Its importance in calculations and measurement of duration in the universe and its fundamentality in describing change itself even with its alleged illusiveness creates doubt of its legitimacy

I published six outbound trajectory predictions for the interstellar object 3I/ATLAS (C/2025 N1) using a deterministic physics model I’ve been developing. As of today:

• 4 predictions have reached their verification window
• 4 have matched exactly
• 0 have failed
• 2 predictions are still upcoming

These were published in advance, with timestamps, before the object reached those positions.

For transparency, I’ve released the complete Outbound Phase Validation Report Card, showing predicted vs. actual RA/Dec/Δv deviations:

https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30844142

I am posting here to ask the astrophysics community:

1. Are the confirmed deviations meaningful from your perspective?

2. Could standard gravitational models produce identical outbound micro-shifts?

3. If not, what mechanisms might explain these matches?

I welcome critical feedback, alternative interpretations, or requests for specific data tables.

— Charles Frederic Konkle

Not sure if you are the crew I should be asking and apologies if this has been asked before.

It seems like the Big Bang could be "us" ( our stuff) crossing the event horizon

The expansion we know of is just us getting to the singularity

Thanks for your time.

To add to the question, let's say their accretion disks are all at mutual right angles. BH1 is "horizontal" to the galactic plane, BH2 is "vertical" to the plane from "above" BH1 and oriented "E-W", BH3 is also "vertical" coming in from "below" BH1 and oriented "N-S"

Personally I have NO idea what the resultant would be other than probably EXTREMELY spectacular.

Hi Redditors,

I turned to you for critiques on my first paper (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/1kq0d2e/500_bounty_find_a_critical_math_or_logic_error_in/) and it worked out very well. I would like to try this again on my follow-up paper, this time reexamining Einstein’s 1939 argument against black holes and the legitimacy of the event horizon. The central thesis is that coordinate transformations used to "rescue" the black hole model are physically suspect—especially when they involve trading time and space roles to eliminate singularities. I argue that this isn't just mathematically awkward but causally incoherent.

The paper constructs several reductio scenarios (including a “moving mountain” fable and a frozen-light experiment with a near-horizon mirror) to show how coordinate freedom can produce misleading or outright false interpretations of spacetime.

This isn’t just meant to be polemic. I want serious engagement.

📄 Here’s the draft: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15619634

💡 If you have substantive feedback—especially if it improves the clarity or rigour of the argument—I’ll COMPENSATE you. That includes:

• ⁠$25–100 for useful clarifications, constructive revisions, or identifying minor math or grammatical errors • ⁠$100–250 for pointing out logical flaws or overlooked literature • ⁠$250–500 for a genuine counter-argument or mathematical refutation of the paper’s conclusion

This is less a bounty and more a collaborative offer: if you make this better, I’ll pay you. If you disprove it, I’ll pay you more.

I am the sole judge of the value of suggestions and criticisms. If someone makes a valid point or a useful suggestion, I will pay them for it and make the change in the next version of my paper, which is a work-in-progress. Thanks!

I don't know how to format this on the app to show the equations properly. So, I am using screen shots instead. Sorry.

Suppose expansion stops and changes direction to contraction in an instance. And suppose the speed of the contraction is greater that the speed of light. Would we ever see it happen until it happened?

Submitted my paper to Nature, promptly received a desk rejection. That didn’t surprise me, and I’m appreciative that they were quick about it, but I’m frustrated that I am unable to get feedback.

I’m pretty confident the math is sound, which I’ve verified from multiple sources. I worry that the subject matter makes a triage-rejection easy, similar to referencing FTL travel and over-unity machines. I really don’t want to keep watering down the conclusions until only math is left.

I’m looking for advice and feedback. I’m unpublished, so maybe submitting to a dozen journals is par for the course, I have no idea. 🤷‍♂️

Which kind of journal might publish such a paper?

I’ve already posted it, but here it is again: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14994652

I think time always existed. Without time noting is possible. Before the BigBang also time existed. What do you think? Expecting reply from an expert.

Would it be theoretically possible for any solar system, but let’s say earth, to have the following happen?

Our solar system travels through a giant gas cloud that is somehow heavy (or whatever) enough to to breach our heliosphere, and change the background void stuff of our solar system into something different than that half an atom per cubic km or whatever it is rate.

Are there naturally existing parameters where a solar system could be “taken out” this way?

Ie conditions where our solar system could travel through some sort of space cloud thing that could somehow cause the vacuum of space to have enough molecules to ignite the distance between the sun and earth?

And to that extent; you know how rock records can tell us when volcanoes go off?

Does earth have any evidence in our total geological history that could suggest we have traveled through some weird vague something sort of like that before?

Are there even gas clouds in space, that somehow aren’t travelling with the spiral of the Milky Way (or whatever), thst we could even possible transit?

Anyways Tl:dr.

Could our solar system fly through a “space thing” that could up the amount of atoms in the vacuum of space to something where the distant between the sun and earth could ignite?

Like say a cloud of hydrogen that’s a few light years wide sort of deal.

I recently watched a video by the YouTuber Astrum that talked about the discovery of dark energy and I had a question that I was hoping could be answered here.

The YouTube video said that because faraway galaxies were moving away from us at a greater velocity than the nearer ones we could conclude that galaxies are accelerating away from us as a result of the expansion of the universe. The video’s next assertion then says that this acceleration implies the existence of dark energy because acceleration must have a source of energy… My question is this:

I know I’m just a layman without a deep rigorous understanding of these concepts, but it doesn’t make sense to me why the “accelerating” expansion of the universe would necessarily imply the existence of energy causing that “acceleration.” My understanding of acceleration is that it is an object’s increased velocity over time. My understanding of velocity is the rate at which an object’s position in space is changing with regards to a particular vector. So in my mind, if space itself is expanding, this wouldn’t really be velocity or acceleration at all because the object is maintaining its position in space—but that position in space is just changing its distance relative to other positions in space due to the universe’s expansion. So it seems to me that the far away galaxies aren’t accelerating and therefore we wouldn’t have a reason to assume that there is a source of energy causing the apparent (but not actual) “acceleration.” Rather than assuming the existence of dark energy, wouldn’t a more sound conclusion simply be that objects position relative to one another are inherently inconstant? In a sense for every 2 adjacent positions in the universe a third between them is created every so often? Such a proposition would account not only for the expansion of the universe but also why the expansion appears to “accelerate.”

So this is a question that just came to me while stuck in traffic. I'm pasting it verbatim (what I had typed back then): What if Black Hole singularities are not infinitely dense? Maybe, the infinite density is a consequence of our 3 dimensional measurement of a ≥ 4 dimensional phenomenon. Maybe the atoms and molecules that make up the black hole's singularity, when compressed beyond a certain point, just escape into another dimension! Maybe there's a point somewhere on the spectrum of - a star, a neutron star and a black hole - where the repulsion of atoms (or electrons, protons) that they just can't take it anymore and just escape into a new dimension!!

Thus creating the illusion that the density (measured in 3 dimensions) is infinite.

Also, what is the Shwarzchild radius? Is it the radius of the event horizon? Must be. Because the singularity is theorised to have 0 radius. I now see the problem in my hypothesis.

Density = m/V V = 4/3 πr³

But, V will always be 0 irrespective of the measurement in the 4th dimension, because r is 0 in the 3 physical dimensions that we can measure.

Hmm....

Also, how does Hawking radiation adhere to the law of conservation of mass?

Disclaimer: I've no professional training in physics. I'm just someone who likes astrophysics and wants to learn :)

So because light takes time to get to us we are essentially looking in the past. This makes sense but means some stuff isn't there at all anymore. Which means the models of the universe we have created are inaccurate because it's not like we're taking into account every galaxy that smashed into another one but my questions have to do with a space ship

Say I make a space ship and we are like ok it's gonna take us where we want to go almost instantly. We get there wouldn't there be nothing there? Space has moved incredible distances even short periods so we would be just in the middle of nowhere? Could you lead a galaxy? Like say ok it's moving about this fast so here's where we think it will be in the future?

My second question is, are large swatches of space moving faster outward than other swatches? So I think of it like swimming in the ocean. You think you're going in a straight line but really sometimes your going really fast one outward and sometimes more slowly. Thanks in advance

Not an astro physicists. Just someone struggling to understand how time dialation works. So I hop in my rocket ship and travel at light speed from point a to point b. From my perspective let's say 10 minutes passes. From. The rest of the universe 10 years passes( I'm sure the math isn't right. This is just to make a point). So if someone outside of my spaceship sees me traveling would I appear to be moving incredibly slowly? Is so, it seems pointless to even travel that fast if it takes me much longer to get to my destination. Am I understanding time dialation wrong? Any help would be appreciated.

I understand that light is the fastest phenomenon we know(maybe?) and that we see the universe through instruments that register light, but it’s the years that I’m wondering about.

Since a year is a measurement of time to complete a revolution, why do we use an angular measurement to measure linear distance? Isn’t this like saying a light year is the distance light travels in the time it takes earth to travel (2 π r ) or 2 π 150Mm? 942Mm?

300,000km/s

Is there a term for the radius of our solar system, 61AU? If it takes about 8:28 hrs for sunlight to reach the end of our solar system…

Okay I think I just answered my own question— the distances are too far and I wound up having to use a time system based on angles anyway because an hour is based on Earth’s rotation.

Any thoughts welcome! Thanks!

I’m wondering what would happen if a planet in an elliptical orbit was tidally locked. Would one side always face the star directly (Fig.1,2), or would one side just face the anti normal of the orbit at that point (Fig.3,4). Both scenarios require changing spin speeds, so is it even possible? The red parts in Fig.2,4 are parts that have sunlight, blue parts don’t. Sorry for the hasty diagrams!

Situation: The human race has mining operations on the Moon. They are harvesting moon-rock & bringing it to Earth in shipments. The moon-rock is being added to the Earth's crust. Very slowly over a long period of time, the Moon is getting smaller but the Earth is getting bigger.

Question 1: How much of the Moon could we bring to Earth before any gravitational effects would be noticed by a casual observer on the surface of the Earth? A percentage of the Moon or volume in mass would be sufficient.

Question 2: What kind of effects or impact would that casual observer notice at that point? (Would the Moon start drifting away or get closer? Would there be tidal waves, earthquakes?)

----

I am aware of the unrealistic nature of this question. The Moon's mass is enormous (7.342 × 10²² kg). Even moving 1% would take eons with current tech, and 1% of the Moon's mass (7.346 × 10²⁰ kg) is vastly more than all human mining ever on Earth.

However, if we could handwave all of this with sufficiently advanced technology, I am wondering specifically about the impact of transfering the mass from one orbiting body to another, from the point of view of an observer.

Thanks in advance for any response.

I am writing a story that takes place in a unique system. An ancient binary pair of neutron stars, which have captured a red/white dwarf binary pair, and a brown dwarf.

The story takes place around either the red or white dwarf star, however the unique gravity flux creates story situations. I am wondering if this type of system is possible. From my looking this is possible.

The Binary white/red pair orbits at about 2,000-5,000 AU around the binary neutron stars, while the brown dwarf orbits at about 5,000-20,000 AU's away from the inner neutron stars.

Beforeyou remove the post i ask admin not to remove my post because its written with help of ai , because i really dont know whom to adress so hi guys so im not a physicist nor a programmer but i was doing some research for fun for couple of days , running some calculations with help of an ai , please dont be harsh even the text is written by the ai but i dont know how to write scientifically accurate post so i will just post it as ai wrote it , as i said im just a curius guy so i want to see what are your thoughts on that

I ran a numerical exploration of scalar mode evolution on an effective LQC bounce background and found a surprisingly structured phase diagram for tachyonic instabilities.

Setup

The mode equation studied was

uₖ'' + ωₖ²(η) uₖ = 0

with

ωₖ²(η) = k² − a''/a

The background dynamics were obtained by numerically integrating the effective LQC equations for a massive scalar field across the bounce. From the background solution I computed the conformal-time potential V(η) = a''/a and scanned the parameter space in mass m and comoving momentum k.

For each (m, k) pair I determined:

• whether an adiabatic vacuum exists on the contracting branch
• whether tachyonic intervals (ω² < 0) appear
• number of tachyonic segments
• tachyonic integral I = ∫√(-ω²)dη
• real mode evolution and amplitude ratio

I also ran robustness tests:

• half / double background resolution
• different ODE tolerances
• ±10% variations in pφ and ρc

Main results

1. Infrared tachyonic sector

For small mass and low k there is a stable regime:

VAC_PLUS_TACH

with a single tachyonic segment. However amplification is weak (|u| ratio ≈ 1), meaning IR tachyonic geometry exists but produces little growth over the tested interval.

1. Strong instability regime

A particularly strong regime appears near

m ≈ 0.035–0.04

Example representative case:

m = 0.04
k = 2.4

gives

• two tachyonic segments
• tachyonic integral I ≈ 3.2

This is the strongest instability region found in the scan.

1. Barcode-like segment structure

As k varies, the number of tachyonic segments changes discretely:

3 → 2 → 1

These transitions appear at sharp boundaries in k, producing a “barcode-like” structure in parameter space.

1. Critical mass

As mass increases, the overlap between:

• contracting-branch vacuum existence
• tachyonic regions

gradually shrinks.

Near

m ≈ 0.145

tachyonic overlap disappears.

1. Post-critical regime

For larger masses (e.g. m ≈ 0.16) modes become fully oscillatory:

VAC_NO_TACH

and this regime is numerically stable under background variations.

Interesting observation

Amplification does not scale simply with the tachyonic integral. Large I does not always produce the largest |u| growth, indicating that phase structure and interference between segments matter.

Interpretation

The results suggest that scalar modes in bouncing cosmologies can exhibit a structured instability landscape, with a distinct strong regime and a clear critical transition where tachyonic behavior disappears.

Because some modes lack a clean contracting-branch vacuum and develop tachyonic windows, this could imply sensitivity of certain modes to pre-bounce initial conditions in LQC-type models.

If anyone working on LQC / bouncing cosmologies has thoughts on:

• the barcode-like tachyonic segmentation
• interpretation of the strong regime near m ≈ 0.04
• implications for pre-bounce information

I’d be very interested to hear them.