be something somewhat distinct from current paradigm…

The Nova model/theory is more comprehensive and aligns with observation better than everything it challenges.

Limitations of Mathematics:

Limitations of Prevailing Physics:

singularity/black holes are perfectly mathematically self-consistent, and are indeed a very reasonable way to approach the issue of neutron degeneracy (-achievement of Schwarzschild Radius, the situation that “should” lead to black holes); however, when we assume black holes, and utilize them to explain actual structures and events we observe in our universe, we see discrepancies!!! The black hole/singularity model doesn’t actually fit observed physics as well as purported…

Supermassive stars exploding into supernova and hypernova are an example of discrepancies: they release more energy than the prevailing physics permits. -one star should not ever be capable of outshining its own galaxy within the framework of modern physics.

Galactic jets/quasars/seyfert/active galactic nuclei cannot be explained by black holes either -again, too much energy being emitted than can be accounted for in the accretion disc. Exclusively gravitational theories cannot even build accretion disks using their own physics anyway, much less explain how to culminate that energy into jets without invoking voodoo magic -because there’s certainly no known physics that does that. The whole scene is quite the mess! lol



Copyright ©2019 Rift Zone.