pywakit

We have something going in our favor. Controlled flight. Not instantly controlled, but then we would have many eyes in orbit looking for just such problems, giving us lots of time to make minor adjustments to avoid the bigger objects. We can CHANGE direction. We will still have our magnetic field protecting us. We will still have an atmosphere. It will be much denser than what we have now. How are you going to protect your spacefarers from highly energized particles? I think you are going to have to build a ship with very very thick walls. And even then you will all have to get used to seeing flashes inside your eyeballs constantly. Something that is a real concern for any astronauts heading for Mars. Those babies will rip right through 6 feet of lead. That's why 'envisioned' interstellar space vehicles usually incorporate a cocoon of heavy water. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well, I don't know exactly. Certainly in excess of a billion years. We still have our 'spin', and we would want to maintain that to keep our magnetic field going. Radioactive decay will go on for many billions of years, of course. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged See above. And we would NOT be going through the asteroid belt. That exists on the plane of the ecliptic. We are heading due north of that plane, to avoid them, and Jupiter, and Saturn, etc. The real problem will be getting past the Oort Cloud. But again, all objects in orbit around our sun have collected along the plane. Not so much the Oort Cloud, but still, much thinner top, or bottom, than along the plane. We will have a nervous journey until we are outside that radius, and we will take some hits. But compare the damage we would sustain with an entire PLANET protecting us versus an interstellar space ship. You will be subject to the laws of inertia. Think you can handle all the necessary vector changes? Or will you have sufficient fuel necessary to make those changes? Think of this too. We can have literally thousands of sharpshooting satellites in orbit around us ... powered by both nuclear, and microwave transmissions from earth. We could nudge MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of objects out of our path. Could an interstellar ship do that? And how long would you like to remain cooped up on this ship? 4.3 light years to Alpha. Unless you get some serious velocity, you are going to be on this journey for a thousand years. 50,000 kilometers per hour equals 13.8 kilometers per second. Our shuttles do about half that at 23,000 kilometers per hour. Your nuclear powered Ion Drive will steadily accelerate you over a few years to a few THOUSAND kilometers per second. 3000 kps equals 10,800,000 miles per hour. I don't think you are going to want to change vectors. Lol. And I guarantee you will wish you had that nice thin blanket of atmosphere, that magnetic field, and several miles of rock between you and the surface when you have that inevitable collision with the grapefruit sized chunk of ice, or iron. How am I doing? ) We'd never run out of food. We'd never run out of air. We'd never run out of fuel. So our planet takes a few hits. So what? Once we get settled in our new orbit around Alpha, and get warmed back up ... in a few thousand years you won't know the difference! Lol.

From Cosmos July 2009:SYDNEY: Astronomers have detected the first strong evidence for a new class of 'mid-size' black holes that could help prove how supermassive black holes form. Until now, black holes have either been supermassive – millions to billions of times the mass of the Sun — or stellar mass black holes, small black holes that form from the death of stars. Now, astrophysicists from the Centre d'Etude Spatiale des Rayonnements in Toulouse, France and the University of Leicester, UK and the have found a middle-mass black hole, dubbed Hyper-Luminous X-ray source 1 or HLX-1. The black hole, which is 290 million light years away, is at least 500 times the mass of the Sun. Missing link The find, reported today in the journal Nature, may be the missing link to theories on how supermassive black holes form. No-one knows how supermassive black holes, such as the one at the centre of the Milky Way galaxy, are created. One theory is that they grow from the merger of smaller black holes. But until now, no one had found any direct evidence of the intermediate-mass black holes thought to be the building blocks of supermassive black holes. ........................................................................................... Much more to cover, but I have not had much time today. Hope your day is going well. And thank you for the apology, but it was not necessary. You haven't offended me at all. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Cambridge MA (SPX) Nov 17, 2006 The existence of black holes is perhaps the most fascinating prediction of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. When any mass, such as a star, becomes more compact than a certain limit, its own gravity becomes so strong that the object collapses to a singular point, a black hole. In the popular mind, this immense gravity well is a place where strange things happen. And now, a Center for Astrophysics-led team has measured a black hole spinning so rapidly - turning more than 950 times per second - that it pushes the predicted speed limit for rotation. "I would say that this regime of gravity is as far from direct experience and knowing as the subatomic world itself," says CfA astronomer Jeffrey McClintock. Applying a technique to measure spin developed jointly by McClintock and CfA astrophysicist Ramesh Narayan, the team used NASA's Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer satellite data to provide the most direct determination yet of black hole spin. McClintock and Narayan led an international group consisting of Rebecca Shafee, Harvard University Physics Department; Ronald Remillard, Kavli Center for Astrophysics and Space Research, MIT; Shane Davis, University of California, Santa Barbara, and Li-Xin Li, Max-Planck Institute for Astrophysics, Germany, in this research. The results are published in today's issue of the Astrophysical Journal. "We now have accurate values for the spin rates of three black holes," says McClintock. "The most exciting is our result for the microquasar GRS1915+105, which has a spin that is between 82% and 100% of the theoretical maximum value." "The black hole spin frequency we measured is the rate at which space-time is spinning, or is being dragged, right at the black hole's event horizon," says Narayan. The high-speed black hole, GRS 1915, is the most massive of the 20 X-ray binary black holes for which masses are presently known, weighing about 14 times as much as the Sun. It is well known for unique properties such as ejecting jets of matter at nearly the speed of light and rapid variations in its X-ray emission. Note that the spin is measured at the event horizon. Not at the near-zero ( presumed ) surface of the singularity itself. If the event horizon is spinning at 950 times a second, do you think the singularity is spinning slower? ................................................................................ More in a bit ... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFrom The Age.com.au After 29 years of thinking about it, Stephen Hawking has decided to admit he was wrong about the digestive habits of black holes. The renowned Cambridge University scientist presented a paper today arguing that black holes, the celestial vortexes formed by collapsing stars, can eventually reveal details about the objects they swallow up. Hawking, a leading expert on universal dynamics, had previously insisted black holes destroy all molecular fingerprints of their contents and emit only a generic form of radiation. But today at the 17th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation, Hawking presented a series of mind-boggling new calculations that suggest black holes are able to cast out their contents "in a mangled form" - and that there's only one way in and one way out. Hawking, 62, said he no longer believed a 1980s theory that black holes might offer passage into another universe, a rival explanation for identifying where matter and energy go when consumed by a black hole. ......................................................................................... Hawking is not infallible. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFrom Curious About Astronomy: Has there been an experiment that measured speed faster than the speed of light in vacuum? Is that true that in some experiment was measured a speed, faster than the speed-of-light in the vacuum? Yes. If the answer is YES, what kind of particle was used for that experiment: a photon, a neutrino or other particle? Photon. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged From cosmology.berkeley.edu: How do black holes evaporate? ----------------------------- This is a tough one. Back in the 1970's, Stephen Hawking came up with theoretical arguments showing that black holes are not really entirely black: due to quantum-mechanical effects, they emit radiation. The energy that produces the radiation comes from the mass of the black hole. Consequently, the black hole gradually shrinks. It turns out that the rate of radiation increases as the mass decreases, so the black hole continues to radiate more and more intensely and to shrink more and more rapidly until it presumably vanishes entirely. Actually, nobody is really sure what happens at the last stages of black hole evaporation: some researchers think that a tiny, stable remnant is left behind. Our current theories simply aren't good enough to let us tell for sure one way or the other. As long as I'm disclaiming, let me add that the entire subject of black hole evaporation is extremely speculative. It involves figuring out how to perform quantum-mechanical (or rather quantum-field-theoretic) calculations in curved spacetime, which is a very difficult task, and which gives results that are essentially impossible to test with experiments. Physicists *think* that we have the correct theories to make predictions about black hole evaporation, but without experimental tests it's impossible to be sure. ....................................................................... Again, black holes may very well leak. This does not affect my model. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged We may be talking at cross purposes here. I am not talking about the 'size' of a black hole being the Scharzschild Radius. I am talking about the mass of the 'object' at the center. There is some dispute as to whether it is an infinitely dense, 'zero' volume singularity, or a finite density with a measurable surface area. Either way, we have a small paradox. How can gravity escape from a black hole? But it does apparently. And this little fact is critical to my model. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThanks again Toasty for your input. I meant to post this first. Sorry. I always claim that I am unafraid to admit mistakes, so allow me to offer evidence of this. You are absolutely right about GR not predicting speeds faster than light. Every time I screw up like this I think I should be taken out and shot! But then I go back and read my favorite guys' mistakes. Einstein, and Galileo. I feel better already! Ok. I think I can CYA on your points. Let's see if I can stop you from throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Lol. If I am not mistaken, GR breaks down at the singularity. Einstein asserted that although GR predicted such objects, they could never actually occur due to angular momentum ( centrifugal force ) of a rotating body ( such as a collapsing star. I don't remember him addressing static black holes though, even though GR predicted both. Also, I have been unable to find evidence for a static BH, and it seems as if all the new discoveries are of rotating ones. And if I am not mistaken here, too ... it has just been in the last few years that rotating BH's were discovered at all. I really don't think there is such a thing as a non-rotating BH, no matter how it was originally formed. Any matter dropping in will form an accretion disc ... a spinning accretion disc ... which would lend it's angular momentum to the singularity. Another point which I may have already made. The only rotational 'drag' on a singularity would seem to be anything in orbit around it. If that is gone, if there is no more accretian disc, there should be nothing left to slow the spin down. Regardless, Einstein made a case for the 'impossibility' of their existence. Current observational evidence would strongly contradict that 'impossibility'. I have made the assertion that at the point of singularity, space is so broken that the normal restrictions imposed by the properties of space no longer are in effect. And this would apply to both spin, and your 'gravitational anchor' ... meaning the black hole is NOT tethered by it's own gravity, but rather by any mass ( accretian disc, stellar companion, galaxy ) orbiting the singularity in 'normal' space. Once that mass has been consumed, there would be no restrictions on movement. Even if both these hypotheses are wrong, the model can still function. The black hole will always gravitate toward mass. Understanding what we do about star/galaxy formation, and angular momentum, it seems unlikely that galaxies and their attendant black holes would ever be on intersecting paths. But I may be wrong on this too. Btw, sorry for jumping around. I will hopefully not miss any of your objections. I also appreciate your observations regarding the model's preamble, but it doesn't want to let me edit. It is a difficult and delicate balance between humility, and confidence. I obviously failed to accomplish this. I wanted everyone to know I was willing to be proven wrong, and at the same time lend credibility to my model through 3rd party 'verification'. Regardless ... all statements at the beginning are true. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Should read ... CAN'T. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You are correct. They could be more elemental. The point is the singularity is homogenous in form. And when the BB happens, the released mass immediately transforms into hydrogen, and helium. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I think you might be wong here. You speak of it being 'less dense' but the singularity itself is ( nearly ) infinitely dense and contains all the accumulated mass. And see the previous post on this. Toasty, it is worth noting that in 1975, when Hawking first proposed 'evaporation', there was no evidence of supermassive black holes. No one at that time was seriously considering their existence. In fact, it wasn't until several years after Einstein's death ( in the early 60's ) that science really started to look at BH's at all. Einstein said they couldn't exist in reality, so everyone ... or mainstream, anyway, went along with it. Another problem Hawking was unaware of in 1975 was that BH's merged. Look, it took him 29 years to admit his mistake on black holes 'shunting' mass to another dimension. ( information irretrievably lost ) It's not like there wasn't any evidence in all that time ..... He just couldn't see it, or accept it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged First, clearly ... black holes are not tethered by their own gravity. If it were spinning at high frquencies, you would think it even less likely to be moving anywhere at all. A spinning object 'wants' to remain at a fixed point in space. Just like a spinning top on a table. If you have ever tried to change the position of something containing a gyroscope, you would know how hard it is to move it from it's resting position. So what makes it spin faster is accreting more mass. What makes it change it's position in space is either inertia, angular momentum of orbiting mass ... or gravity from somewhere else. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Again, you are not speaking of the actual singularity. You are speaking of the Schwarzschild Radius. This has no bearing on the gravitational attraction. The more massive, the more gravity. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Ok. First .. there is no evidence to date that such an event has occurred. And we can look a long way back in time. This is/was Einstein's argument against black holes existing at all. He was wrong. If you were correct, then what is the upper limit? If I am not mistaken we have evidence of a supermassive weighing in at 18 BILLION sols. Think it doesn't have a spin? The more mass it accretes, the heavier it gets, and the faster it spins. How could this, or any other supermassives exist at all? We know that the supermassives studied so far have spin from the accretion discs. Stellar compaions? Spin. How big must it get before it flies apart ... or dissipates? 100 billion sols? 500 billion? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No. The more massive a black hole gets, the denser the singularity gets. But even with all the mass of our visible/local universe, it would still not be 'infinitely' dense, because the properties of space, and matter won't allow that. The Schwarzschild Radius will increase with mass. Again, correct me if I am misunderstanding you. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The inherent energy in space itself. It tries to maintain straight lines. If it did not, there would be no 'curved' space. "Space is UNIFORM unless disturbed by mass ( gravity )." How can you 'disturb' something that doesn't exist? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Nothing would make it 'stop', but there is a direct relationship between the CONCENTRATION of gravity, and whether or not space collapses. Clearly something like our own body and it's gravitational force will 'displace' space without totally collapsing it. So space must have a 'stretchy' quality. More evidence that space is 'something' as opposed to 'nothing'. Link Both. Neither contradict the processes involved in the model. ( to my knowledge ) Both disciplines break down at the singularity. That is not a contradiction. It is a failure of the those disciplines to adequately explain those processes. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. ALL energy from the 'original' BB is recaptured. So the processes of thermo dynamics, and entropy are irellevant. Nothing escapes. Who says we have to cool anything to absolute zero? I don't care if the singularity is running a high fever. It doesn't change the process of black holes merging into one. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedToasty wrote: Not following your logic. All I am doing is explaining where OUR BB got it's mass. From the previous finite universe. Other explanations have it 'spontaneously' materialize from nothing. Or branes. Or packets. Or time reversal. I am not making a serious attempt to explain eternity. I don't know how the process began. I just have reason to believe, based on all available evidence, that this bang wasn't the first one. And I further contend that there are many reasons why a closed loop makes more sense than the other models out there ... as I have already explained ... and it doesn't require a complicated and contorted solution. It doesn't require non-existent super-physics. Not to say we won't ever 'invent' them. It doesn't require non-existent branes, or strings. It really is a very simple solution. With all due respect, I don't think you have pointed out anything that falsifies my model. Unless you are aware of observational evidence to contradict it, or where mathematics precludes it, or where physics, or quantum mechanics prohibits it. A singularity is NOT infinitely dense. It is NOT infinitely small. To be either would require an infinite amount of mass, and it would have to be 'shunting' mass to another 'dimension', because space won't allow those shenannigans in THIS dimension. If it did, everything would be stuck in a black hole. Everything in the INFINITE universe would be stuck in ONE black hole. Remember, Hawking is no longer on that page.

Good questions, but no. To both. Radioactive decay, and tidal/stress forces on the core would keep the heat going for billions of years. The Rogue is 3 times Jupiter's diameter. It is the by-product of colliding stars. A small 'dollop' of core material was expelled from the collision. It is all nickel and iron. Quite beautiful by the way. Crushed into a flawless sphere, it is essentially a perfect convex mirror, reflecting back the stars. Watching it travel through space ... from a safe distance ... it would appear nearly invisible, except for the edge of it's horizon where reflected stars are stretched and distorted before they 'fall off'. It would appear as a 'ring' of distorted light. There is no way to stop this thing. It's mass is near that of the sun. Anythng we sent it's way .... even if we pushed the moon at it ... it would simply absorb it and not budge a billionth of a meter from it's course. To the other guy ... moving the solar system would require magic. This just requires existing technology and a lot of hard work ... Oh, and another thing. This is not blowing up some bomb on antarctica. This is a slow and steady application of force. You would not feel a thing when the pyramids began thrusting. And the oceans would not slosh over their banks. But this doesn't mean a lot of bad things are not going to happen to our hapless inhabitants of earth. A lot of people will die ... sadly ... but better a lot, than all. Yes? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedPangloss wrote: Sad ( pathetic ... lol ) really. I had a great opportunity. Had the pilot all storyboarded out. But writing the screenplay was just too complex for me. I am not a good writer.

I would begin by describing infinite space as a 3 dimensional straight-lined grid with all lines extending to infinity. I have no reason to think it has not always been here. The physical properties ( laws ) of infinite space would appear to have finite restrictions. If not, there is no reason to think a photon would be limited to 300,000 kps. If space was truly a 'void' there would be no lines to warp. Space would not be affected by anything. It could have no laws, no properties. But we know mass/gravity warps those lines. To have 'properties' at all suggests an energy of some kind to enforce the laws. That energy would exist universally, and homogeneously. This force would affect matter in the exact same way as 'dark energy'. Indeed I think this force IS dark energy. As I have said, I think this is a property of space rather than a separate force acting on space. And I further assert that 'space' is not expanding ... so much as 'smoothing'. How our local universe came to be originally, I can't say for sure. But I would guess that it is the macro version of those particles that manifest themselves, then are annihilated. Essentially akin to a build up of static charge. ( chaos ) Energy can neither be created nor destroyed ... and unless the particles are popping in from another dimension, it would have to be one of three things. God playing with particles, particles borrowing energy from space itself, or manifestations of a force completely separate from space. So-called Dark Energy. We know ( or think we know from GR ) that a black hole breaks space down. To our perception ... mathematically curving the lines to infinity ... completely. But we are not comfortable yet with such large scale objects, and obviously we are not in a position to really step outside our local universe and watch the process. So the breakdown may not be complete at all. We speak of objects, or matter being 'within' the black hole. I don't see it that way. I just see it as a very dense point. There is no 'within'. We don't drop INto a black hole. We drop ONto a black hole. The surface area is just too small and it's below our ability to detect it. Let's talk matter for a moment. We know that the properties of matter preclude it fom becoming infinitely large in volume. Gravity will collapse anything if it gets too massive. Yet, because the math tells us with 'certainty' that it's possible, we speak of a singularity as 'infinitely' dense. I don't think the properties of matter allow this either. Very dense indeed. But not infinitely so. Anyway, we have no problem accepting that matter has it's own limitations, without the need for some outside, distinctly different force acting upon it. The foremost property of mass is gravity. It's 'inherent' property. Yet when we look at the manifestations of space's properties, we arbitrarily attribute those manifestations to an outside force. That is because it has apparently never occurred to us that space is anything other than 'nothing'. Now you are asking me to describe what happens at the point of critical mass ( or the BB ), which physicists have pondered for 90 years. I can only surmise, and I am probably wrong. But I think a big bang is space and matter reaching their physical limits. Matter has become so dense, so gravitationally strong that it finally butts up against a finite limit. Matter's limit, and space's limit. And I think they are both actually just 'space'. Different only in form. Since energy can be neither created nor destroyed, matter is simply borrowed energy from space. It makes sense that their conversions would be ruled by the same laws. You may have noticed that I tread lightly on dark matter/dark energy on my main model. I merely say the model is unaffected by either. Technically this is accurate, although perhaps misleading. It was deliberate on my part because Dark Energy is the darling of the cosmo universe. But in fact, the 'closed loop' is NOT affected, although dark matter adds it's mass ... and dark energy ( or space's inherent energy ) adds it's mass, too. When space 'completely' collapses just before the BB, all that energy stored in that collapsed ( finite ) area is added to the singularity. I think that the deciding factor to the BB is likely the near infinite spin. Einstein was probably close to right about a collapsing star spinning so fast that it would fly apart from angular momentum before actually collapsing 'all the way'. Well, the BB showed us that there is no 'all the way' ... meaning all the way to infinitely dense. So it would appear that Einstein was just off by a little. The rotational force ... the kinetic energy built up ... finally overcomes the gravitational force. So really it doesn't matter if the 'critical mass point' is an actual 'reaction' or simply flying apart. The effect is identical. Either way, space is taking back all that 'borrowed' energy. Or at least as much as it can. It is also entirely possible that the last black hole does not fly apart ( or react ) totally. It is possible that it retains a good portion of it's mass, falling back 'in'. Anyway, as space snaps back to 'straight lines' or as close as gravity will allow it, it carries matter from the BB with it. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that this process ... this expansion of space ... is limited to C. ( this would be no different from a singularity exceeding light speed rotational velocity due to space being 'broken'.) This would explain much about the isotropy. Explain much about hydrogen/helium levels. Explain CMBR. Explain space's 'temperature'. As far as extracting 'all' energy, in this I am referring to all physical matter/energy originally manifested from the big bang. There is no reason to think that space must give up all its energy too. I would think that a direct result of distance. The closer ( and more curved ) space is in relationship to the singularity, the more energy it gives up. I don't think there is a hard and fast cut-off point here. This 'fudge factor' would allow for Heisenberg's Principle. If the singularity did not drag all normal matter/energy in ( as opposed to stored energy from space ) and then be forced to release it, then the universe would be a one-way deal. Everything would end up entombed forever in the black hole. The process could not be duplicated. I wonder how long it would take for a black hole containing all the matter/energy of our visible/local universe to 'evaporate'. According to Hawking ... correct me if I am wrong ... the escaping particles, full to the brim with kinetic energy pair up and go on to live long and happy lives ... heading out of the universe. If other universes exist in infinite and eternal space, and underwent the same 'evaporation' we would be bombarded with similar particles having made the eternally long trek across the voids between universes. Literally a solid 'wall' of them. What's the expected life span of a photon? If left alone? Eternity? And the alternative is that nothing ever existed before our universe. And nothing will again. This is totally and egotistically illogical. If ours came to be, what in the world would make someone think that others wouldn't too? God? Not a rational conclusion. Matter and gravity are the creation of the BB. We can be fairly certain of this. Time and space? Not so certain. There is no reason to believe they were not already there. And there is no evidence that would contradict this. And no evidence to support time and space being created along with matter and gravity. This is pure supposition. So to answer your last question. Yes. Sort of. Space and matter are distinguishable only in form, and how the laws treat those forms differently. But ultimately, at point of conversion, they are essentially the same in that they are now subject to overlapping laws. Whew! I hope this doesn't just make it all the more confusing .... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOh. I compare my model to the generally accepted BB model, and to other models such as Greene's, Turoks, Frampton's, and any others that can not explain the structure and function of our universe without resorting to 'new physics, or eseentially 'metaphysical' phenomena.

Electrolysis powered by geothermal production of electricity. Acceptable?

I think the most advantagous genetic quirk is the god gene. I prefer to think of it as the 'unsupported belief gene' or the 'giving' gene. But it has very specific advantages over more primative versions. It makes it 'feel good' to be around others of our kind. It makes us want to work as a collective. And it makes us contemplate our 'special status' in the scheme of things. This gives us more 'reason to live' and it tends to create avenues for invention to make the collective a better place for all. And I agree with what toasty said. I think there are many good reasons to conclude ( at least until further evidence refutes this ) that our species ... homosapiens ... is the best the universe can make. Out of approximately 7 billion estimated species since single cell life arose 3.5 billion years ago, only one had developed RF capability. Us. And it wasn't even really 'us'. It was entirely the efforts of .0000000000001% of the human population that brought us to this point in technological development. 50-60 thousand years ago ... as we started the great migration out of Africa, we were beating on drums to communicate over distances, and tending goats. Those who stayed behind are still beating on drums and tending goats. Never even invented the wheel in 50,000 years. Aztecs, Mayans, Chinese, Egyptians ... all had marvelous societies, but never developed physics, electromagnetism, chemistry ( not much anyway ) or RADIOS. Chinese had 'gunpowder' for a 1000 years and never grasped it's potential. And there had to be a billion Chinese at least during this timeframe. Yet Nobel came along and figured it out in a few minutes. Yes, if not for very special conditions ... a very special geographic location ... very unique social influences ... and a very lucky mutation of our gene ... we would still not have the wheel. Well, ok. Lol. We'd have the wheel, and wonderful buildings, and artwork, and philosophy ... but no radios.

Well. Seems as if you find the topic interesting. Actually, we do have a nice source of fuel. I believe the Antarctic continent holds about 7 million cubic miles of ice. Not to mention the surrounding ocean. This would be an excellent source of fuel ( hydrogen ) and atmosphere ( oxygen ) to pipe down into our underground cities. We current HAVE underground cities. We also have a planet with a core temp of what? 14,000 degrees F. That heat source should last a couple of billion years. Geothermal for all our electric needs. And we'd need A/C ... not heaters ... underground. The wall temp of African mines at 6 miles down is about 170 F. As far as escape velocity, we are not in any hurry. Simply increasing our angular momentum ( orbital velocity ) by any small fraction is going to move us farther from the sun. I was also writing a screenplay ( 2 hour TV pilot ) about this for Geopp Circle, at their request. It is owned by ( or was ) Jonathan Frakes. Commander Riker. Unfortunately, I'm not good at screenwriting, and it has foundered. The working title was/is Earth/Alpha. I will be back in a while to cover the other 'problems'. But I will say that I think I worked them out ... in general terms, anyway. Thanks again for your interest. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged By the way, good points, all. But I really do think there are real, and adequate solutions for all. One of you said a journey this long ( but you haven't heard how long it would actually take ) would be 'pointless'. Hmmm. If the alternative is being blown into space dust, I might want to go along with this 'pointless' adventure. Don't think Alpha will burn out before we get there. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedRemember that this is a project that the earth's entire population would be involved in. ( except those who prefer to stay here and accept god's wrath ... they would be trying very hard to sabotage this effort ) And realistically, we would need a couple hundred years of advance warning to accomplish this. But the most fascinating aspect to this is it should ... in theory ... be quite possible. We could actually move our planet if we chose to do so. Imagine building mile high pyramids on the antarctic continent. ( This is the only reasonable choice as we need a crust below to 'push' against.) Say 3000 of them. A mile square at the base ( resting directly on the ice ) tapering to 500 foot openings at the top. Inside the pyramid we have hundreds of geothermally powered lasers aimed at a central collector at the bottom of a 500 foot diameter ceramic tube. Lasers alone would have very little 'thrust' but if we injected hydrogen into this and excited the atoms they would have little choice but to exit at extreme velocities out the top of the pyramid. Putting them on antarctica serves another purpose. We want to move 'up' from the plane of the ecliptic. ( and by the way, we would lose the moon in this process, but we are beyond needing it now. Man could survive just fine without it. ) Maybe we could 'capture' one on the way in to Alpha! There is a lot of debris from the creation of our solar system, and this would present serious challenges, but by leaving the solar system in this direction, we would minimize our chances of planet-destroying collisions. Still, we would have serious collisions. The arctic would be the best place for these to happen, as the ice, and liquid oceans beneath would make the best shock absorber. Whether or not we would have liquid oceans after we left the sun's influence is debatable. But just like Jupiter's moons, stressing the earths's crust would have the beneficial side effect of heating the earth's core, and thereby assisting in keeping the oceans liquid. But we would definitely be 'snowball earth'. The atmosphere would condense down, and provide us with futher insulation against heat loss, and it would also lessen the impact on our upper atmosphere by our hydrolasers. This process would cause the earth's crust to undergo many stresses, but with sensors planted all over the earth's crust and super-computers to monitor changes in real-time we could actually modify thrust from any and all of the thousands of pyramids to prevent us from 'breaking the egg's shell'. This would also allow us to 'steer' our planet, and with all our forward sensors ( in geostationary orbits ) giving us decades of advance warning, we should be able to nudge our planet out of harm's way. There would be some serious close calls naturally. And again ... some unavoidable collisions. Food. One acre of corn on the surface of our planet feeds (x) number of people, depending on location, and a host of other issues. Now lets go underground. We can take that same acre and stack it 100 stories high. Fully mechanized hydroponics, 24 hour/day light, optimum nutrients ... now how many will that 'one square acre' feed? More later ... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWe could also create plankton feeding grounds by stringing millions of light sources under the ice. Would many species die off? Of course. But I don't think we would. We would have more than enough oxygen. Plenty of heat. Plenty of electricity. And the good news? Internal combustion engines would no longer be necessary. Everything would run on induction. And we would become 100% recyclers. I think life would be way more pleasant than hiding out in dark, cold, drafty caves. Livestock? We already warehouse them. Little change as far as they are concerned. No real problem digging out huge caverns for them to live in. All waste recycled. Methane ( non-polluting?) to add heat where we wanted to. Life on the surface would be harsh, but I bet there would be plenty of people who would choose that route. Domed cities would be buried under a mile of ice, I suspect. Air on the surface might be difficult to breathe, and of course minus 250 degress would require special suits to survive the exposure. But all this technolgy exists today. I would miss my corvette, but you can't have everything. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHow do you get rid of double posts? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOh. And don't forget, this is not 'shoot your wad' then hope for the best. It would be impossible to calculate vectors of all the objects between us and Alpha. This is a controlled flight. As we approach Alpha ( assuming we made it this far ) we would have already turned earth around to 'decelerate' so it would not be all that hard to approach Alpha at the correct velocity, and direction to allow our capture in the proper 'goldilocks' orbit. As far as maintaining these machines ... both above and below ground ... we would not be standing still technologically on this journey. We would continue to advance as we always have done. In fact, there is a very good likelihood our advancements would speed up dramatically, due to the circumstances, and new challenges we will be faced with. Another point to consider is that we would continue to accelerate as long as we applied thrust. I think we could acheive rather fantastic velocities on this journey, so I am relatively certain Alpha would still have a few billion years left as a good home.

Thank you for your thoughts. I don't think, however, that I have provided insufficient information to allow anyone to easily understand the model conceptually. It is an extremely simple model. So you could say ... " It won't work because black holes don't merge." Or " Black holes can't get that big." Or " Black holes could never 'catch up' to expanding space." Or " It violates the Heisenberg Principle." Or any number of possible objections, and then those can be debated. It amazes me that so many models that have 'popped up' ( pun intended ) in the last two decades rely heavily on string theory. How did ST morph from a hypothesis to theory? Everything I have read about it has the huge disclaimer ... HIGHLY SPECULATIVE. Yet cosmologists routinely integrate this into their models as if it were a foregone conclusion. Good, solid math and physics behind it? I don't think so. Maybe I am wrong, but the fact remains that after 26 years of intense study, ST is no more a reality than the day it was proposed. Anyway, if you are trying to suggest my 'language' prevents physicists from grasping the hypothesis, I would just say that people like Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson, or Dr. Michael Ibison ( and many more ) didn't seem to have any such issues. I am always trying to 'tool up' but some things just are not my bailiwick. I understand very well the inner workings of my corvette's engine, and I could probably put one together, but I could never express mathematically all the forces involved, nor create engineering blueprints. But I don't need to. I just accept the genius behind it all and enjoy the ride. All that said, I do appreciate your POV. I have said this many times. I could be flat out wrong. Not a happy thought, but one I am prepared for. However, the more I study about the behavior of black holes, and gravity ... of space, the more convinced I become that this model is a viable, and reasonable alternative to the current one. I really don't mean to butt heads with anyone. I am too excitable, I suppose. Just another of my character flaws. So once again, I do apologize for my manner of address. I will work on improving it. And my knowledge of physics.

Thank you very much. Yes, I am wound too tight. Lol. I could be much more 'diplomatic' and way less cocky. You are right of course. And wrong, too I hope. I have sent my model to about 1500 scientists around the world. You would not believe the hate mail I have received. All I am really trying to do is plant seeds. Just offer a different way to look at our universe. Hopefully one they had never considered before. Then let the thought fester for a few ( or many ) years. I do think it's a good model. I hope that at some point, the thought will nag enough at some physicist's mind, and he will begin to explore this on his own. It's not like they don't have free time ... I am always ready to find out I'm totally off on this. But it just hasn't happened yet. And I don't think I necessarily disagree with your last paragraph. Thanks again, and Merry Christmas. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes we do. We have our local universe, and how it functions. That is evidence. Your hypothesis has NO evidence. It is no different than suggesting fairy dust is responsible. It's a wonderful idea ... other physical laws ... but it's just an idea, with nothing to support it. Comes under the heading ... 'anything is possible'. You don't know that at all. Speaking of ego, I proved you were wrong. Yet I am not hearing you say " You were correct pywakit. I was wrong." I don't believe I ever attacked your character. Did I? Want me to? And I am at a loss as to why you say these silly things. Who ever said there was 'more than one space'? I certainly didn't. There is no evidence at all of this. Have you been reading Framton's Model again? Shame on you. Just kidding. If I needed someone to tell me I need to become an astrophysicist before anyone will look at my model, I would not have come here. I was under the mistaken impression that there were some very bright people here who might find the idea intrigueing. And just might want to examine this possibility. My sincere apologies for overestimating your curiosity. Hmmm. You do seem to make the most illogical of statements in such an absolute way. Now why do you think it doesn't matter what happened before the BB? Seems to me a lot of very real scientists want to know very badly. They must be more curious than you. And I guess we can all call it a day, as you have decreed 'there is no possibility' of it being defined. Yep. We can all go home now .... Yes. I am. But I am never afraid to lose face by admitting when I'm wrong. So I guess my ego isn't totally out of control. And yes it's true I am not a mathematician. Your logic is, as always, dead-on. I guess I can't use GR because I can't duplicate Einstein's math on my own. Guess I can't use any astronomical observations either, because I don't know how to calculate the speed of a galaxy by measuring the red shift. Layman that I am, I am confident enough in my model to send it out to scientists, knowing full well they won't like it, they won't like the manner in which it is presented, and they won't like me. Incredibly, some have said it's a good model. Even pissed off they still admitted it wasn't bad. And that they had never condsidered it before. So nothing to say about charged black holes? Nothing to say about totally misunderstanding the model? Nothing to say about making such a ridiculous statement as "a supermassive black hole has more mass than the visible universe"? Ego or not, can you maintain a rational conversation? It would appear not to be the case. Refusing to admit error is nothing more than childish petulence. You ought to try it sometime. It isn't so bad. I admit to errors practically every day. Still, my apology stands. I am sorry I offended you. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This is truly childish again. Who cares if 2 times in <infinity 2 black holes are identical? What bearing does this have on my model? None. THEY won't be reaching critical mass. They will all have merged to one. One will. And when the last merge occurs, space will collapse into that last black hole dragging gravity waves, photons, dark energy ... whatever ... into the hole. Every last atom. Shocking that we would agree. Yes. Identical in MASS/GRAVITY. Identical in charge. And undoubtably in angular momentum. BANG! And we start a brand new universe with exactly the same mass as the one before. I don't have an answer to the total mass of the visible/local universe. But in the near future, with all the new telescopes going up, we should have a much better calculation than we do now. Your 'problem' was that a 'supermassive black hole was more massive than the entire visible universe'. Yes. Deconstructed. If you can't see that .... Yikes! Look. Do you have a model? What are all the 'many flaws' that have been pointed out? That would be zero. Not being a mathematician is not a 'flaw' in my model. It's a lack of formal training. Doesn't mean I can't think. And are you deaf? I am here for many reasons. To intrigue. To see if some brainiac can find a flaw where the illustrious scientists have not. To take abuse over my lack of credentials. You have something against new concepts? Maybe you would like to declare you have already considered such a universe. Hmmm? I asked for help. The help you offer is ... get your PHD. Very generous help. Thank you. You still think, I must asume, that you actually found some flaw. If you really believe that, then you are not capable of rational thought. My condolences. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedShall I tell you your real problem? You started off by assuming I could not possibly have a good model. So you never even actually read it. Never comprehended it. You just erroneously concluded that it was another crack pot theory. Think about this. What if I am absolutely correct? What if I have come up with the cosmological holy grail? Wouldn't it be amusing if it was discarded ... not to be 'discovered' for another 100 years ... all because you were upset that I couldn't present it mathematically? But that's impossible, right? I'm not a math guy, so I COULDN'T have solved this. For that matter .... in your mind .... NOBODY can solve it.

I wrote a short story a few years back about a rogue, very dense planet ( larger diameter than Jupiter ) on a collision course with our sun. My protagonist saves earth from total annihilation ( redundant? lol ) by engineering the the most astounding feat in Mankind's history. Moving Earth itself to a new home. Alpha Centauri. And I did it with physics. Yes. Earth makes a great space ship.

This from http://www.astro.umd.edu Hopefully this will ease your mind over the charge issue. There are several sites with a wealth of info on black holes. Good reading. Are there scientists who don't believe black hole exist? Certainly. But I think if you dig into it, you will come down heavily on the side of 'existing'. There is simply too much evidence. By the way, no 2 black holes will be identical. True, if they shared the exact same mass, charge, and angular momentum they would be 'indistinguishable'. Can't happen in the real universe. The chances would be nearly infinity to one against. So now we come to another problem. The visible universe has been calculated to be anywhere between 90 billion light years and 156 billion light years in diameter. The shape of the visible universe is still in question. And that shape will directly affect the cubic volume numbers. ( sphere, bulging disc, etc.) So the number you produced would be highly questionable at best. Anyway, I hope I haven't upset you. I can be rather abrupt. But let me make this clear. I can be wrong. I'm wrong all the time. I wouldn't be working so hard on this though, if some nice scientist would just point out an actual flaw. My model has been floating around for 10 months. I've gotten emails from all over the world from very respected scientists. None have pointed to a critical flaw. None have pointed to a not-so-critical flaw. Most were pretty upset with me. Not an unexpected reaction since I was basically saying they were wrong. But a few have offered support if I can figure out a couple of good experiments. And they have said it's a reasonable model. A couple said it's a good model. I find this very encouraging. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWhat is space and time without light or mass? It is really nothing. It would be impossible to measure space or time without anything tangible such as mass or light. It is like trying to find a point south of the south pole, it is undefined. What makes you say this? Space itself has energy. Space is energy. There is nothing to suggest that an absolute vacuum is even possible. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You must not have read the model. And therefore you entirely missed the equation. I will repeat. "The critical mass point of a black hole is EXACTLY equal to the total mass ( matter+energy ) of the visible/LOCAL universe." This would oddly enough include EVERYTHING contained within the 'bubble'. Dark energy, dark matter, normal matter, normal energy, BLACK HOLES .... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Sorry about my rant ... What in the world are you talking about here? My point was that the universe operates under the same laws of chemistry and physics WHEREVER we look. Are trying to suggest that 'anything is possible'? If we were to fuse two hydrogen atoms together an infinite number of times and then somehow come up with something other than helium, that this would have any bearing what so ever on my model or how our physical universe operates? This is irrational. I hope that's not what you were saying. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged What this means is ... if our local ( finite ) universe can exist, there is no logical reason why an INFINITE number of ( finite ) universes can exist ... in an INFINITE universe. Unless you have reason to believe somebody created us, and only us, and made this universe just for us. Again, I really do appreciate your input, and I'm sorry for being a jerk. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged There is no math that says the universe ends at the border. You are incorrect. This is an unsupported hypothesis by very bright people. You make the incorrect assumption that just because very bright people have taken a stand that it must be correct. Would you have gone along with Einstein on his cosmological constant ( steady state universe )? Most did. They were wrong. What makes you think people like Hawking can't be wrong? Because we 'know better' now? In science, there is no safety in numbers. There is safety in truth. Secondly, you have already shown that ( no offense ) you can make rather ridiculous statements. Why on earth would I not include the mass of black holes in my model when 1. They are part of our local universe. 2. They are integral to the model? Could I really be that stupid? I suppose so .... Third, there is a great deal of evidence. You just might not be aware of it. And fourth, to the best of my knowledge, the 'math' and the laws of physics AS WE KNOW THEM NOW support my model. At least ... no one has ever pointed out a law my model violates. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBottom line here, is I have deconstructed your arguments. You were incorrect in your mass of the universe numbers. You were incorrect on your positive/negative charge black holes merging. You didn't really understand the model. You somehow thought that the total mass would not include ALL the mass ( and energy ) which of course is the crux of my model. You made several statements that have no bearing on my model at all. But so have I. And I have been less patient than I should have been. I am very sorry. There is still no flaw. Yet. I am not a man of 'faith'. I just follow the evidence. I don't care what other scientists 'believe'. I care what they can prove. The brightest people can blind themselves. And do. Over and over. But not this time, right? I hope you still don't think you made a valid argument here. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged There is, however math that says space is 'curved'. But only by mass/gravity. The farther you get from the mass, the straighter the lines of space get. And this point is where so many people have a problem. They have seen the pictures of 'curved' space/time and make the assumption that 'nothing' exists out side that curved space. You made the point that without light ( photons ) or mass, there is nothing to measure 'against'. So 'nothing' is there. Well, from a human perspective, even with all our wonderful machines ... yes. It would appear to be nothing. It would be totally black. No photons. No matter radiating energy that we are used to detecting. But that does not mean there is nothing there. The fabric of space is there. Unless again .... you think that 'space' does not enjoy it's own independant existence. That only our universe's 'space' exists. That space did not exist before WE came along to observe it. There is nothing rational or logical in that concept. In my model, the loop is closed. ( Every universe's loop is closed. They all operate the same way, because there is no evidence that other universes would interact any differently with space than ours does.) No photons escape from the final collapse of 'local' space. This solves so many problems that have vexed the scientists. This model also gives us the mass for the big bang. Scientists keep looking for 'magical' ways for matter to materialize from nowhere, and they have been looking for the last 90 years. There are respected models that have this feature. Greene's. Frampton's. After 26 years of trying to find 'magical' means for matter to pop into existence ( branes? ) they are no closer today than they were 90 years ago ... with thousands of people working on it ... with the most sophisticated technology that Einstein could never have imagined. And by the way he did GR in about 5 years on a chalk board. In my model we never get photons leaking into our universe, not because there is no space between universes, but because each one is closed. And very very far apart. If they were NOT closed ... 1. Our BB would have had to pull a rabbit out of a hat. 2. It would be a one shot deal. Nothing ever existed before we came along. Nothing ever will again. 3. Space would exist solely for OUR existence. 4. If space is infinite, and eternal, then we would get photons leaking into our universe right now. From somewhere. Unless you would assert that our universe, out of an infinite number, is the only one with physics, and photons. That would not stand the logic test. Logically there would have to be an infinite number of ALL possibilities, including ours. So we would be bombarded with photons. No, if the universe is infinite, and eternal, my model answers the questions better than any other. If the universe is not infinite, it still answers the questions better than any other.

You are absolutely correct. I mispoke. I am very familiar with that view of the universe. But that wasn't what I meant. I apologize for the misunderstanding. That is the same view that Einstein had. I disagree with that view. I consider it a ( forgive the expression ) throwback to the philosophical and/or religious viewpoint that the universe was created for us, and only us. That the universe ... the local one we reside in ... was the first to ever exist. That time did not exist before our universe 'magically' popped into existence. I contend the infinite universe ... space and time ... have always existed. Einstein appeared to either have religious views of his own ( there is some ambiguity here ), or he was concerned about the 'unpopularity' of a truly infinite universe, as this would contradict 'conventional wisdom'. But his math said space was uniform unless disturbed by mass. And there has been ... to my knowledge ... nothing to contradict this. Tell me, if you don't mind. Why do you believe our universe is the only one? Because it's the only one we can see? This may make sense from a 'purist's logic' but it makes no sense to me at all. Fact. We exist. Fact. Our local universe exists. Fact. Space is uniform, unless disturbed by mass. The truly logical conclusion ... as far as I can tell ... is that infinite space is already there, and always has been. And our universe is simply a denser local area. If our universe exists, then it happens. It is the most arrogant, and egotistical twisting of the 'construct of logic' to assume this was and is the only such occurrence in an infinite universe. Einstein was brilliant. But he was wrong on many things. Galileo was brilliant. But he was wrong on many things. Copernicus was brilliant. Newton was brilliant. BRUNO was brilliant. But they were all wrong in their thinking in one way or another. Hawking is a brilliant man. But he is wrong, too. I have no expectation of changing your views on this matter, but the 'safety in numbers' defense is a poor gambit. There is absolutely no evidence that space ends at our borders. This viewpoint has been science's since it was first invented. Lord Kelvin once stated that we had learned pretty much all the important things, and he was sad because there were no more mysteries to unravel. 'Logical' scientists 50 years ago ... when I was 7 ... were quite sure that we would not find much beyond the few thousand galaxies beyond our own. They were pretty sure the MW had around 250 million to about 2 billion stars. But at the same time, they talked of all the mysterious 'possibilities' that might lay 'just beyond our field of vision'. Matter might form in completely new and unforeseen ways. Photons might operate completely differently from the photons we were used to dealing with. An interesting, but illogical dichotomy. I was there, and paying close attention to all this. I may not be all that bright, but I worked out the 'transit method' at age 6 ... unaware that Struve had written a short paper on this the year I was born. By age 10 I finally got up the nerve to write to NASA and describe this method. Why? Because I was sick of them saying we would never be able to discover an exoplanet. Yes, yes, there 'probably' were some out there ... but there was no way to know for sure. This was their official position. NASA ignored this 'non-learned' 10 year old. Never even sent me a card. But I knew with absolute certainty that there had to be endless numbers of stars, and I knew with certainty that OUR star could not POSSIBLY be the ONLY one in the universe with satellites. You would not believe the number of beatings I endured for expressing this. Christians on the island where I grew up considered such talk heretical. And they meant it. True infinity may be hard for most people to comprehend. But not for me. I comprehended it when I was 6. Every single prediction ( at complete odds with the 'learned men' ) I have ever made regarding the structure of the universe has been born out. I have never been wrong on the 'big picture'. Not once. If you can show me one solid reason why the universe ends at the farthest point of our 'bubble' I will be happy to admit my error. But I suspect you can not do that. You have a belief. So does Hawking. If it can happen once, it can happen an infinite number of times. Any other stance is based on nothing more than ego. No matter what your, or science's 'logic' says. I don't have beliefs, although everyone with beliefs will tell me I do. I just follow the facts. I extrapolate from facts. Not wishes. Not ego. Not under the illusion that we are 'special'. I don't believe in the supernatural, or metaphysical. I do not believe that 'anything is possible' just beyond our field of vision. Crush 2 hydrogen atoms together and you get helium. Here, or across the visible universe. 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom of oxygen make water. Here, and across the visible universe. What makes you think that some other 'mysterious' physics might exist 'just around the corner'? Ps. I also know for certain ( 99.99999999999999% probability ) why SETI has not detected a signal. And I suspect they are finally figuring it out. They expected to detect one in the FIRST FEW YEARS! I was there. I listened to their 'logic'. 50 years later and not a peep. Do YOU know why we haven't detected a signal? I'm guessing you don't. SETI was built on flawed logic. Flawed assumptions. And Drakes dreams. Too off topic? Sorry. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I will be back a little later, but before I go, I think I better point out a glaring error on your part. Supermassive black holes are PART of the total mass of the universe. So the universe can't very well have less mass than a supermassive black hole, now can it? There are other problems with your rebuttal. I will cover them in a while.

I don't know. I am not an academic. I have no formal training in the pertinent sciences. I have no choice but to rely on those who do. Yes. I mispoke. Still, there is no consensus on Hawking's hypothesis. If it is 'derived' from the laws of physics as we know them, then you would think it 'settled' until proven otherwise. Instead there is a great deal of disagreement over this. And I am unable to follow your logic. In theory it would be easy to test ... if we had a way to test it. But we don't. Let's assume I lack sufficient knowledge to do so. But if the idea is a reasonable one, and appears ... at least on the surface ... to have advantages over other models, then what avenue is available to me? Should 'good' ideas be discarded if the originator of the idea lacks the ability to properly investigate? Yes, I see your point. Yet all we are talking about is replacing a model clearly flawed ( according to many respected and learned scientists ) with a model that appears to better fit the available evidence. Well? You are obviously skilled in the appropriate sciences. Are there obvious reasons why my model wouldn't work? Are there less obvious ones? If the answer is no, how would you 'ask' more knowledgable people if they won't allow the question because they do not care for the manner in which it is asked? ( meaning not following proper academic form ) And again, if the answer is still no, what ways would you look for to test such a hypothesis? Again, how would you have presented such a hypotheisis? You understand what I'm trying to get across. What language would you use to better delineate the model's basic premise? I could not agree more. This is exactly what I am trying to do. Trying to find a reason why it wouldn't work. The people who COULD answer this for me have either been unable to, or choose not to. This is not an 'elves sprinkled fairy dust' hypothesis, as I am sure you realize. It does not appear to conflict with observations. I have been told by respected scientists that my model has some reasonable merit, and that it does not appear ( at least on cursory examination ) to violate known laws. Should I just throw it away? Or just assume there is no way to make accurate predictions, or create ( potentially ) corroborating experiments because the 'learned men' can't be bothered? If it's a useless idea because it defies logic, or physics, or is contradicted by observations, then it needs to be discarded. If the only problem is that you can't immediately think of a way to test, or corroborate the hypothesis, or you are irritated by my lack of training and inability to express the supporting physics, or that it conflicts with your own theories, then what avenue is available for me to proceed? Who can I talk to that might want to explore this hypothesis? Or is it a hypothesis considered and correctly ( meaning no new evidence to resurrect it ) discarded long ago? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I have. I continue to do so. This has been the subject matter of many conversations with scientists all over the world. Many have agreed it appears to violate no known laws. Not just 'other' things. 'Every' other thing. Yes, of course there are specific reasons for supernovae, and they differ from the processes of smaller objects, but there ARE mechanisms in place for all matter to be converted to energy and vice versa. Except so far ... apparently ... black holes. But black holes are just extremely dense stars. Not infinitely dense. So this does not seem to be an illogical extrapolation. Because we don't understand the mechanism does not preclude the existence of such a mechanism. So far there is no 'known' mechanism for a universe's worth of mass to materialize from nothing. Yet this is the currently accepted model. No. First, there is adequate evidence that black holes merge. All of my assertions are related. You apparently do not see that. And it doesn't 'just happen to be the same'. My hypothesis assumes that all the mass that came 'from' the big bang was all the mass that 'made' the big bang happen to begin with. Now how is this an illogical starting point? How is this an irrational assumption AS A WORKING MODEL? Better to assume it came from 'thin air'? Now what law of physics supports that? Better to assume God did it? What law supports that? Better to assume time runs back and forth? Better to assume space expands eternally at ever increasing acceleration? Wouldn't the logical result of that be 'magic'? I have given reasons. I have run into this many times already. I would respectfully suggest you did not read the model carefully, and furthermore you were/are so predisposed toward scepticism, and your own contrary 'beliefs' that you never fully thought the process through. My inability to express this model in the accepted academic way only gave you more reason to discard it. Prove me wrong. You are a 'learned man'. Should be easy to find the 'fatal flaw'. Which law does it violate? Which observation contradicts it? Surely people as intelligent and trained as you are should be able to dismantle this by proving it is no better than 'fairy dust'. Prove it has less validity than the current model. Prove it less rational and has less validity than Greene's, or Framptoms, or Turok's. Prove the hypothesis is a waste of good neurons ... please. Don't throw it back at me and just say ... you are an idiot. Look. I understand what you are trying to get across. All I am saying is, you understand physics. You are trained in GR and the other applicable sciences. I am not. To ask me to explain it in the manner of a physicist is to ask the impossible. But clearly I have spent a great deal of time on something that I have reason to believe is a better alternative to the current model, past models, and other 'new' models. Since you have such a good handle on physics, why should I need to explain them to you? Or any other physicist? All you need to do is say something like ... "Hey. Interesting idea. But it won't work because ..... " Then I can go on with my life. Is this too difficult a request?

Mr. Skeptic ... I appreciate your immense patience. I am not an academic. Untrained. Life didn't go along with my wish to be an astrophysicist. I apologize. I was under the impression that this site is to help those less skilled but seriously interested in the sciences and offer useful suggestions. So if I may ask this hypothetical question .... Say you were standing around having a beer with your 'learned' buddies talking about your favorite pastime ... black holes. And you suddenly thought ... "What if black holes DO have a critical upper mass limit?" (perhaps you had already considered this in junior high) But pretending this is a brand new thought to you .... What would you do next ... as an academic? Would you ... ? 1. Laugh and instantly forget about it. 2. Consider it ... then decide it is a ludicrous solution. 3. Consider it ... then look for obvious reasons why it couldn't work 4. Consider it ... then quickly decide it would be an impossible hypothesis to test. 5. Consider it ... then examine potential or possible ways to test certain aspects of it. If you think this is a brainless hypothesis, then feel free to say so. But if it was your idea, and you felt it might have merit, what step would you take next? How would YOU have handled it? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI've looked at a lot of 'crunch' models. None to my knowledge use the mobility of a black hole to scavenge mass. None have a fixed point where a black hole will release all it's stored energy. None consider the possiblity that what came from the big bang is the amount of mass that CAUSED the big bang. None require that the ENTIRE mass of the visible universe be recycled ... to the atom. ( Well, I guess the Turok one does ... sort of ... but it aso requires MAGIC and it doesn't actually recycle it. It repeats the exact same universe over and over. ) None appear to offer a good solution to isotropy. ( Well, again in fairness let's say that there is not complete agreement on the mechanisms involved for the isotropy ) None appear to offer a good solution to hydrogen and helium levels. None appear to offer a good solution to CMBR. And it doesn't require strings, or time flowing backward. And it gets rid of all those pesky neutron stars, and 'leaking' black holes. And the coolest thing of all is it makes our constituent particles immortal. I like this idea much more than ... it's a one shot deal, and then we fade away for eternity. Or repeat Groundhog Day for eternity. I don't think it matters that physics breaks down at the singularity. I think that understanding is a ways off. But I do think there must be many ways to test this hypothesis. Perhaps I am wrong. But this is one of the reasons I'm here. If someone finds the hypothesis intriguing, then maybe they will want to find a way to do experimental tests. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I forgot to mention this ajb. My model does not require angular momentum/rotating universe. I don't believe this is part of my model. So therefore the cosmological principle is not violated. It does require space to 'uncollapse' suddenly. The abrupt FTL release of mass in the big bang is required. A near infinite rotational speed of the singularity at 'bang' would do the trick. And it seems to me this would be an excellent solution to the uniformity of hydrogen/helium. My earlier comments about a rotating universe were really more thinking out loud, as someone had just mentioned a few hours earlier the possibility it WAS rotating. Clearly I didn't think it all the way through before I started typing. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI should look this up first, but what the heck. I'll just ask. Regarding the new gravitational wave detector that didn't. If the black hole is spinning at near infinity would not the frequency of gravitational waves be far above any detectors capability? Second stupid question. If an ordinary photon skirts the event horizon of a supermassive b. h. would this not give it a rather large boost in kinetic energy? Thereby transforming it into one of those highly energized particles that can go through our planet?

Of course. I'm sorry. Plain black? Or blue acceptable, too? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMr Skeptic (Scientist) Today, 7:21 PM #12 Originally Posted by pywakit Yes, I do. But my primary hypothesis is extraordinarily simple ... The critical mass point ( flash point ) of a black hole is exactly equal to the total mass/energy of the visible universe. But this is untestable. Therefore you must show how to derive this from accepted physics, or no one can accept your hypothesis. Of course 'this' is untestable. We would have to blow up a black hole. That doesn't mean there is no other way to quantify it. Testing it? Maybe not so simple. How was Hawking's hypothesis tested? Just by looking at a black hole. In practice, we cannot see them clearly enough yet. But the test is simple and can be done at any time, and not only that but his hypothesis is derived from accepted physics. If it were not, no one would give it a second glance without confirmation. Edit: Also, because his hypothesis is based on accepted physics, all he had to say was that one of a particle/anti-particle pair gets absorbed by the black hole, and everyone should come up with the same equation. Forgive me, but you apparently have different information than me. Dr. Tyson ( again ... fully supportive of Hawking ) told me there WAS NO WAY to test it. They were hoping the super-collider would accomplish this. I have not read where this has occurred. If what you say is true, then Hawking's hypothesis has been proven though the math, and 'simple' tests. Nobel Prize here we come ... I just tried to find evidence to back up this asertion, and all I find is 'Highly speculative'. 'Not all on board with this.' 'Math questionable'. 'Unproven'. ????? And did I not spell out the process clearly enough in my model? And is it naive of me to present it in this fashion when I read other models expressed in far less specific terms? No, you did not. It's not just that it lacks a formula, it is that there is no formula -- your explanation is so vague that it allows infinitely many formulas. That makes it essentially useless -- all it can be is a starting point for a clearer hypothesis. Ok. Using my hypothesis, what would be your first step in making it 'clearer'? Again, I am no mathemetician. I don't have access to supercompters to calculate likely upper mass limits of black holes, nor total mass of the visible universe. But this does not mean that there are not many other ways ( predictions, tests, experiments, and formulas ) that would either validate, or knock the legs out from under it. True, but you are the one who has to set up an example of such. In any case, no one knows the mass of the universe because the curvature of the universe would be the only way to find the size of it. So for example, your hypothesis would have to state why this unknown number exactly equals your critical black hole mass. My model does not require this 'unknown number' to EXACTLY equal it. All I need it to do is APPROXIMATELY equal it. As we get a better and better idea of the actual shape of the visible universe, we can extrapolate from what we can see, and super-computers can calculate the approximate mass. Another example .... 13. Space 'snaps' back to near-uniformity taking hydrogen/microwave/x-ray/gamma ray radiation with it. Is there a formula available that could quantify chemical/radiation dispersion/isotropy of the visible universe based on the above? No, there are several. Infinitely many to be exact. Hmm. Really. Would these be the same formulas that can't explain isotropy? Hydrogen levels? CMBR? Based on the current theory of course ...

Yes, I do. But my primary hypothesis is extraordinarily simple ... The critical mass point ( flash point ) of a black hole is exactly equal to the total mass/energy of the visible universe. Testing it? Maybe not so simple. How was Hawking's hypothesis tested? And did I not spell out the process clearly enough in my model? And is it naive of me to present it in this fashion when I read other models expressed in far less specific terms? Again, I am no mathemetician. I don't have access to supercompters to calculate likely upper mass limits of black holes, nor total mass of the visible universe. But this does not mean that there are not many other ways ( predictions, tests, experiments, and formulas ) that would either validate, or knock the legs out from under it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnother example .... 13. Space 'snaps' back to near-uniformity taking hydrogen/microwave/x-ray/gamma ray radiation with it. Is there a formula available that could quantify chemical/radiation dispersion/isotropy of the visible universe based on the above?

No. I am suggesting that black holes are not fixed points. They are not 'anchored' in place, forcing everything to 'come to them'. I am suggesting that the more massive they get, the more they will seek each other out to satisfy their gravitational hunger. I am futher suggesting that 'space' has a breaking point beyond what we observe in smaller black holes. When almost all the matter/energy of our visible universe has been swallowed, space 'caves' on a much larger scale. A scale we would never witness, so there will have to be other ways of 'proving' this beyond reasonable doubt. I can appreciate the request for mathematical formulas to explain my model, but I guess I would use the Wright brothers to defend myself. They were conceptualists. Not serious mathematicians. Not physicists. Yet they visualized the concepts well enough to build an airplane. Beating out the 'actual' scientists of their day, I might add. Edison never went to college. He was another conceptualist. Doubt he could have put together a mathematical formula that would satisfy today's demanding 'purists'. Interestingly ... he was given an honorary degree 60 years after he was buried. I think this was just a CYA move on the part of the embarrassed 'learned men'. I don't think Edison would have wanted it. I have been studying the universe for many years. There are many aspects of physics that are far beyond my cognitive abilities. That doesn't prevent me from 'visualizing' from the knowledge attained to date. After studying our current model, and many others, it was clear to me that we just 'might' be looking at this from the 'wrong end of the telescope'. I have never seen my model expressed in any science journal ... anywhere, and it was just my hope to inspire new ways to look at the problem. If my inability to provide you all with a satisfying theorum prevents you from anylizing my model on your own ... and thereby is sufficient grounds for rejection, then so be it. But to be fair about this ... you should stop using electric lights, and never fly again. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Hawking's hypothesis was 'untestable' and could make no satisfying 'predictions' and yet ... even with all the inherent lateral problems ... it was 'taken seriously' for over 30 years. Greene's for about 25. However, I agree. It needs to be tested. Just because I can't think of a useful test at this moment, should we just reject it? Again, my model should not be measured against my abilities, or inabilities. It should be measured against the current model, and the other 'serious' models being floated. If you find it lacking by comparison, then explain why. It seems odd that you would reject this model out of hand, when it appears NOT to need magic, or 'super-physics' to work. Where all others do. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedajb wrote ... You are expected to do a lot of the work yourself. Especially when trying to create new models. Unless you can easily justify why you expect the model to work well or demonstrate novel features (maybe just mathematically novel), I would not expect anyone to do the hard work for you. I didn't have a 'Eureka! moment' here two minutes ago. This has been 50 years of studying the universe. Countless hours poring over models, and observational evidence. It didn't seem all that easy to me to come up with this. Want me to sweat blood? Testing the model is different. There may be data avaliable that supports/falsifies the model. Otherwise, someone would have to devise experiments/observations that can be tested based on the model. This is well beyond what we are discussing right now. There is already a great deal of data supporting this model. How do you think I arrived at it to begin with? You make the implication that it has all the value of "Elves sprinkled fairy dust." I have discussed this with many astrophysicists already. Most are/were angered by it. Understandable since it clashes with their 'pet' theories. If I was aware of ANY evidence falsifying this, I would never have proposed it to begin with. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMost of the astronomical objects in the universe (planets, stars or galaxies) have some form of rotation (differential or uniform). Hence the possibility that the universe itself could be rotating has attracted a lot of attention. But even though observational evidence of cosmological rotation has been reported, it is still a controversial subject [7–11]. Our present day universe is rotating very slowly, if at all. However, the existence of such a small rotation, when extrapolated to the early stages of the universe, could have played a major role in the dynamics of the early universe, and possibility also in the processes involving galaxy formation [9]. Recently, Nodland and Ralson reported to have a discovered a cosmic axis. Kühne argues that their axis is supported by an earlier independent observation on the spin axis of galaxies in the Perseus- Pisces supercluster. The large alignment of this supercluster (over a distance of at least 130 million light years) cannot be explained within the framework of conventional models of galaxy formation. He explaines this approach of the subject within the framework of Gödel’s cosmology [10, 11]. Are we entirely certain that rotation violates isotropy? Would not the elapsed time have a bearing on this?

Plus nothing. Just GR. The discussions I have had with people such as Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson have not unearthed a flaw with the model. But to assume I must have a mathematical construct that you find 'interesting' is not valid. If it's ok with you, I would prefer those more qualified to formulate such math. Everything I understand about the universe comes from minds much brighter than mine. Why change now? Perhaps you could come up with a computation for angular momentum/rotational speed of the universe that would support this model. The other area of interest is the theoretical upper mass limit of a black hole, and the estimated total mass of the visible universe. This is beyond me ... but not beyond others. Hope this doesn't annoy you excessively. Shouldn't science be a collaborative effort? Or am I required to do it all by myself? All I'm trying to do is add to humanity's knowledge .... ( too plaintive? )

Yes, I agree ... but there is a big difference between Planck scales and the scales in which matter exists within the confines of our visible universe. We have no evidence that anything other than sub-atomic particles 'materialize' ... and even those are instantly annihilated. There is no evidence of matter spontaneously popping into our universe and staying. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBy the way, thank you for your input. And your 'compliment'. It is important to remember that although discovering the cosmological holy grail would be cool, all I am really trying to accomplish is replacing the current seriously flawed ( working ) model with a better one. If you are familiar with various models such as Turok's, Greene's, and Frampton's ... and our current one, you know that all require 'new' physics. Physics that doesn't exist after 80-90 years of attempts. Mine has no such requirement. And I have yet to have had a 'fatal' flaw pointed out to me since I first introduced this to cosmologists and astrophysicists 10 months ago. I'm very serious about this ... and I would like to devise an experiment that would clearly support this model.

Hello everyone. New guy. I think this forum's rules are wound a little less tightly than some, but I will apologize anyway ahead of time ... just in case. And of course if you wish to throw me off the site .... I need help. I am not all that bright even though I have been contemplating the universe for about 50 years. A fairly respected cosmologist/astrophysicist offered me 'serious consideration' and probable funding through his institute if I can devise an experiment supporting my model. ( not my first offer ) This in response to the letter I sent him that follows. Many scientists have looked at my model, and none have found ( or bothered to tell me ) a critical flaw. So if you are terribly bored, feel free to dismantle my model .... or better yet, don't find a flaw and suggest a direction I can take in exploring experiments. Thanks ... ...................................................................................................... I am writing to you because the science community does not make allowances for innovation, or insights from a layperson. ( non-theist version ) It's not my desire to annoy you, or waste your time. But it is my hope that in the spirit of open-mindedness, you might take a few minutes to read the following. It seems impossible to separate ego ( I have a big one, too ) and beliefs from an objective view of the universe. Having read a great deal about black holes, I am struck not by the consensus of opinion, but the lack of one. It fascinates me that the less someone knows about these structures the more authoritative they sound. I realize that my theory on black holes flies in the face of mainstream science, and undoubtedly your 'beliefs' too. Perhaps you have already traveled this road and found it desolate. If so, my apologies. I first proposed this on 1/26/09. It is short, and self-explanatory. Pinkerton Theoretical Cosmological Model Of The Universe 1/26/09 The Theory: 1. The visible/local universe has a finite amount of mass. 2. Black holes have a finite critical mass limit. 3. That limit is exactly equal to the total mass ( matter + energy ) in the visible/local universe. The Process: 1. Black holes convert all matter/energy into sub-elemental hydrogen for uniform 'stacking'. 2. Black holes do not appear to be subject to normal laws of space ( rotational speed limits, inertia ) 3. Black holes ( to our knowledge ) currently merge at velocities 'tethered' by the rotational force and tidal forces of the satellite galaxy, or even just a single stellar companion. 4. Over eons of time black holes will grow in mass/gravity. 5. Although some escapes temporarily through x-ray/gamma ray bursts ( and possibly through Hawking Radiation ) they continue to grow in mass/gravity. 6. Eventually unencumbered by the rotational/tidal force of orbiting galaxies, black holes could theoretically achieve near infinite velocities. Therefore significantly speeding up the merging process and 'chasing down' gravitational sources at velocities far out-pacing the expansion of space. 7. As the mass/gravity grows so does it's rotational speed, and potential velocity as it seeks other sources of gravitons. 8. The strain on space ( ripple effect ) increases with the growing mass. 9. As our visible/local universe nears the end of it's life cycle, only one black hole remains, containing nearly all the mass in the visible/local universe ( still within upper mass limits predicted by physicists ) 10. At this trigger point, all remaining space containing matter/energy collapses into the black hole. 11. When the last sub-atomic particle reaches the point of singularity, critical mass is achieved. 12. The Big Bang. 13. Space 'snaps' back to near-uniformity taking hydrogen/microwave/x-ray/gamma ray radiation with it. 14. Space immediately begins to cool, and star/galaxy formation begins. The Logic: 1. All things in the physical universe have a critical mass point. Except, so far, black holes. 2. I believe theoretical physics currently allows for such a process, and observations are beginning to bear out this reality. 3. At the time calculations were made regarding upper-mass limits, black holes were mere theoretical oddities, and even Einstein argued against the possibility of their actual existence in physical space. 4. Though we have never seen a black hole reach critical mass, that in no way suggests they don't. 5. The visible/local universe has yet to reach infancy compared to it's expected life span. It is premature to assume on such small evidence that the current expansion will go on forever. The Evidence/Proof: 1. The laws of physics, quantum mechanics. 2. The observations, predictions and experiments providing adequate proof/accuracy of those laws. 3. The current chemical/radiological composition of the visible universe. 4. The current ( and upwardly mobile ) estimated mass of the visible/local universe now approaching the numbers derived for black hole upper-mass limits. 5. Recent observations of black holes merging or set to merge. 6. The recent acceptance that all galaxies have black holes, or super-massive black holes at their core. 7. The recent observations detecting more galaxies gravitationally bound to ours, and Andromeda. 8. No evidence to support the recent hypothesis that black holes are limited to 50 billion sols. 9. No evidence of black holes showing appreciable loss of mass over time. 10. No evidence that black holes 'shunt' mass anywhere else. 11. No evidence of branes, strings, 5th through 11 dimensions, etc. 12. Closed-loop obeys all laws of thermo-dynamics/entropy. 13. Not affected by hypothetical dark matter/energy. Predictions: 1. Black holes in excess of 50 billion sols will be discovered through the latest and soon to come optical/radio telescopes. 2. Every new discovery will fit within the parameters of this model. 3. This cycle will repeat endlessly. In Conclusion: 1. This model answers the question of the observed chemical/radiological composition of the visible/local universe. 2. This model provides for 100% recycling of all matter/energy in the visible/local universe. 3. This model explains where the big bang got it's mass. 4. This model appears to violate no known laws. 5. This model requires no 'new' laws to function. 6. This model is vastly superior to all flawed existing, and previous models. 7. It still leaves the question "How did it begin?" to future theorists. It is also my theory, however, that per Einstein's Uniformity of Space math ( born out by observations ), the universe is indeed infinite. That black holes are simply 'borrowed' energy from the fabric of space. That dark energy is not a force that 'acts' upon space but rather a 'property' of space. This process/cycle is akin to the sub-atomic particles that 'materialize' and are instantly annihilated by anti-particles ... but on a much larger scale. And I also suggest that this process is going on throughout infinity, and has been eternally. The distance between black holes would be equivalent to the distance between the 'materializing' particles. If the loop was not closed, then we would get photons from outside our universe leaking ( over eternity ) here into our universe. And of course if the loop was not closed ... meaning if even a single photon were allowed to escape, the 'next' black hole would be one photon short of critical mass. I don't think space allows this to happen. Logic tells me that if this theory is incorrect, then the universe did in fact have a beginning. And therefore it can not be either infinite, or eternal. That there really is nothing beyond the bubble of our expanding visible universe. That there was some metaphysical reason ( ie: God ) since it truly would have had to spring into existence from 'nothing' ... because there was no space with it's inherent energy to 'borrow' from. I think there is sufficient evidence in Einstein's math to safely conclude this is not a possiblity. The 'lines' of space would not have an 'endpoint'. It is possible that my supposition of black hole inertia-less velocities will not be born out by future observations, however this would not stop the process. Instead, it would merely slow it down. No matter how far space 'expands' the last black hole standing would warp space sufficiently to pull back any remaining mass/energy. Reasonable logic tells me that if a 'big bang' could simply materialize from 'nothing' ( and sans God ) then that same process could happen at any time, at any location. Such as two seconds from now inside the Moon's orbit. That would appear ( so far, anyway ) not to be the case. There must be a process. A function that allows matter to exist, if only temporarily. Logically, it took all the energy from our universe to create our universe. I hope this didn't take too much of your time. Thank you for your attention. James Pinkerton Copyright 2009 James Pinkerton After Galileo's conviction for heresy ... and his subsequent sentencing ... As he was being led away, he was credited with uttering these words under his breath ..... "But they move. They move!" As I am being led away I will quietly utter these words ..... "But they merge. They merge!" Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFor example ... take the recent measurements of the rotation of our visible universe. Einstein showed that a collapsing star's rotational speed would not be limited to C, and he used this argument to defend his denial of black holes. He said the heavier the mass/smaller the diameter, the faster the spin .... in theory to infinity. ( and the star would fly apart from angular momentum ... and so far he appears to have been wrong on this ) But he was also talking about 'infinitely dense' mass at a finite point in space. The total mass of our visible universe is rather large by standards we are comfortable with ... but certainly not infinite. So in the case of 'our' singularity neither would the rotational speed be infinite. But off the scale fast ... So what if this singularity containing all the mass of our universe 'went off'? Would it not be reasonable that something this massive spinning this fast would transfer major angular momentum to all the material expanding outward from the 'bang'? Is there a way to correlate the speed of the rotating singularity to the ( presumed ) current rotational speed of the universe 13.7 billion years later?