Strange

You could contact some of the people researching this area. See previous post for a start. Also: http://csp.obs.carnegiescience.edu/data http://www-supernova.lbl.gov/ http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/sne_cosmology.html https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/supernova/home.html https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/supernova/public.html http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+data+AND+high-z+supernova/0/1/0/all/0/1 http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~kcf/pubs_top20/67.pdf http://www.nu.to.infn.it/exp/all/hzsnst/ http://www.darkenergysurvey.org/science/SN1A.shtml http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~jatila/LambdaLabs/hiz-sne.html http://gruber.yale.edu/cosmology/2007/brian-schmidt-high-z-supernova-search-team http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/440/4/3257.abstract http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C041213/papers/1301.PDF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_Cosmology_Project Don't come back until you have read and understood in detail, all of the publications by those people. It is illogical and unscientific (and arrogant) to ignore evidence and pretend it doesn't exist just because you dislike the consequences.

You may be a competent programmer but you have shown that you are totally unable to apply logic. Or even present a coherent argument. Your "theory" seems to be: I personally don't know the details of the evidence used in modern cosmology I am not willing to study this because I think it is wrong I personally don't understand the mathematics used in modern cosmology I am not able to understand this so it must be wrong Therefore people must be basing their beliefs about the big bang and dark energy on pure faith So I will make up some unsupportable nonsense about black holes and atoms and pretend it is science

So what you are saying is that you are ignorant of the evidence, therefore you assume it doesn't exist and further assume that people base their ideas on faith? That is completely ridiculous. Here: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/press.html Follow the "Scientific Background" link to see some of the data used.

In science, nothing is provable. But you keep claiming that parts of the current model are not supported by evidence or are based on "faith". But you consistently refuse to say what these are. Please state exactly what you think is not evidence based. If you once again refuse to answer this I will report you for trolling.

And how is dividing mass by area going to help?

What evidence do you think is not observable? (It wouldn't be evidence if that were the case.) That is simply because you are ignoring the arguments that have been presented. It has only been known about for 4 years. That isn't much time for people to understand it. What "constant" are you talking about? I doubt it can understand your incoherent rambling.

That can't be right. The Schwarzschild radius is proportional to mass, so the area is proportional to mass2. Dividing mass by that is going to give you some constant / mass. What is the relevance of mass/area ? You don't and can't know. It doesn't make any difference. It could all be at the singularity. It could all be at the event horizon. It could be evenly distributed inside. You don't and can't know. It doesn't make any difference.

You might want to look into "tidal locking" as well. It is what keeps the moon's orbit and rotation synchronized so we only ever see one side of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole With your questions about the event horizon, you seem to be thinking it is made of something. It isn't. It is just a location (where the interior is not causally connected to the exterior). Can you be more specific about what you find confusing?

One side could be in darkness al the time but I am not sure how the whole planet could be. Brian Aldiss wrote a trilogy (Helliconia) about a planet with very long seasons - thousands of years - which might be something like you are thinking of. I don't remember how he contrived this. It might have been an extremely elliptical orbit.

"Thomisidae do not build webs to trap prey, though all of them produce silk for drop lines and sundry reproductive purposes" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomisidae "Sundry reproductive processes" !?

Or (if it were an interview question) testing how the person thinks about the problem. Getting the "right" answer might not matter but I might give more consideration to someone who made points about representations of floating point numbers and attempted an analytical solution like EdEarl's.

I assume that is because they are all created by the same conditions.

No it is modelled in four dimensions.

Much of this post is totally incomprehensible; for example, I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. However, I must comment on these statements: This is just nonsense. There is nothing that is not based on evidence. No one would have made up dark energy if it weren't for the observational evidence - which was a real surprise, which no one expected. Please stop trying to make yourself feel clever by making up these lies.

But the waves you are describing are not quantised (or discrete, or incremental).

No it doesn't. It can be described as intrinsic curvature, which do not require it to be embedded in a higher dimensional space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature#Higher_dimensions:_Curvature_of_space

They never "overlap". They merge. But you "jellylike" description is probably reasonably good.

Centre of mass is not the same thing as a singularity. Those equations are for any orbiting pair of bodies, such as the Earth and Sun (as I think it says). Those do not have singularities at the centre. You can treat the mass of any spherically symmetrical object as if it were entirely concentrated at the centre. Even if it were entirely at the surface. It is a distance from the centre.

You can only know about the event horizons. You can only know about the event horizons. You can only know about the event horizons. You can only know about the event horizons. You can only know about the event horizons.

Inside the black hole. Or possibly at the event horizon. You can't tell the difference (see Newton's shell theorem and the no hair theorem). Relative to what? But no. The Schwarzschild solution only applies to a static, non-rotating, uncharged black hole in an empty universe. It is a useful approximation in other, slightly more realistic cases, as well. A rotating black hole is described by the Kerr metric. No it doesn't. No. They travel at the speed of light remember. Yes. So does a static gravitational field. Which is why gravity is so non-linear. No, as in: non-spherical. It doesn't seem right, I agree. But I am fairly sure that is what I have read... Would love to have it confirmed or corrected. What do you mean "stay together as a BH"? A black hole is indivisible. It isn't made of matter (probably). The singularity is mathematical result that is probably wrong. IGNORE IT. It is is irrelevant.

Of course not.

Ringdown refers specifically to the period when there is a single, merged black hole settling back into a spherical shape.

Again, I have never seen an article that says that. GR clearly explains expansion. Dark energy can be included in GR in several ways. The fact that dark energy is a new discovery and we don't know the right way, does not make GR wrong. Nonsense. You just like to think that is the case because it make it seem like you have an original idea. Of course it does. Stop being an idiot and making up stuff that just isn't true.

It sounds like you have totally misunderstood something. If you could provide references to where you read these things, we might be able to set your straight. I think you have simplified it to the point that it is incorrect. No, no no. You are just jumbling all sorts of random concepts together. Of course it does. Mass, energy and density (in the form of pressure and momentum flow) are all part of the equations. Nonsense. GR doesn't reduce everything to points.